Diagnostic models to predict structural spinal osteoarthritis on lumbar radiographs in older adults with back pain: Development and internal validation.

Objective: It is difficult for health care providers to diagnose structural spinal osteoarthritis (OA), because current guidelines recommend against imaging in patients with back pain. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop and internally validate multivariable diagnostic prediction models based on a set of clinical and demographic features to be used for the diagnosis of structural spinal OA on lumbar radiographs in older patients with back pain. Design: Three diagnostic prediction models, for structural spinal OA on lumbar radiographs (i.e. multilevel osteophytes, multilevel disc space narrowing (DSN), and both combined), were developed and internally validated in the 'Back Complaints in Older Adults' (BACE) cohort (N â€‹= â€‹669). Model performance (i.e. overall performance, discrimination and calibration) and clinical utility (i.e. decision curve analysis) were assessed. Internal validation was performed by bootstrapping. Results: Mean age of the cohort was 66.9 years (±7.6 years) and 59% were female. All three models included age, gender, back pain duration and duration of spinal morning stiffness as predictors. The combined model additionally included restricted lateral flexion and spinal morning stiffness severity, and exhibited the best model performance (optimism adjusted c-statistic 0.661; good calibration with intercept -0.030 and slope of 0.886) and acceptable clinical utility. The other models showed suboptimal discrimination, good calibration and acceptable decision curves. Conclusion: All three models for structural spinal OA displayed lesuboptimal discrimination and need improvement. However, these internally validated models have potential to inform primary care clinicians about a patient with risk of having structural spinal OA on lumbar radiographs. External validation before implementation in clinical care is recommended.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with low back pain with and without radiating leg pain following the GLA:D back program.

BACKGROUND: Some patients with low back pain (LBP) also report radiating leg pain which is a prognostic factor for poorer clinical outcomes. We aimed: 1) to compare the baseline characteristics of patients with LBP with - (LBP + leg pain) and without radiating leg pain (LBP - alone); 2) to investigate whether patients with LBP + leg pain show similar post-treatment outcomes as compared to LBP - alone, after participation in an exercise and patient education program, i.e. the GLA:D Back program. METHODS: The patient sample included 3508 patients in the GLA:D Back program between March 2018 and August 2022. The outcomes were mean changes in LBP intensity, back-related activity limitation, self-efficacy and fear of movement measured from baseline to 3, 6 and 12 months. Baseline characteristics were compared with descriptive statistics, and linear mixed models were used to estimate group differences in changes from baseline to 3-, 6- and 12 months. RESULTS: 1915 (55%) of the patients were in the group LBP- alone and 1593 (45%) in the LBP + leg pain. The LBP + leg pain group displayed higher STarT back classification (greater risk of chronicity) compared to the LBP-alone. The LBP + leg pain group showed almost similar improvements in all outcomes compared to LBP - alone after the GLA:D Back program. CONCLUSION: In long-lasting (chronic) LBP patients, the LBP + leg pain group improved to the same extent as LBP - alone regarding LBP intensity, disability, and fear of movement following an exercise and patient education program, GLA:D Back.

The prevalence, incidence and management of low back pain with radiating leg pain in Dutch general practice: A population-based cohort study in the Rijnmond Primary Care Database.

BACKGROUND: Radiating leg pain is common in patients with low back pain (LBP). In this study, we aimed to determine the prevalence and incidence of LBP with radiating leg pain in Dutch general practice, and to describe the prescribed medications and requested imaging diagnostics. METHODS: The Rijnmond Primary Care Database containing over 500,000 primary care patients was used to select patients ≥18 years with LBP with radiating leg pain between 2013 and 2021. Data on patient characteristics, LBP episodes, prescribed medication and requested imaging in the first 3 months of an episode was extracted. Descriptive statistics were used to present patient characteristics and diagnostic/therapeutic interventions. RESULTS: A total of 27,695 patients were included. The total number of LBP with radiating leg pain episodes in these patients was 36,268. In 2021, the incidence and prevalence were 19.1 and 25.7 per 1000 patient years, respectively. In 60% of patients, the episode duration was shorter than 1 month. In 62% of the episodes, patients visited the general practitioner (GP) one to two times. In 59% of the episodes, at least one medication was prescribed, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) being the most common one (45%). In approximately 11% of the episodes, additional diagnostic imaging was requested. CONCLUSION: LBP with radiating leg pain is common in Dutch general practice patients. About 2/3rd were prescribed pain medications. Dutch request few to none diagnostic imaging for these patients which is in line with clinical practice guidelines. SIGNIFICANCE: In this new study, we have gained insights into the incidence and prevalence of LBP with radiating leg pain in Dutch general practice. Both remained fairly stable over the study period of 9 years (2013-2021). Overall, the care burden regarding seeking contact with the GPs and the requested diagnostics seem not to be that high. In 62% of the care episodes, there were one or two consultations with the GP, and in 11% of the episodes a diagnostic imaging was requested. Pain medications frequently prescribed (i.e. 2/3rd of the episodes), with NSAIDs being the most common ones.

