Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 70
Filter
Add more filters

Publication year range
1.
Am J Emerg Med ; 84: 33-38, 2024 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39067198

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is ranked in the top 10 conditions presenting to emergency departments (ED) in Australia. We aimed to investigate ED re-presentation rates and length of stay (LOS) of patients with LBP, including associated factors. METHODS: We reviewed medical records of three EDs in Sydney, Australia from January 2016 to October 2021. The primary outcome was the proportion of episodes of non-serious LBP with at least one re-presentation within 12 months. Secondary outcomes were re-presentation rates within 3-days, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months, 6-months, and mean LOS. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the associated factors with re-presentation and prolonged stay (>4 h) and reported as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Of 8289 episodes of non-serious LBP, 7.7% included at least one re-presentation within 12 months. There were only 14 re-presentations (0.2%) where the diagnosis changed from non-serious LBP at the index visit to serious spinal pathology at the repeat visit. The overall mean LOS was 4.1 h, and 26.9% of patients stayed in the ED for >4 h. Those who received opioids (aOR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.08-1.59) were more likely to re-present. In contrast, patients receiving imaging were less likely to re-present (aOR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.65-0.94). Receiving imaging (aOR: 2.83; 95% CI: 2.56-3.13) and opioids (aOR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.47-1.82) increased the odds of prolonged stay. CONCLUSION: A re-presentation within 12 months occurs in 7.7% of episodes of LBP in ED. Over one-quarter of patients stayed longer than 4 h.


Subject(s)
Emergency Service, Hospital , Length of Stay , Low Back Pain , Patient Readmission , Humans , Low Back Pain/therapy , Low Back Pain/epidemiology , Male , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Female , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Adult , Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Aged , Australia/epidemiology , Logistic Models , Medical Records/statistics & numerical data
2.
Rheumatol Int ; 44(7): 1197-1207, 2024 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38421427

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study is to compare and contrast the quality statements and quality indicators across clinical care standards for low back pain. Searches were performed in Medline, guideline databases, and Google searches to identify clinical care standards for the management of low back pain targeting a multidisciplinary audience. Two independent reviewers reviewed the search results and extracted relevant information from the clinical care standards. We compared the quality statements and indicators of the clinical care standards to identify the consistent messages and the discrepancies between them. Three national clinical care standards from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom were included. They provided from 6 to 8 quality statements and from 12 to 18 quality indicators. The three standards provide consistent recommendations in the quality statements related to imaging, and patient education/advice and self-management. In addition, the Canadian and Australian standards also provide consistent recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. However, the three clinical care standards differ in the statements related to psychological assessment, opioid analgesics, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies. The three national clinical care standards provide consistent recommendations on imaging and patient education/advice, self-management of the condition, and two standards (Canadian and Australian) agree on recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. The standards differ in the quality statements related to psychological assessment, opioid prescription, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies.


Subject(s)
Low Back Pain , Humans , Low Back Pain/therapy , Low Back Pain/diagnosis , Quality Indicators, Health Care/standards , Australia , Patient Education as Topic/standards , Pain Management/standards , Pain Management/methods
3.
Int J Qual Health Care ; 36(2)2024 Jun 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38814664

ABSTRACT

Clinical care indicators for low back pain can be used to monitor healthcare practices and consequently be used to evaluate success of strategies to improve care quality. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical care indicators that have been used to measure appropriateness of health care for patients with low back pain. We conducted a systematic search of five electronic databases and Google to identify clinical care indicators that have been used to measure any aspect of care for people with low back pain. Care indicators were narratively described according to their type (i.e. structure, process, or outcomes) and categorized by their purpose (e.g. to measure aspects related to assessment, imaging requests, treatment/prevention, and outcomes). A total of 3562 and 2180 records were retrieved from electronic databases and Google searches, respectively. We identified 280 indicators related to low back pain care from 40 documents and publications. Most quality indicators were process indicators (n = 213, 76%), followed by structure (n = 41, 15%) and outcome indicators (n = 26, 9%). The most common indicators were related to imaging requests (n = 41, 15%), referral to healthcare providers (n = 30, 11%), and shared decision-making (n = 21, 7%). Our review identified a range of clinical care indicators that have been used to measure the quality of health care for people with low back pain. Our findings will support a Delphi study to reach international consensus on what would be the most important and feasible indicators for a minimum dataset to be collected globally.


