Overview of the economic burden of musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Studies suggest a high economic burden among children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain. There is no summary in the literature on the overall economic burden of musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents. The aim of this systematic review of cost-of-illness studies was to synthesize the economic burden of musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents. We conducted electronic searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, EconLit, NHSEED, and HTA databases. We included cost-of-illness studies that estimated healthcare, patient/family, lost productivity, and/or societal costs in children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain. The risk of bias was assessed with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. All values were adjusted to the same reference year (2021) and converted to American Dollar. We included 45 cost-of-illness studies (n = 665,623). Twenty-two studies estimated the annual healthcare costs that ranged from $143 to $41,379 per patient. Nine studies estimated the annual patient/family costs that ranged from $287 to $27,972 per patient. Seven studies estimated the annual lost productivity costs that ranged from $124 to $4671 per patient. Nine studies estimated the annual societal costs that ranged from $1095 to $69,351 per patient. Children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and musculoskeletal pain had higher annual incremental healthcare costs than those without these conditions (mean difference: $3800 higher, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 50-7550; mean difference: $740 higher, 95% CI: 470-1,010, respectively). In conclusion, the estimated annual economic burden of children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain ranged from $124 to $69,351.

Pain catastrophising and kinesiophobia mediate pain and physical function improvements with Pilates exercise in chronic low back pain: a mediation analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

QUESTION: How much are the reductions in pain intensity and improvements in physical function from Pilates exercise mediated by changes in pain catastrophising and kinesiophobia? DESIGN: This was a secondary causal mediation analysis of a four-arm randomised controlled trial testing Pilates exercise dosage (once, twice or thrice per week) against a booklet control. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and fifty-five people with chronic low back pain. DATA ANALYSIS: All analyses were conducted in R software (version 4.1.2) following a preregistered analysis plan. A directed acyclic graph was constructed to identify potential pre-treatment mediator-outcome confounders. For each mediator model, we estimated the intervention-mediator effect, the mediator-outcome effect, the total natural indirect effect (TNIE), the pure natural direct effect (PNDE), and the total effect (TE). RESULTS: Pain catastrophising mediated the effect of Pilates exercise compared with control on the outcomes pain intensity (TNIE MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.03) and physical function (TNIE MD -0.64, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.18). Kinesiophobia mediated the effect of Pilates exercise compared with control on the outcomes pain intensity (TNIE MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.02) and physical function (TNIE MD -1.06, 95% CI -1.70 to -0.49). The proportion mediated by each mediator was moderate (21 to 55%). CONCLUSION: Reductions in pain catastrophising and kinesiophobia partially mediated the pathway to improved pain intensity and physical function when using Pilates exercise for chronic low back pain. These psychological components may be important treatment targets for clinicians and researchers to consider when prescribing exercise for chronic low back pain.

Implementation of an online pain science education for chronic musculoskeletal pain in Brazilian public health system: protocol for a hybrid type III randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Although clinical practice guidelines recommend pain education as the first-line option for the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain, there is a lack of pain education programmes in healthcare. Thus, digital health programmes can be an effective tool for implementing pain education strategies for public health. This trial will aim to analyse the implementation and effectiveness outcomes of three online pain science education strategies in the Brazilian public health system (SUS) for individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: We will conduct a hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation. We will include adult individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain, recruited from primary healthcare in the city of Guarapuava, Brazil. Individuals will be randomised to three implementation groups receiving a pain science education intervention (EducaDor) but delivered in different modalities: group 1) synchronous online; group 2) asynchronous videos; and group 3) interactive e-book only. Implementation outcomes will include acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption, fidelity, penetration, sustainability, and costs. We will also assess effectiveness outcomes, such as pain, function, quality of life, sleep, self-efficacy, and adverse effects. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses will be conducted from the SUS and societal perspectives. The evaluations will be done at baseline, post-intervention (10 weeks), and 6 months. DISCUSSION: This study will develop and implement a collaborative intervention model involving primary healthcare professionals, secondary-level healthcare providers, and patients to enhance self-management of chronic pain. In addition to promoting better pain management, this study will also contribute to the field of implementation science in public health by generating important insights and recommendations for future interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05302180; 03/29/2022).