Exercise Therapy for Treatment of Acute Non-specific Low Back Pain: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of exercise for acute non-specific low back pain (LBP) vs our main comparisons: (1) sham treatment and (2) no treatment at short term (main follow-up time). DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: A comprehensive search up till November 2021 was conducted in numerous databases for randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of exercise in adults with acute LBP (<6 weeks). Studies examining LBP with a specific etiology were excluded. The primary outcomes were back pain, back-specific functional status, and recovery. DATA EXTRACTION: Two review authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 23 randomized controlled trials (2674 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain (mean difference [MD] -0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.79 to 4.19; 1 study, 299 participants) and on functional status (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.20 to 6.20; 1 study, 299 participants) in the short term. There is very low-quality evidence which suggests no difference in effect on pain and functional status for exercise vs no treatment (2 studies; n=157, not pooled due to heterogeneity) at short-term follow-up. Similar results were found for the other follow-up moments. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded because many randomized controlled trials had a high risk of bias, were small in size, and/or there was substantial heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo and no treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. Owing to insufficient reporting of adverse events, we were unable to reach any conclusions on the safety or harms related to exercise therapy.

Exploring the facilitators and barriers in opioid deprescribing for non-cancer pain treatment experienced by general practitioners: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend opioid deprescribing in patients on long-term opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain. This study aims to explore facilitators and barriers in opioid deprescribing among general practitioners in the Netherlands. In addition, this study aims to identify possibilities for improvement regarding opioid deprescribing in primary care. METHODS: Focus group discussions with Dutch General practitioners were held by two skilled moderators. The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analysed using MAXQDA software. Three independent reviewers searched for overarching themes using thematic analysis with an inductive approach. Discussions were organized until data saturation was reached. RESULTS: Twenty-two general practitioners participated in four focus group discussions. Five main themes emerged from the data: (1) patient-centred care; (2) ensuring proper pain management (3) dilemmas and hardships in dealing with opioid use disorder; (4) the competency gap; (5) needs and possibilities to improve opioid deprescribing in primary care. The first theme addresses the main facilitators in opioid tapering. The following three themes emerged as main barriers in opioid deprescribing. The fifth theme identified possibilities for change. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates the importance of intrinsic motivation and a tailored approach to deprescribe opioids in patients with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment. Identified barriers include struggles in pain management, challenges caused by opioid use disorder, insufficient capacities such as time constraints and lack of skills. Recommendations for improvement involve enhanced collaboration with healthcare professionals in primary and secondary care, provision of practical tools and assurance of sufficient time. SIGNIFICANCE: This focus group study among 22 Dutch general practitioners elucidates the complexities of opioid deprescribing and reveals pivotal themes such as patient-centred care, pain management challenges, and competency gaps. The findings underscore the crucial role of intrinsic motivation and that of a tailored approach in opioid deprescribing, while demonstrating how a lack in effective pain treatments, practical capacities and challenges caused by opioid dependence, impede opioid deprescribing. By uncovering these complexities, this study aims to inform future deprescribing strategies.

Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting with low-back pain.