Subject(s)
Low Back Pain , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Low Back Pain/therapy , Humans
4.
Pain Manag Nurs ; 24(2): 196-200, 2023 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36100514

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Sedentary behavior has been associated with musculoskeletal pain in school teachers. However, our hypothesis is that physical activity practice could mitigate this association. AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship of musculoskeletal pain with high screen-based sedentary behavior among public school teachers and whether physical activity could mitigate this relationship. METHOD: A sample of 246 teachers from 13 public schools were assessed (45.0 ± 10.4 years, 76.0% of women). Musculoskeletal pain was assessed using the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire, screen-based sedentary behavior was measured considering the sum of screen time in television, computer, and smartphone/tablet, and physical activity using the Baecke habitual physical activity questionnaire. Binary logistic regression was used to verify the associations between high screen-based sedentary behavior and musculoskeletal pain in school teachers (Model 1-unadjusted; Model 2-adjusted by age, sex, and socioeconomic status; Model 3-variables of Model 2 + adjusted by physical activity). RESULTS: High screen-based sedentary behavior was associated with pain in neck (odds ratio = 2.09; 95%confidence interval = 1.08-4.04), upper back (odds ratio = 2.21; 95%confidence interval = 1.07-4.56), and low back (odds ratio = 1.91; 95%confidence interval = 1.00-3.65). However, after inserting the variables, including physical activity, these associations were mitigated. CONCLUSIONS: High screen-based sedentary behavior was associated with musculoskeletal pain in public school teachers. However, this relationship was mitigated after the inclusion of confounding variables, including physical activity.


Subject(s)
Musculoskeletal Pain , Humans , Female , Musculoskeletal Pain/epidemiology , School Teachers , Sedentary Behavior , Exercise , Surveys and Questionnaires
5.
Pain Med ; 23(4): 614-624, 2022 04 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34480571

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: There is a common belief that patients presenting to emergency departments have more severe pain levels and functional limitations than those who are seen in general practice. The aim of this systematic review was to compare pain and disability levels of patients with acute low back pain presenting to general practice vs those presenting to emergency departments. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from database inception to February 2019. Observational studies including patients with acute non-specific low back pain presenting to emergency departments and/or general practice were eligible. Pain and/or disability scores expressed on a 0-100 scale were the primary outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated with a validated tool for observational studies, and the overall quality of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Meta-analysis with random effects and meta-regression were used to test for differences between the two settings. RESULTS: We included 12 records reporting results for 10 unique studies with a total of 6,999 participants from general practice (n = 6) and emergency departments (n = 4). There was low-quality evidence (downgraded for indirectness and inconsistency) that patients presenting to emergency departments had higher pain scores than those in general practice, with a mean difference of 17.3 points (95% confidence interval: 8.8 to 25.9 on a 0-100 scale). Similarly, there was low-quality evidence (downgraded for indirectness and inconsistency) that patients presenting to emergency departments had higher disability scores than those in general practice (mean difference: 21.7; 95% confidence interval: 4.6 to 38.7 on a 0-100 scale). CONCLUSION: Patients with acute non-specific low back pain presenting to emergency departments may report higher levels of pain and disability than those seen in general practice.


Subject(s)
Acute Pain , General Practice , Low Back Pain , Acute Pain/diagnosis , Bias , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans
6.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil ; 103(10): 1944-1950, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35430240

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of isotemporal substitution modeling (ISM) of time spent in sedentary activities with physical activity in different intensities on pain and disability of patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Observational and cross-sectional study. Device-measured physical activity levels were assessed using an actigraph. Pain intensity was measured using the 11-point numeric rating scale, and disability was measured using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. The ISM was used to estimate the theoretical substitution association of reallocating time from 1 exposure variable to an equal amount of time in another exposure variable while holding total activity time constant. SETTINGS: Outpatient physical therapy clinic. PARTICIPANTS: This study included data from 358 patients (N=358) with chronic LBP aged between 18 and 60 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain and disability. RESULTS: Our results suggest that replacing 60 minutes of sedentary behavior with 60 minutes of vigorous activity in a week is significantly associated with a decrease in pain (ß=-1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.18 to -0.15). Additionally, replacing 60 minutes of light physical activity (ß=-1.67; 95% CI, -3.18 to -0.16) or moderate activity (ß=-1.67; 95% CI, -3.21 to -0.13) with the same amount of time of vigorous activity per week may also favorable reductions in pain. For the analysis of disability, no significant associations (P>.05) for disability in any of the isotemporal models were found. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that replacing 60 minutes of sedentary behavior with equal amounts of vigorous activity per week was associated with reductions in pain intensity. Similarly, replacing a light or moderate activities with vigorous activity was also associated with reductions in pain intensity. Finally, no significant associations were observed between time spent in sedentary activities with physical activity in different intensities for disability.