Matching the Outcomes to Treatment Targets of Exercise for Low Back Pain: Does it Make a Difference? Results of Secondary Analyses From Individual Patient Data of Randomised Controlled Trials and Pooling of Results Across Trials in Comparative Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether using a single matched or composite outcome might affect the results of previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing exercise for non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). The first objective was to explore whether a single matched outcome generated greater standardized mean differences (SMDs) when compared with the original unmatched primary outcome SMD. The second objective was to explore whether a composite measure, composed of matched outcomes, generated a greater SMD when compared with the original primary outcome SMD. DESIGN: We conducted exploratory secondary analyses of data. SETTING: Seven RCTs were included, of which 2 were based in the USA (University research clinic, Veterans Affairs medical center) and the UK (primary care clinics, nonmedical centers). One each were based in Norway (clinics), Brazil (primary care), and Japan (outpatient clinics). PARTICIPANTS: The first analysis comprised 1) 5 RCTs (n=1033) that used an unmatched primary outcome but included (some) matched outcomes as secondary outcomes, and the second analysis comprised 2) 4 RCTs (n=864) that included multiple matched outcomes by developing composite outcomes (N=1897). INTERVENTION: Exercise compared with no exercise. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The composite consisted of standardized averaged matched outcomes. All analyses replicated the RCTs' primary outcome analyses. RESULTS: Of 5 RCTs, 3 had greater SMDs with matched outcomes (pooled effect SMD 0.30 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.04, 0.56], P=.02) compared with an unmatched primary outcome (pooled effect SMD 0.19 [95% CI -0.03, 0.40] P=.09). Of 4 composite outcome analyses, 3 RCTs had greater SMDs in the composite outcome (pooled effect SMD 0.28 [95% CI 0.05, 0.51] P=.02) compared with the primary outcome (pooled effect SMD 0.24 [95% CI -0.04, 0.53] P=.10). CONCLUSIONS: These exploratory analyses suggest that using an outcome matched to exercise treatment targets in NSLBP RCTs may produce greater SMDs than an unmatched primary outcome. Composite outcomes could offer a meaningful way of investigating superiority of exercise than single domain outcomes.

Do patients with fibromyalgia have body image and tactile acuity distortion?

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were twofold: (1) to compare the body image and tactile acuity of patients with fibromyalgia and asymptomatic participants, and (2) to investigate the effects of an 8-week exercise-based intervention (aerobic or Pilates exercises) on the body image, tactile acuity, and pain intensity in patients with fibromyalgia. METHODS: A cross-sectional study and a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial were carried out, which assessed the following outcomes in 24 patients with fibromyalgia and 24 asymptomatic participants: subjective body image (Drawing Test), tactile acuity (Two-Point Discrimination Test), limb circumference (Cirtometry), and pain (Pain Numerical Rating Scale). After the assessment, the 24 patients with fibromyalgia were randomly allocated to one of the intervention groups: aerobic or Pilates. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the tactile acuity of the cervical, lumbar, hands, and feet regions between the participants with fibromyalgia and the asymptomatic participants (p > 0.05). However, patients with fibromyalgia showed changes in subjective body image when the drawings were compared to the cirtometry measurements. After the intervention, there was no significant difference between aerobic exercise and Pilates for pain and tactile acuity in the cervical, lumbar, hands, and feet regions of patients with fibromyalgia (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with fibromyalgia presented altered perception in subjective body image but not on tactile acuity, when compared to asymptomatic participants. In addition, there was no difference between aerobic exercise and Pilates for pain and tactile acuity in these patients.

Cost-effectiveness and implementation process of a running-related injury prevention program (RunIn3): Protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Running is one of the most popular and accessible physical activities in the world. However, running-related injuries are unfortunately very common. Scientific evidence is limited and scarce regarding (cost-)effectiveness and implementation process of interventions for running-related injuries prevention. Thus, the objective of this study will be to investigate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and implementation process of a running-related injury prevention program (RunIn3). METHODS: This is the protocol of a pragmatic hybrid type 1 randomized controlled trial. There will be 530 runners over 18 years old, without running-related injuries in the last 3 months from São Paulo, Brazil. This program will be delivered online with two broad actions: (1) to provide feedback on individual training characteristics and running-related injury risk; and (2) providing/enhancing knowledge, skills and self-efficacy on running-related injury preventive behaviors. The primary outcome will be the proportion of runners reporting running-related injuries. The secondary outcomes will be preventive behaviors, direct and indirect costs, and implementation outcomes. The main effectiveness analysis on the primary outcome will be performed using linear probability mixed models in order to allow outcome changes over time and to yield the absolute risk reduction between-groups. DISCUSSION: The main hypothesis of this study is that the RunIn3 program will be effective in reducing the running-related injury risk and in promoting preventive behavior, either by increasing the frequency of healthy behaviors or by reducing the frequency of risk behaviors. Moreover, if the RunIn3 program is effective in reducing the running-related injuries risk, we believe that this effect would go alongside with a reduction of societal costs. TRAIL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03892239) Registered 5 February 2019 - Prospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03892239.