EDITORIAL NOTE: See https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD014461.pub2/full for a more recent review that covers this topic and has superseded this review. BACKGROUND: Low-back pain (LBP) is a common condition seen in primary care. A principal aim during a clinical examination is to identify patients with a higher likelihood of underlying serious pathology, such as vertebral fracture, who may require additional investigation and specific treatment. All 'evidence-based' clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of red flags to screen for serious causes of back pain. However, it remains unclear if the diagnostic accuracy of red flags is sufficient to support this recommendation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags obtained in a clinical history or physical examination to screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting with LBP. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for primary studies between the earliest date and 7 March 2012. Forward and backward citation searching of eligible studies was also conducted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were considered if they compared the results of any aspect of the history or test conducted in the physical examination of patients presenting for LBP or examination of the lumbar spine, with a reference standard (diagnostic imaging). The selection criteria were independently applied by two review authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently conducted 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed using the 11-item QUADAS tool. Characteristics of studies, patients, index tests and reference standards were extracted. Where available, raw data were used to calculate sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Due to the heterogeneity of studies and tests, statistical pooling was not appropriate and the analysis for the review was descriptive only. Likelihood ratios for each test were calculated and used as an indication of clinical usefulness. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies set in primary (four), secondary (one) and tertiary care (accident and emergency = three) were included in the review. Overall, the risk of bias of studies was moderate with high risk of selection and verification bias the predominant flaws. Reporting of index and reference tests was poor. The prevalence of vertebral fracture in accident and emergency settings ranged from 6.5% to 11% and in primary care from 0.7% to 4.5%. There were 29 groups of index tests investigated however, only two featured in more than two studies. Descriptive analyses revealed that three red flags in primary care were potentially useful with meaningful positive likelihood ratios (LR+) but mostly imprecise estimates (significant trauma, older age, corticosteroid use; LR+ point estimate ranging 3.42 to 12.85, 3.69 to 9.39, 3.97 to 48.50 respectively). One red flag in tertiary care appeared informative (contusion/abrasion; LR+ 31.09, 95% CI 18.25 to 52.96). The results of combined tests appeared more informative than individual red flags with LR+ estimates generally greater in magnitude and precision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence does not support the use of many red flags to specifically screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting for LBP. Based on evidence from single studies, few individual red flags appear informative as most have poor diagnostic accuracy as indicated by imprecise estimates of likelihood ratios. When combinations of red flags were used the performance appeared to improve. From the limited evidence, the findings give rise to a weak recommendation that a combination of a small subset of red flags may be useful to screen for vertebral fracture. It should also be noted that many red flags have high false positive rates; and if acted upon uncritically there would be consequences for the cost of management and outcomes of patients with LBP. Further research should focus on appropriate sets of red flags and adequate reporting of both index and reference tests.

Aerobic and Anaerobic Fitness Levels of Pre-Professional Contemporary Dancers: An Exploration of 2 Dance-Specific Field Tests.

INTRODUCTION: The primary aim of this study was to present descriptive heart rate (HR), heart rate recovery (HRR) and RPE data for the DAFT and HIDT within one sample of contemporary dance students. The second aim was to explore if objective (HR) and subjective (RPE) data were correlated between tests. METHOD: 40 (11 males, 29 females) university dance students with a mean age of 18.8 ± 1.8 years performed the DAFT and HIDT on 2 separate occasions within 1 week. Measurements were HR after 4 minutes in all stages of the DAFT, the percentage of age-predicted maximal HR (%HRmax) of all stages of the DAFT and at the end of the HIDT, and peak HR (HRpeak) at the end of both tests. Subjective ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and HR recovery after 1 minute of rest (HRR) were determined after the tests. RESULTS: HRpeak of the DAFT and HIDT were 188.1 ± 11.0 and 185.3 ± 7.3 beats·min-1, respectively. There were high positive correlations between HRpeak of the HIDT and stages 3 to 5 of the DAFT (r = 0.716-0.740, all P-values < .01). HRR (r = .678, P < .01) and %HRmax (r = .746, P < .01) showed moderate to high correlations between the DAFT and HIDT. The anaerobic training zone was reached in stages 4 and 5 of the DAFT and at the end of the HIDT. The subjective RPE scores did not significantly correlate between DAFT and HIDT, neither with objective HR data. CONCLUSION: Although the DAFT and HIDT differ in intensity and work-to-rest ratio, there were high correlations between HR and HRR data of both tests and both tests reached intensities above the anaerobic threshold (%HRmax > 85%).

Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common presentation across different healthcare settings. Clinicians need to confidently be able to screen and identify people presenting with low back pain with a high suspicion of serious or specific pathology (e.g. vertebral fracture). Patients identified with an increased likelihood of having a serious pathology will likely require additional investigations and specific treatment. Guidelines recommend a thorough history and clinical assessment to screen for serious pathology as a cause of low back pain. However, the diagnostic accuracy of recommended red flags (e.g. older age, trauma, corticosteroid use) remains unclear, particularly those used to screen for vertebral fracture. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags used to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. Where possible, we reported results of red flags separately for different types of vertebral fracture (i.e. acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, vertebral traumatic fracture, vertebral stress fracture, unspecified vertebral fracture). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 July 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered primary diagnostic studies if they compared results of history taking or physical examination (or both) findings (index test) with a reference standard test (e.g. X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), single-photon emission computerised tomography (SPECT)) for the identification of vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. We included index tests that were presented individually or as part of a combination of tests. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data for diagnostic two-by-two tables from the publications or reconstructed them using information from relevant parameters to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive (+LR) and negative (-LR) likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We extracted aspects of study design, characteristics of the population, index test, reference standard, and type of vertebral fracture. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of studies and index tests, therefore the analysis was descriptive. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and LRs for each test and used these as an indication of clinical usefulness. Two review authors independently conducted risk of bias and applicability assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. MAIN RESULTS: This review is an update of a previous Cochrane Review of red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. We included 14 studies in this review, six based in primary care, five in secondary care, and three in tertiary care. Four studies reported on 'osteoporotic vertebral fractures', two studies reported on 'vertebral compression fracture', one study reported on 'osteoporotic and traumatic vertebral fracture', two studies reported on 'vertebral stress fracture', and five studies reported on 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. Risk of bias was only rated as low in one study for the domains reference standard and flow and timing. The domain patient selection had three studies and the domain index test had six studies rated at low risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of the data. Results from single studies suggest only a small number of the red flags investigated may be informative. In the primary healthcare setting, results from single studies suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs (range: 1.93 to 12.85) for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 6.42, 95% CI 2.94 to 14.02). Results from single studies suggest 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for studies in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 70 years: 11.19, 95% CI 5.33 to 23.51). Results from single studies suggest 'corticosteroid use' may be an informative red flag in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR range: 3.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 79.15 to 48.50, 95% CI 11.48 to 204.98) and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.46, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.34); however, diagnostic values varied and CIs were imprecise. Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and female gender' in primary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (16.17, 95% CI 4.47 to 58.43). In the secondary healthcare setting, results from a single study suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.18, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.54) and 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 75 years: 2.51, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.27). Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and trauma' in secondary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 4.35, 95% CI 2.92 to 6.48). Results from a single study suggest when '4 of 5 tests' were positive in secondary care, they demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 9.62, 95% CI 5.88 to 15.73). In the tertiary care setting, results from a single study suggest 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture' (+LR: 31.09, 95% CI 18.25 to 52.96). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that only a few red flags are potentially useful in guiding clinical decisions to further investigate people suspected to have a vertebral fracture. Most red flags were not useful as screening tools to identify vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. In primary care, 'older age' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture', and 'trauma' and 'corticosteroid use' were both informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture'. In secondary care, 'older age' was informative for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' and 'trauma' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. In tertiary care, 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture'. Combinations of red flags were also informative and may be more useful than individual tests alone. Unfortunately, the challenge to provide clear guidance on which red flags should be used routinely in clinical practice remains. Further research with primary studies is needed to improve and consolidate our current recommendations for screening for vertebral fractures to guide clinical care.