Subject(s)
Low Back Pain , Sedentary Behavior , Adolescent , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Exercise , Humans , Middle Aged , Pain Measurement , Young Adult
7.
Sleep Breath ; 26(4): 1809-1816, 2022 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35032252

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the association of sleep quality with reported screen-based sedentary time and reported physical activity, among overweight adolescents. METHODS: Adolescents aged 10 to 17 years enrolled in public and private schools were included. Data collection was carried out during the school semesters of 2014-2015 and participants who did not participate in all evaluations were excluded. Sleep quality and physical activity were assessed by validated questionnaires. Screen-based sedentary time was assessed by self-reported mean daily hours spent on television, computer, smartphone/tablet, and videogames. Body mass index was objectively measured and adolescents were classified into normal weight and overweight according to cutoff points for age and sex. Multiple linear regression models adjusted by covariates (age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status) were used to analyze the relationship between variables. RESULTS: A total of 1008 adolescents were assessed, with a mean age of 13.2 ± 2.4 years and a mean body mass index of 20.4 ± 4.3 kg/m2. Overweight was observed in 28.0% of sample, while 53.0% reported non-white ethnicity. Self-reported screen-based sedentary time was significantly related to poor sleep quality in adolescents (ß = 0.116, p = 0.005), remaining significant only in those who were normal weight (ß = 0.101, p = 0.007) in sensitivity analysis. Self-reported physical activity showed no relationship with sleep quality in both normal weight and overweight adolescents. CONCLUSION: Self-reported screen-based sedentary time was associated with poor sleep quality in adolescents, mainly among those with normal weight. The time spent on screen-based sedentary activities can impair sleep quality even in normal weight adolescents.


Subject(s)
Overweight , Sedentary Behavior , Humans , Adolescent , Child , Body Mass Index , Sleep Quality , Exercise , Sleep
8.
Clin Rehabil ; 36(4): 527-537, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34931854

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate what format for providing patient information (i.e. written summary, infographic or video animation) is most effective for promoting correct beliefs about imaging and inevitable consequences of low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING/PATIENTS: One hundred and fifty-nine patients with non-specific LBP were recruited from outpatient physiotherapy clinics. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to receive patient information in one of three formats: video animation, infographic or written summary. Patients were allowed to read or watch the materials for up to 20 min. MEASUREMENTS: Outcome were assessed before and immediately after the intervention. The primary outcome was the Back Beliefs Questionnaire. The secondary outcome was beliefs about imaging for LBP assessed by two questions. RESULTS: All 159 patients completed the study. Our findings revealed no difference between groups for the Back Beliefs Questionnaire. Correct beliefs about imaging were more likely with the infographic than the video animation (Question 1- Odds Ratio [OR] = 3.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7, 8.7; Question 2- OR = 6.8, 95%CI: 2.7, 17.2) and more likely with the written summary than the video animation (Question 1- OR = 3.3, 95%CI: 1.5, 7.4; Question 2- OR = 3.7, 95%CI: 1.6, 8.5). No difference between infographic and written summary formats were reported for the questions assessing LBP imaging beliefs. CONCLUSION: The three materials were equally effective in improving patient's general beliefs about LBP care. However, the traditional written summary or infographic formats were more effective than the video animation format for improving beliefs about imaging for LBP.