Evaluation of the efficacy of an internet-based pain education and exercise program for chronic musculoskeletal pain in comparison with online self-management booklet: a protocol of a randomised controlled trial with assessor-blinded, 12-month follow-up, and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is one of the main causes of years lived with disability and generates the highest cost of health care among chronic pain conditions. Internet-based treatments have been shown to be an alternative for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions, in addition to reducing barriers such as travel, high demands on the public health system, lack of time, lack of insurance coverage for private care, and high costs for long-term treatment. The aim of this clinical trial is to develop and test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of, an internet-based self-management program based on pain education and exercise for people with chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: This is a prospectively registered, assessor-blinded, two-arm randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation comparing the Internet-based pain education and exercise intervention with a control group that will receive an online booklet. One hundred and sixty patients will be recruited from Sao Paulo, Brazil. Follow-ups will be conducted in post-treatment, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The conduct of the study, as well as the evaluations and follow-ups will be carried out entirely remotely, through online platforms and telephone calls. The primary outcome will be pain intensity at post-treatment (8 weeks) measured using the 11-item Pain Numerical Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes will be biopsychosocial factors presents in the chronic musculoskeletal pain condition. Costs due to chronic musculoskeletal pain will be also measured, and cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective will performed. DISCUSSION: Our hypothesis is that internet-based pain education and exercise will be better than an online booklet in reducing pain and improving biopsychosocial outcomes in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. In addition, we believe that there will be good acceptance of patients for the internet-based intervention and that internet-based intervention will be more cost effective than the online booklet. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04274439 , registered 18 February 2020).

Efficacy of the Pilates method for pain and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the available evidence on the efficacy of the Pilates method in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. METHOD: Searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, SciELO, LILACS, CINAHL and CENTRAL in March 2013. Randomized controlled trials that tested the effectiveness of the Pilates method (against a nontreatment group, minimal intervention or other types of interventions) in adults with chronic low back pain were included regardless the language of publication. The outcome data were extracted from the eligible studies and were combined using a meta-analysis approach. RESULTS: The searches identified a total of 1,545 articles. From these, eight trials were considered eligible, and seven trials were combined in the meta-analysis. The comparison groups were as follows: Pilates versus other types of exercises (n=2 trials), and Pilates versus no treatment group or minimal intervention (n=4 trials) for short term pain; Pilates versus minimal intervention for short-term disability (n=4).We determined that Pilates was not better than other types of exercises for reducing pain intensity. However, Pilates was better than a minimal intervention for reducing short-term pain and disability (pain: pooled mean difference=1.6 points; 95% CI 1.4 to 1.8; disability: pooled mean difference=5.2 points; 95% CI 4.3 to 6.1). CONCLUSIONS: Pilates was better than a minimal intervention for reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain. Pilates was not better than other types of exercise for short-term pain reduction.

Efficacy of the Pilates method for pain and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis / Eficacia do metodo Pilates considerando dor e incapacidade em pacientes com dor lombar cronica nao especifica: uma revisao sistematica com metanalise

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the available evidence on the efficacy of the Pilates method in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. METHOD: Searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, SciELO, LILACS, CINAHL and CENTRAL in March 2013. Randomized controlled trials that tested the effectiveness of the Pilates method (against a nontreatment group, minimal intervention or other types of interventions) in adults with chronic low back pain were included regardless the language of publication. The outcome data were extracted from the eligible studies and were combined using a meta-analysis approach. RESULTS: The searches identified a total of 1,545 articles. From these, eight trials were considered eligible, and seven trials were combined in the meta-analysis. The comparison groups were as follows: Pilates versus other types of exercises (n=2 trials), and Pilates versus no treatment group or minimal intervention (n=4 trials) for short term pain; Pilates versus minimal intervention for short-term disability (n=4).We determined that Pilates was not better than other types of exercises for reducing pain intensity. However, Pilates was better than a minimal intervention for reducing short-term pain and disability (pain: pooled mean difference=1.6 points; 95% CI 1.4 to 1.8; disability: pooled mean difference=5.2 points; 95% CI 4.3 to 6.1). CONCLUSIONS: Pilates was better than a minimal intervention for reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain. Pilates was not better than other types of exercise for short-term pain reduction. .