Exercise therapy for treatment of acute non-specific low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability globally. It generates considerable direct costs (healthcare) and indirect costs (lost productivity). The many available treatments for LBP include exercise therapy, which is practised extensively worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise therapy for acute non-specific low back pain in adults compared to sham/placebo treatment or no treatment at short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term follow-up. SEARCH METHODS: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. We conducted an updated search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two trial registers. We screened the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews published since 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that examined the effects of exercise therapy on non-specific LBP lasting six weeks or less in adults. Major outcomes for this review were pain, functional status, and perceived recovery. Minor outcomes were return to work, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. Our main comparisons were exercise therapy versus sham/placebo treatment and exercise therapy versus no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We evaluated outcomes at short-term follow-up (time point within three months and closest to six weeks after randomisation; main follow-up), intermediate-term follow-up (between nine months and closest to six months), and long-term follow-up (after nine months and closest to 12 months); and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 studies (13 from the previous review, 10 new studies) that involved 2674 participants and provided data for 2637 participants. Three small studies are awaiting classification, and four eligible studies are ongoing. Included studies were conducted in Europe (N = 9), the Asia-Pacific region (N = 9), and North America (N = 5); and most took place in a primary care setting (N = 12), secondary care setting (N = 6), or both (N = 1). In most studies, the population was middle-aged and included men and women. We judged 10 studies (43%) at low risk of bias with regard to sequence generation and allocation concealment. Blinding is not feasible in exercise therapy, introducing performance and detection bias. There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain scores in the short term (mean difference (MD) -0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.79 to 4.19; 1 study, 299 participants). The absolute difference was 1% less pain (95% CI 4% more to 6% less), and the relative difference was 4% less pain (95% CI 20% more to 28% less). The mean pain score was 20.1 (standard deviation (SD) 21) for the intervention group and 20.9 (SD 23) for the control group. There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on functional status scores in the short term (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.20 to 6.20; 1 study, 299 participants). The absolute difference was 2% worse functional status (95% CI 2% better to 6% worse), and the relative difference was 15% worse (95% CI 17% better to 47% worse). The mean functional status score was 15.3 (SD 19) for the intervention group and 13.3 (SD 18) for the control group. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for pain and functional status by one level for risk of bias and by two levels for imprecision (only one study with fewer than 400 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with no treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term (2 studies, 157 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by two levels for imprecision and by one level for inconsistency. One study associated exercise with small benefits and the other found no differences. The first study was conducted in an occupational healthcare centre, where participants received one exercise therapy session. The other study was conducted in secondary and tertiary care settings, where participants received treatment three times per week for six weeks. We did not pool data from these studies owing to considerable clinical heterogeneity. In two studies, there were no reported adverse events. One study reported adverse events unrelated to exercise therapy. The remaining studies did not report whether any adverse events had occurred. Owing to insufficient reporting of adverse events, we were unable to reach any conclusions on the safety or harms related to exercise therapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise therapy compared to sham/placebo treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. Exercise therapy compared to no treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low for inconsistency, risk of bias concerns, and imprecision (few participants).

Opioid analgesia for acute low back pain and neck pain (the OPAL trial): a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioid analgesics are commonly used for acute low back pain and neck pain, but supporting efficacy data are scarce. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of a judicious short course of an opioid analgesic for acute low back pain and neck pain. METHODS: OPAL was a triple-blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trial that recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) presenting to one of 157 primary care or emergency department sites in Sydney, NSW, Australia, with 12 weeks or less of low back or neck pain (or both) of at least moderate pain severity. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using statistician-generated randomly permuted blocks to guideline-recommended care plus an opioid (oxycodone-naloxone, up to 20 mg oxycodone per day orally) or guideline-recommended care and an identical placebo, for up to 6 weeks. The primary outcome was pain severity at 6 weeks measured with the pain severity subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory (10-point scale), analysed in all eligible participants who provided at least one post-randomisation pain score, by use of a repeated measures linear mixed model. Safety was analysed in all randomly assigned eligible participants. The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000775516). FINDINGS: Between Feb 29, 2016, and March 10, 2022, 347 participants were recruited (174 to the opioid group and 173 to the placebo group). 170 (49%) of 346 participants were female and 176 (51%) were male. 33 (19%) of 174 participants in the opioid group and 25 (15%) of 172 in the placebo group had discontinued from the trial by week 6, due to loss to follow-up and participant withdrawals. 151 participants in the opioid group and 159 in the placebo group were included in the primary analysis. Mean pain score at 6 weeks was 2·78 (SE 0·20) in the opioid group versus 2·25 (0·19) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference 0·53, 95% CI -0·00 to 1·07, p=0·051). 61 (35%) of 174 participants in the opioid group reported at least one adverse event versus 51 (30%) of 172 in the placebo group (p=0·30), but more people in the opioid group reported opioid-related adverse events (eg, 13 [7·5%] of 174 participants in the opioid group reported constipation vs six [3·5%] of 173 in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Opioids should not be recommended for acute non-specific low back pain or neck pain given that we found no significant difference in pain severity compared with placebo. This finding calls for a change in the frequent use of opioids for these conditions. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council, University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, and SafeWork SA.