Subject(s)
Low Back Pain , Humans , Low Back Pain/diagnosis , Low Back Pain/etiology , Odds Ratio , Physical Therapy Modalities , Surveys and Questionnaires
9.
Eur Spine J ; 31(1): 152-158, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34586504

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To investigate the association of sedentary behavior and physical activity from childhood to adolescence with prevalence of low back pain in adolescents. In addition, we also explored whether sleep quality influences this association. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional epidemiological study. Participants (aged 10-17 years) were recruited from public and private schools in Brazil. Sedentary behavior and previous and current engagement in physical activity were assessed through questionnaires. Low back pain and sleep quality were assessed by the Nordic questionnaire and Mini-Sleep Questionnaire, respectively. Sex, age, body mass index, abdominal obesity, socioeconomic status and sleep quality were used as potential confounders. Binary logistic regression models were used to generate values of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). RESULTS: A total of 1,001 (44,5% boys; n = 446) were included. Overall prevalence of low back pain was 18%, with higher rates among inactive and sedentary participants. Physical inactivity from childhood to adolescence in combination with high sedentary behavior doubled the likelihood of having low back pain (OR = 2.40 [95%CI: 1.38-4.18]), independent of potential confounders. Sleep quality attenuates, but not eliminates, this association (OR = 2.19 [95%CI: 1.25-3.84]). CONCLUSION: Being inactive from childhood to adolescence in combination with high sedentary behavior is associated with low back pain in adolescents. Sleep quality seems to attenuate, but not eliminate, this association.


Subject(s)
Low Back Pain , Sedentary Behavior , Adolescent , Brazil/epidemiology , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Exercise , Female , Humans , Low Back Pain/epidemiology , Male
10.
Int J Qual Health Care ; 33(3)2021 Jul 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34260690

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Imaging for low back pain is widely regarded as a target for efforts to reduce low-value care. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate the prevalence of the overuse and underuse of lumbar imaging in patients presenting with low back pain to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review study of five public hospital EDs in Sydney, Australia, in 2019-20. We reviewed the clinical charts of consecutive adult patients who presented with a complaint of low back pain and extracted clinical features relevant to a decision to request lumbar imaging. We estimated the proportion of encounters where a decision to request lumbar imaging was inappropriate (overuse) or where a clinician did not request an appropriate and informative lumbar imaging test when indicated (underuse). RESULTS: Six hundred and forty-nine patients presented with a complaint of low back pain, of which 158 (24.3%) were referred for imaging. Seventy-nine (12.2%) had a combination of features suggesting that lumbar imaging was indicated according to clinical guidelines. The prevalence of overuse and underuse of lumbar imaging was 8.8% (57 of 649 cases, 95% CI 6.8-11.2%) and 4.3% (28 of 649 cases, 95% CI 3.0-6.1%), respectively. Thirteen cases were classified as underuse because the patients were referred for uninformative imaging modalities (e.g. referred for radiography for suspected cauda equina syndrome). CONCLUSION: In this study of emergency care, there was evidence of not only overuse of lumbar imaging but also underuse through failure to request lumbar imaging when indicated or referral for an uninformative imaging modality. These three issues seem more important targets for quality improvement than solely focusing on overuse.


Subject(s)
Low Back Pain , Adult , Australia , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Low Back Pain/diagnostic imaging , Radiography , Retrospective Studies
11.
Emerg Med J ; 38(1): 59-68, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33037020

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Most low back pain trials have limited applicability to the emergency department (ED) because they provide treatment and measure outcomes after discharge from the ED. We investigated the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions delivered in the ED to patients with non-specific low back pain and/or sciatica on patient-relevant outcomes measured during the emergency visit. METHODS: Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from inception to week 1 February 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials investigating adult patients (≥18 years) with non-specific low back pain and/or sciatica presenting to ED. The primary outcome of interest was pain intensity. Two reviewers independently screened the full texts, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias of each trial using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. The overall quality of evidence, or certainty, provided by a set of trials evaluating the same treatment was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which considers imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness and bias in the evidence. RESULTS: Fifteen trials (1802 participants) were included with 12 of 15 at low risk of bias (ie, PEDro score >6). Based on results from individual trials and moderate quality evidence, ketoprofen gel was more effective than placebo for non-specific low back pain at 30 min (mean difference (MD) -15.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -21.0 to -9.0). For those with sciatica (moderate quality evidence), intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen) (MD -15.7, 95% CI -19.8 to -11.6) and intravenous morphine (MD -11.4, 95% CI -21.6 to -1.2) were both superior to placebo at 30 min. Based on moderate quality of evidence, corticosteroids showed no benefits against placebo at emergency discharge for non-specific low back pain (MD 9.0, 95% CI -0.71 to 18.7) or sciatica (MD -6.8, 95% CI -24.2 to 10.6). There were conflicting results from trials comparing different pharmacological options (moderate quality evidence) or investigating non-pharmacological treatments (low quality evidence). CONCLUSION: Ketoprofen gel for non-specific low back pain and intravenous paracetamol or morphine for sciatica were superior to placebo, whereas corticosteroids were ineffective for both conditions. There was conflicting evidence for comparisons of different pharmacological options and those involving non-pharmacological treatments. Additional trials measuring important patient-related outcomes to EDs are needed.