OBJETIVOS: Revisar estudos controlados aleatorizados sobre a eficácia do método Pilates no tratamento da dor lombar crônica não específica. MÉTODO: Buscas foram realizadas nas bases de dados MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, SciELO, LILACS, CINAHL e CENTRAL em março de 2013. Foram selecionados apenas estudos controlados aleatorizados em adultos com dor lombar crônica não específica, cujo tratamento foi baseado no método Pilates comparado com nenhuma intervenção ou intervenção mínima, outros tipos de intervenção ou exercícios, sem restrição ao idioma de publicação. Os dados referentes à dor e incapacidade foram extraídos de textos, tabelase figuraspara combinação por metanálise. RESULTADOS: Dos 1545 artigos encontrados, oito foram considerados elegíveis e sete foram incluídos na metanálise. Dois estudos compararam o método Pilates com outros exercícios, e quatro estudos compararam com nenhuma intervenção ou intervenção mínima para dor a curto prazo; quatro estudos compararam o método Pilates com intervenção mínima para incapacidade a curto prazo. Na metanálise, houve diferença significante para dor e incapacidade na comparação com nenhuma intervenção ou intervenção mínima (diferença entre médias=1,6 pontos; IC 95% 1,4 a 1,8; diferença entre médias=5,2 pontos; IC 95% 4,3 a 6,1; respectivamente). O método Pilates não foi superior para o desfecho dor com relação a outros exercícios a curto prazo. CONCLUSÃO: Sugere-se que o método Pilates é mais eficaz que intervenção mínima para melhora da dor e incapacidade a curto prazo. O método Pilates não é mais eficaz que outros tipos de exercícios para melhora ...

Efficacy of the addition of modified Pilates exercises to a minimal intervention in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Pilates method has been used to improve function and reduce pain in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain, although there is little scientific evidence that describes its efficacy. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of the addition of modified Pilates exercises to minimal intervention in patients with chronic low back pain. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial was conducted. SETTING: The study was done in an outpatient physical therapy department in Brazil. PATIENTS: Eighty-six patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain participated in the study. INTERVENTION: All participants received an education booklet containing information about low back pain and were randomly allocated to receive 12 sessions, over 6 weeks, of exercises based upon Pilates principles (n=43) or of education alone (n=43). MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability measured at 6 weeks and 6 months. Secondary outcomes were patient-specific functional disability, global impression of recovery, and kinesiophobia measured at 6 weeks and 6 months. All outcomes were measured by a blinded assessor in all time points. RESULTS: There was no loss to follow-up at any of the time points. Improvements were observed in pain (mean difference=2.2 points, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.1 to 3.2), disability (mean difference=2.7 points, 95% CI=1.0 to 4.4), and global impression of recovery (mean difference=-1.5 points, 95% CI=-2.6 to -0.4) in favor of the Pilates group after intervention, but these differences were no longer statistically significant at 6 months. LIMITATIONS: Treatment provider and participants could not be blinded to the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of modified Pilates exercises to an educational booklet provides small benefits compared with education alone in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain; however, these effects were not sustained over time.

The efficacy of the addition of the Pilates method over a minimal intervention in the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain: a study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: There is little high-quality evidence on the efficacy of the Pilates-based exercises for the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to present a study protocol to investigate the efficacy of adding Pilates-based exercises to a minimum intervention in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial will recruit 86 patients of both sexes, aged between 18 and 60 years, with chronic non-specific low back pain. The participants will be randomly allocated into 2 treatment groups: the Booklet Group, which will receive a booklet with postural orientations, and the Pilates Group, which will receive the same booklet in addition to a Pilates-based exercises program. The general and specific functional capacities of the patient, kinesiophobia, pain intensity, and the global perceived effect will be evaluated by a blinded assessor before randomization and at 6 weeks and 6 months after randomization. In addition, the expectations of the participants and their confidence in the treatment will be evaluated before the randomization and after the first treatment session, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It is hoped that the results of this study will provide high-quality evidence on the usefulness of Pilates-based exercises in the treatment of chronic non-specific low back pain.