Association between clinical findings and the presence of lumbar spine osteoarthritis imaging features: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal osteoarthritis is difficult to study and diagnose, partly due to the lack of agreed diagnostic criteria. This systematic review aims to give an overview of the associations between clinical and imaging findings suggestive of spinal osteoarthritis in patients with low back pain to make a step towards agreed diagnostic criteria. DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to April 29, 2021 to identify observational studies in adults that assessed the association between selected clinical and imaging findings suggestive of spinal osteoarthritis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the quality of evidence was graded using an adaptation of the GRADE approach. RESULTS: After screening 7902 studies, 30 met the inclusion criteria. High-quality evidence was found for the longitudinal association between low back pain (LBP) intensity, and both disc space narrowing and osteophytes, as well as for the association between LBP-related physical functioning and lumbar disc degeneration, the presence of spinal morning stiffness and disc space narrowing and for the lack of association between physical functioning and Schmorl's nodes. CONCLUSIONS: There is high- and moderate-quality evidence of associations between clinical and imaging findings suggestive of spinal osteoarthritis. However, the majority of the studied outcomes had low or very low-quality of evidence. Furthermore, clinical and methodological heterogeneity was a serious limitation, adding to the need and importance of agreed criteria for spinal osteoarthritis, which should be the scope of future research.

A Systematic Review of Cardiorespiratory Fitness Tests Used in Dance.

Dancers need adequate cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) levels in order to cope with the demands of dance classes and choreographies. Screening and monitoring of CRF is advised. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of tests used to assess CRF in dancers and to examine the measurement properties of these tests. A literature search was performed in three online databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and SPORTDiscus) up until August 16, 2021. Study inclusion criteria were: 1. a CRF test was used; 2. participants were ballet, contemporary or modern, or jazz dancers; and 3. English full-text peer-reviewed article. General study information, participant information, CRF test used, and study outcome were extracted. If available, measurement property data were extracted (i.e., test reliability, validity, responsiveness, and interpretability). Of the 48 articles included in the review, most used a maximal treadmill test (n = 22) or the multistage Dance Specific Aerobic Fitness test (DAFT; n = 11). Out of the 48 included studies, only six examined the measurement properties of CRF tests: Aerobic Power Index (API), Ballet-specific Aerobic Fitness Test (B-DAFT), DAFT, High-Intensity Dance Performance Fitness Test (HIDT), Seifert Assessment of Functional Capactiy for Dancers (SAFD), and the 3-minute step test. Good test-retest reliability was found for the B-DAFT, DAFT, HIDT, and SAFD. Criterion validity was determined for the VO2peak of the API, the 3-MST, HIDT, and SAFD. For HRpeak, criterion validity was studied for the 3-MST, HIDT, and SAFD. While different CRF tests are being used in descriptive and experimental research within dance populations, the body of research supporting the measurement properties of such tests is very small. As many studies have methodological flaws (e.g., small participant numbers or no statistical analysis for validity or reliability), additional good quality research is required to re-examine and complement current measurement property results of the API, B-DAFT, DAFT, HIDT, SAFD, and 3-MST.

Pragmatic Delphi study aimed at determining practical components for a tool designed to assist Dutch primary care-givers in opioid deprescribing for non-cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decades, opioid prescriptions have increased in the Netherlands. The Dutch general practitioners' guideline on pain was recently updated and now aims to reduce opioid prescriptions and high-risk opioid use for non-cancer pain. The guideline, however, lacks practical measures for implementation. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine practical components for a tool that should assist Dutch primary care prescribers and implements the recently updated guideline to reduce opioid prescriptions and high-risk use. METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used. The practical components for the tool were identified based on systematic reviews, qualitative studies, and Dutch primary care guidelines. Suggested components were divided into Part A, containing components designed to reduce opioid initiation and stimulate short-term use, and Part B, containing components designed to reduce opioid use among patients on long-term opioid treatment. During three rounds, a multidisciplinary panel of 21 experts assessed the content, usability, and feasibility of these components by adding, deleting, and adapting components until consensus was reached on the outlines of an opioid reduction tool. RESULTS: The resulting Part A consisted of six components, namely education, opioid decision tree, risk assessment, agreements on dosage and duration of use, guidance and follow-up, and interdisciplinary collaboration. The resulting Part B consisted of five components, namely education, patient identification, risk assessment, motivation, and tapering. CONCLUSIONS: In this pragmatic Delphi study, components for an opioid reduction tool for Dutch primary care-givers are identified. These components need further development, and the final tool should be tested in an implementation study.