Subject(s)
Emergency Service, Hospital , Low Back Pain/therapy , Sciatica/therapy , Adult , Humans , Pain Measurement , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
12.
Emerg Med J ; 38(11): 834-841, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32917748

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain, and especially non-specific low back pain, is a common cause of presentation to the emergency department (ED). Although these patients typically report relatively high pain intensity, the clinical course of their pain and disability remains unclear. Our objective was to review the literature and describe the clinical course of non-specific low back pain after an ED visit. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE from inception to March 2019. We screened for cohort studies or randomised trials investigating pain or disability in patients with non-specific low back pain presenting to EDs. We excluded studies that enrolled participants with minimal pain or disability scores at baseline. Two reviewers independently screened the full texts, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias and quality of evidence. Estimates of pain and disability were converted to a common 0-100 scale. We estimated pooled means and 95% CIs of pain and disability as a function of time since ED presentation. RESULTS: Eight studies (nine publications) with a total of 1994 patients provided moderate overall quality evidence of the expected clinical course of low back pain after an ED visit. Seven of the eight studies were assessed to have a low risk of bias. At the time of the ED presentation, the pooled estimate of the mean pain score on a 0-100 scale was 71.0 (95% CI 64.2-77.9). This reduced to 46.1 (95% CI 37.2-55.0) after 1 day, 41.8 (95% CI 34.7 to 49.0) after 1 week and 13.5 (95% CI 5.8-21.3) after 26 weeks. The course of disability followed a similar pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting to EDs with non-specific low back pain experience rapid reductions in pain intensity, but on average symptoms persisted 6 months later. This review can be used to educate patients so they can have realistic expectations of their recovery.


Subject(s)
Low Back Pain/therapy , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Humans , Low Back Pain/rehabilitation , Pain Measurement/methods
13.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther ; 44(5): 378-388, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34144827

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with meeting physical activity guidelines and sedentary recommendations in people with chronic low back pain (LBP). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study including 171 people with chronic LBP. Trained assessors collected information regarding demographic, anthropometric, and clinical data. Physical activity levels and sedentary time were objectively measured using a tri-axial accelerometer. Participants were classified as being physically active (ie, performing at least 150 minutes of moderate or 75 minutes of vigorous physical activity per week) and sedentary (ie, more than 8 hours of time spent in sedentary activities per day). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to determine the association of being physically active or sedentary with the range of demographic, anthropometric and clinical variables. RESULTS: Our results showed that although lower body mass index (odds ratio [OR] = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.85-0.98) and higher self-reported levels of leisure time physical activity (OR = 3.46; 95% CI: 1.94-6.15) were associated with being physically active, lower self-reported levels of physical activity at work (OR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.39-0.81) was associated with being sedentary. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed that, in people with LBP, lower body mass index and higher levels of leisure time physical activity may be important factors for identifying those physically active. In contrast, lower levels of physical activity at work may be considered when identifying sedentary people with LBP. Future studies should consider these factors when designing interventions aiming to promote physical activity and decrease sedentary behavior in this population.


Subject(s)
Low Back Pain , Sedentary Behavior , Accelerometry , Cross-Sectional Studies , Exercise , Humans , Low Back Pain/therapy , Motor Activity
14.
Pain Med ; 21(6): 1106-1121, 2020 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31591645

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine the magnitude of the association between cardiovascular disease and chronic musculoskeletal pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in five electronic databases. Population-based studies reporting the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases in adults stratified by chronic musculoskeletal pain status were considered eligible. Two independent reviewers performed the screening of the records following the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias of the included studies using an assessment tool of risk of bias for observational studies. In addition, we assessed the overall quality of evidence using an adaptation of the GRADE approach for prognosis. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included in this review. There was high-quality evidence that people with chronic musculoskeletal pain are 1.91 times more likely to report having a cardiovascular disease compared with those without chronic musculoskeletal pain (risk ratio = 1.91, 95% confidence interval = 1.64-2.21). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrated associations between chronic musculoskeletal pain and any cardiovascular diseases. Future studies are still warranted to better understand the association between chronic musculoskeletal pain and the specific types of cardiovascular diseases.


Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Diseases , Chronic Pain , Musculoskeletal Diseases , Musculoskeletal Pain , Adult , Bias , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Chronic Pain/epidemiology , Humans , Musculoskeletal Diseases/epidemiology , Musculoskeletal Pain/diagnosis , Musculoskeletal Pain/epidemiology , Prevalence
15.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 4: CD013577, 2020 04 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32271952

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Lumbosacral radicular pain (commonly called sciatica) is a syndrome involving patients who report radiating leg pain. Epidural corticosteroid injections deliver a corticosteroid dose into the epidural space, with the aim of reducing the local inflammatory process and, consequently, relieving the symptoms of lumbosacral radicular pain. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review published in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2012. Some placebo-controlled trials have been published recently, which highlights the importance of updating the previous review. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo injection on pain and disability in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases without language limitations up to 25 September 2019: Cochrane Back and Neck group trial register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and two trial registers. We also performed citation tracking of included studies and relevant systematic reviews in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that compared epidural corticosteroid injections of any corticosteroid drug to placebo injections in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. We accepted all three anatomical approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) to delivering corticosteroids into the epidural space. We considered trials that included a placebo treatment as delivery of an inert substance (i.e. one with no pharmacologic activity), an innocuous substance (e.g. normal saline solution), or a pharmacologically active substance but not one considered to provide sustained benefit (e.g. local anaesthetic), either into the epidural space (i.e. to mimic epidural corticosteroid injection) or adjacent spinal tissue (i.e. subcutaneous, intramuscular, or interspinous tissue). We also included trials in which a local anaesthetic with a short duration of action was used as a placebo and injected together with corticosteroid in the intervention group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed the screening, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessments. In case of insufficient information, we contacted the authors of the original studies or estimated the data. We grouped the outcome data into four time points of assessment: immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short term (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate term (> 3 months but < 12 months), and long term (≥ 12 months). We assessed the overall quality of evidence for each outcome and time point using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 clinical trials (from 29 publications) investigating the effects of epidural corticosteroid injections compared to placebo in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. The included studies provided data for a total of 2470 participants with a mean age ranging from 37.3 to 52.8 years. Seventeen studies included participants with lumbosacral radicular pain with a diagnosis based on clinical assessment and 15 studies included participants with mixed duration of symptoms. The included studies were conducted mainly in North America and Europe. Fifteen studies did not report funding sources, five studies reported not receiving funding, and five reported receiving funding from a non-profit or government source. Eight trials reported data on pain intensity, 12 reported data on disability, and eight studies reported data on adverse events. The duration of the follow-up assessments ranged from 12 hours to 1 year. We considered eight trials to be of high quality because we judged them as having low risk of bias in four out of the five bias domains. We identified one ongoing trial in a trial registry. Epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing leg pain at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -4.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.77 to -1.09 on a 0 to 100 scale; 8 trials, n = 949; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). For disability, epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing disability at short-term follow-up (MD -4.18, 95% CI -6.04 to -2.17, on a 0 to 100 scale; 12 trials, n = 1367; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). The treatment effects are small, however, and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. MD lower than 10%). Most trials provided insufficient information on how or when adverse events were assessed (immediate or short-term follow-up) and only reported adverse drug reactions - that is, adverse events that the trialists attributed to the study treatment. We are very uncertain that epidural corticosteroid injections make no difference compared to placebo injection in the frequency of minor adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.42; 8 trials, n = 877; very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision)). Minor adverse events included increased pain during or after the injection, non-specific headache, post-dural puncture headache, irregular periods, accidental dural puncture, thoracic pain, non-local rash, sinusitis, vasovagal response, hypotension, nausea, and tinnitus. One study reported a major drug reaction for one patient on anticoagulant therapy who had a retroperitoneal haematoma as a complication of the corticosteroid injection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This study found that epidural corticosteroid injections probably slightly reduced leg pain and disability at short-term follow-up in people with lumbosacral radicular pain. In addition, no minor or major adverse events were reported at short-term follow-up after epidural corticosteroid injections or placebo injection. Although the current review identified additional clinical trials, the available evidence still provides only limited support for the use of epidural corticosteroid injections in people with lumbosacral radicular pain as the treatment effects are small, mainly evident at short-term follow-up and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. mean difference lower than 10%). According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate, suggesting that further studies are likely to play an important role in clarifying the efficacy and tolerability of this treatment. We recommend that further trials should attend to methodological features such as appropriate allocation concealment and blinding of care providers to minimise the potential for biased estimates of treatment and harmful effects.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/administration & dosage , Anesthetics, Local/administration & dosage , Sciatica/drug therapy , Adult , Humans , Injections, Epidural/adverse effects , Injections, Epidural/methods , Lumbosacral Region , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
16.
Scand J Med Sci Sports ; 30(1): 4-12, 2020 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31418915