External validation and updating of prognostic models for predicting recovery of disability in people with (sub)acute neck pain was successful: broad external validation in a new prospective cohort.

QUESTION: Can existing post-treatment prognostic models for predicting neck pain recovery (primarily in terms of disability and secondarily in terms of pain intensity and perceived improvement) be externally validated and updated at the end of the treatment period and at 6 and 12 weeks of follow-up in a new Dutch cohort of people with neck pain treated with guideline-based usual care physiotherapy? DESIGN: External validation and model updating in a new prospective cohort of three previously developed prognostic models. PARTICIPANTS: People with (sub)acute neck pain and registered for primary care physiotherapy treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: Recovery of disability, pain intensity, and perceived recovery at 6 and 12 weeks and at the end of the treatment period. RESULTS: Discriminative performance (c-statistic) of the disability model at 6 weeks was 0.73 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.77) and reasonably well calibrated after intercept recalibration. The disability model at 12 weeks and at the end of the treatment period showed discriminative c-statistic performance values of 0.69 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.73) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.72), respectively, and was well calibrated. Pain models and perceived recovery models did not reach acceptable performance. Cervical mobility added value to the disability models and pain catastrophising to the disability and pain models at 6 weeks. DISCUSSION: Broad external validation of the disability model was successful in people with (sub)acute neck pain and clinicians may use this model in clinical practice with reasonable accuracy. Further research is required to assess the disability model's clinical impact and generalisability, and to identify additional valuable model predictors. REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/a6r3k/.

Determinants of dropout and compliance of children participating in a multidisciplinary intervention programme for overweight and obesity in socially deprived areas.

BACKGROUND: Children with overweight and obesity in socially deprived areas (SDAs) are less likely to complete and be compliant to a weight-loss programme. OBJECTIVES: To identify factors associated with dropout and compliance of a multidisciplinary weight-loss programme in SDA. METHODS: This prospective longitudinal cohort study included children (6-12 years) with overweight and obesity in a 12-week multidisciplinary intervention living in SDA in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Potential predictive variables for dropout and compliance included were age, sex, the weight of the child and parents, quality of life, and referral status (self-registration or referral). A Cox proportional hazards model was performed to study the association between dropout and its potential predictive variables, whereas logistic regression analyses were used for the potential predictors for compliance. RESULTS: A total of 121 children started the intervention programme. Forty-one (33.9%) children dropped out and 68 (56.2%) were compliant with the intervention. The risk of dropping out of the intervention was significantly lower for a child with overweight parents than for those with parents with normal weight (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.22 [95% confidence interval, CI 0.063-0.75]), and for those with parents with obesity (adjusted HR 0.18 [95% CI 0.060-0.52]). No other potential predictive variables were associated with dropout or compliance. CONCLUSION: Children from SDA participating in a weight-loss programme have a relatively high dropout and a low compliance rate. Parental weight seems to be an important predictor for dropout of children from SDA, where children with normal weight or obese parents have the highest risk of dropout compared with children of overweight parents.

Physical and psychosocial work-related exposures and the occurrence of disorders of the elbow: A systematic review.

This systematic review updates a previous systematic review on work-related physical and psychosocial risk factors for elbow disorders. Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central and PsycINFO were searched for studies on associations between work-related physical or psychosocial risk factors and the occurrence of elbow disorders. Two independent reviewers selected eligible studies and assessed risk of bias (RoB). Results of studies were synthesized narratively. We identified 17 new studies and lateral epicondylitis was the most studied disorder (13 studies). Five studies had a prospective cohort design, eight were cross-sectional and four were case-control. Only one study had no items rated as high RoB. Combined physical exposure indicators (e.g. physical exertion combined with elbow movement) were associated with the occurrence of lateral epicondylitis. No other consistent associations were observed for other physical and psychosocial exposures. These results prevent strong conclusions regarding associations between work-related exposures, and the occurrence of elbow disorders.