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of active video games (AVGs) on obesity-related outcomes and physical activity levels in children and adolescents. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: Literature search was performed in five electronic databases and the main clinical trials registries. Randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of AVGs compared with no/minimal intervention on obesity-related outcomes (body mass index [BMI], body weight, body fat, and waist circumference) and physical activity levels of children and adolescents were eligible. Two independent reviewers extracted the data of each included study. PEDro scale was used to assess risk of bias and GRADE approach to evaluate overall quality of evidence. Pooled estimates were obtained using random effect models. RESULTS: Twelve studies were considered eligible for this review. Included studies mostly reported outcome data at short-term (less or equal than three months) and intermediate-term follow-up (more than 3 months, but <12 months). AVGs were more effective than no/minimal intervention in reducing BMI/zBMI at short-term (SMD = -0.34; 95% CI: -0.62 to -0.05) and intermediate-term follow-up (SMD = -0.36; 95% CI: -0.01 to -0.71). In addition, AVGs were more effective in reducing body weight compared with no/minimal intervention at intermediate-term follow-up (SMD = -0.25; 95% CI: -0.46 to -0.04). Regarding physical activity levels, AVGs were not more effective compared with minimal intervention at short-term and intermediate-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our review identified that AVGs were better than minimal intervention in reducing BMI and body weight, but not for increasing physical activity in young people.


Subject(s)
Exercise , Pediatric Obesity/therapy , Video Games , Adolescent , Body Mass Index , Body Weight , Child , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
17.
Eur Spine J ; 29(3): 519-529, 2020 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31938944

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Patients with low back pain (LBP) rarely have serious underlying pathology but frequently undergo inappropriate imaging. A range of guidelines and red flag features are utilised to characterise appropriate imaging. This scoping review explores how LBP imaging appropriateness is determined and calculated in studies of primary care practice. METHODS: This scoping review builds upon a previous meta-analysis, incorporating articles identified that were published since 2014, with an updated search to capture articles published since the original search. Electronic databases were searched, and citation lists of included papers were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were studies assessing adult LBP imaging appropriateness in a primary care setting. Twenty-three eligible studies were identified. RESULTS: A range of red flag features were utilised to determine imaging appropriateness. Most studies considered appropriateness in a binary manner, by the presence of any red flag feature. Ten guidelines were referenced, with 7/23 (30%) included studies amending or not referencing any guideline. The method for calculating the proportion of inappropriate imaging varied. Ten per cent of the studies used the total number of patients presenting with LBP as the denominator, suggesting most studies overestimated the rate of inappropriate imaging, and did not capture where imaging is not performed for clinically suspicious LBP. CONCLUSION: Greater clarity is needed on how we define and measure imaging appropriateness for LBP, which also accounts for the problem of failing to image when indicated. An internationally agreed methodology for imaging appropriateness studies would ultimately lead to an improvement in the care delivered to patients. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.


Subject(s)
Low Back Pain , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Diagnostic Imaging , Female , Humans , Low Back Pain/diagnostic imaging , Male , Medicare , Middle Aged , Primary Health Care , United States , Young Adult
18.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil ; 100(7): 1226-1233, 2019 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30822389

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether clinical tests used to detect motor control dysfunction can predict improvements in pain and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) who have undergone an 8-week lumbar stabilization exercise program. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING: Outpatient physical therapy university clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy people with chronic nonspecific LBP were recruited, and 64 completed the exercise program (N=64). INTERVENTIONS: The lumbar stabilization program was provided twice a week for 8 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity (11-point numerical rating scale) and disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) and clinical tests, such as the Deep Muscle Contraction (DMC) scale, Clinical Test of Thoracolumbar Dissociation (CTTD), and Passive Lumbar Extension (PLE) test. Univariate and multivariate linear regression models were used in the prediction analysis. RESULTS: Mean changes in pain intensity and disability following the 8-week stabilization program were -3.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.2 to -4.4) and -7.4 (95% CI, -6.3 to -8.5), respectively. Clinical test scores taken at baseline did not predict changes in pain and disability at 8-week follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our findings revealed that the DMC scale, CTTD, PLE test, clinical tests used to assess motor control dysfunction, do not predict improvements in pain and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific LBP following an 8-week lumbar stabilization exercise program.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain/rehabilitation , Exercise Therapy/methods , Low Back Pain/rehabilitation , Lumbosacral Region/physiopathology , Adolescent , Adult , Chronic Pain/physiopathology , Disability Evaluation , Female , Humans , Low Back Pain/physiopathology , Male , Middle Aged , Pain Measurement , Prospective Studies
19.
Eur Spine J ; 28(7): 1586-1593, 2019 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31053939

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Physical overload at work has been described as a risk factor for the development of low back pain. However, few studies have investigated the prognostic value of perceived physical overload at work in patients with chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of perceived physical overload at work with pain and disability over a period of 6 months in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. METHODS: Patients with chronic LBP seeking physiotherapy care were considered eligible. Clinical data collected were: pain intensity, disability, fear of movement, depression and perceived physical overload at work. Linear regression analyses were used to investigate the association of perceived physical workload at work at baseline with pain intensity and disability at 6-month follow-up. The total score and the score for each category of the physical overload at work questionnaire were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients with chronic low back pain were included in the analysis. The subcategories of the physical overload questionnaire were not significantly associated with pain intensity at 6-month follow-up. However, age, disability at baseline and perceived physical overload related to postures of the trunk (B = -0.60 95% CI - 1.18 to - 0.02) and related to positions of the arms (B = 2.72 95% CI 0.07 to 5.37) were significantly associated with disability at 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: Although perceived physical overload at work was not associated with pain intensity in patients with chronic LBP at 6-month follow-up, we identified a significant association between perceived physical overload related to postures of the trunk and positions of the arms with disability at 6-month follow-up. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain/etiology , Low Back Pain/etiology , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Stress, Physiological/physiology , Workload , Adult , Chronic Pain/diagnosis , Chronic Pain/physiopathology , Chronic Pain/psychology , Disability Evaluation , Female , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Low Back Pain/diagnosis , Low Back Pain/physiopathology , Low Back Pain/psychology , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Diseases/diagnosis , Occupational Diseases/physiopathology , Occupational Diseases/psychology , Pain Measurement , Perception , Physical Examination , Physical Therapy Modalities , Posture , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , Workload/psychology
20.
J Ultrasound Med ; 38(10): 2685-2693, 2019 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30815915

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To compare trunk muscle thickness of women with and without patellofemoral pain (PFP) and to assess the association of trunk muscle thickness with self-reported pain of women with PFP. METHODS: Forty-four women were recruited and divided into 2 groups: a PFP group (n = 22) and a pain-free group (n = 22). The thickness of the following trunk muscles was obtained by B-mode ultrasound imaging: transversus abdominis, obliquus internus (OI), obliquus externus (OE), rectus abdominis, and multifidus. Self-reported pain was measured on a visual analog scale. RESULTS: The 44 participants were 18 to 35 years old. Women with PFP had lower thickness of the OI and OE than pain-free women, with moderate or large effect sizes ranging from -0.78 to -0.98, which was negatively related to self-reported pain correlations (r = -0.53 to -0.40). The contraction ratios of the OI and OE were also lower in women with PFP than in pain-free women (P < .05). No differences between groups were found for the transversus abdominis, multifidus, and rectus abdominis, with also no correlation with self-reported pain. CONCLUSIONS: Lower thickness of the OI and OE is present in women with PFP, which is related to self-reported pain. These findings might help in understanding the alterations in trunk biomechanics of individuals with PFP and the mechanisms by which interventions targeting trunk muscle strength are beneficial to individuals with PFP.


Subject(s)
Abdominal Muscles/anatomy & histology , Abdominal Muscles/diagnostic imaging , Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome/physiopathology , Ultrasonography/methods , Adolescent , Adult , Female , Humans , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL