Leisure-Time Physical Activity Participation in Middle-Aged and Older Adults With a Spinal Cord Injury in Australia.

Objectives: Adults with spinal cord injury (SCI) are often sedentary, increasing their risk of cardiometabolic diseases. Leisure-time Physical Activity (LTPA) is physical activity completed during recreation time for enjoyment. We aimed to quantify LTPA in people ≥45 years with SCI and to explore its relationship with participants' characteristics. Methods: This is a secondary analysis on a subset of the Australian International SCI Survey in participants ≥45 years, at least 12 months post-injury. We described levels of LTPA and used multivariable regressions to estimate the associations between participant characteristics and LTPA. Results: Of 1,281 participants (mean age: 62.7 years, mean time since injury: 18.7 years; 74% males) 44% reported no participation in LTPA. The average LTPA participation was 197 (SD 352) minutes per week (median: 50). Females (ß = -62.3, 95% CI [-112.9, -11.7]), and participants with non-traumatic injuries (ß = -105.2, 95% CI [-165.9, -44.6]) performed less LTPA. Time since injury was not associated with moderate-to-heavy LTPA (LR: Probability > F = 0.785). Conclusion: LTPA promotion in the SCI population ≥45 years focusing on females and non-traumatic injuries is warranted.

Beliefs regarding the use of imaging among patients with low back pain: A cross-sectional study in the context of a middle-income country.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with low back pain may play an active role in the prescription of excessive spine imaging. OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of patients with low back pain who have beliefs not aligned with current evidence regarding the use of imaging and to identify factors associated with these beliefs. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of baseline data of a previously published randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Outpatient physical therapy clinic in a middle-income country. PATIENTS: Individuals with non-specific low back pain. METHODS: Outcome variables were two statements assessing the extent of patient agreement on the need for imaging in the management of low back pain. The predictor variables were age, educational level, duration of symptoms, disability level, pain intensity in the last 24 hours, beliefs about inevitable consequences of low back pain (assessed using the Back Belief Questionnaire), and having received imaging previously. Multivariable logistic models were used for data analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Level of agreement with Statement 1: X-rays or scans are necessary to get the best medical care for low back pain and Statement 2: Everyone with low back pain should have spine imaging. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients were included. Of these, 88.1% believed that imaging was necessary for the best medical care for low back pain and 62.9% believed that everyone with low back pain should obtain imaging. Lower scores on the Back Belief Questionnaire were associated with beliefs that imaging was necessary (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81, 0.99) and low education level was associated with the belief that everyone with low back pain should obtain imaging (OR = 3.03, 95% CI: 1.38, 6.61), after controlling for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: Nearly 90% of patients believe that spine imaging is necessary for the management of low back pain. Beliefs about the inevitable consequences of low back pain and low education level may be factors that need to be considered when developing new interventions.

Are Middle- or Older-Aged Adults With a Spinal Cord Injury Engaging in Leisure-Time Physical Activity? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objectives: To investigate the amount of Leisure-Time Physical Activity (LTPA) that people over 45 years with a spinal cord injury (SCI) performed and to determine the frequency, duration, intensity, and modality of LTPA performed. Data Sources: We searched 5 major electronic databases (CINAHL, SCOPUS, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed) from inception to March 2023. Study Selection: Cross-sectional, longitudinal studies and control arm of controlled trials that assessed LTPA in participants over 45 years old, with a SCI. We included 19 studies in the review and 11 in the meta-analysis. Data Extraction: We followed the PRISMA checklist for Systematic Reviews. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data on participants' demographics, injury characteristics, and LTPA participation of the included studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanne Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies. Any conflicts were resolved by a third author. Data Synthesis: We found considerable variability in LTPA participation in adults 45 years and older with SCI. An estimated 27%-64% of participants did not take part in any LTPA. A random effects meta-analysis model was completed for studies that reported total or moderate-to-heavy LTPA scores in minutes per week. Overall, participants (n=1675) engaged in 260 [205;329] (mean [95% CI]) mins/week of total LTPA. Those participating in moderate-heavy intensity LTPA (n=364) completed 173 [118; 255] (mean [95% CI]) mins/week. LTPA modalities included walking, wheeling, hand-cycling, basketball, and swimming, among others. Conclusions: While many older adults with SCI seem to be meeting the recommended weekly physical activity volume, many still remain sedentary. There was significant variation in reporting of frequency, intensity, and duration of LTPA and reporting on modality was limited. Because of differences in reporting, it was challenging to compare results across studies. Data constraints prevented subgroup analysis of LTPA disparities between paraplegia and tetraplegia.

Corrigendum to "Effect of exercise therapy in patients with hip osteoarthritis: A systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis" [Osteoarthr Cartil Open 5 (2023) 100338].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.ocarto.2023.100338.].

Sleep as a prognostic factor in low back pain: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies and secondary analyses of randomized controlled trials.

Sleep problems are common in individuals with low back pain (LBP) and sleep restriction seems to be associated with impaired pain processing. Our objective was to investigate whether sleep is associated with future LBP outcomes (i.e. pain intensity, disability, and recovery) in adults. We conducted a systematic review of prospective cohort studies and secondary analyses of randomized controlled trials (registration-PROSPERO CRD42022370781). In December 2022, we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases. Fourteen studies, totaling 19 170 participants were included. Thirteen studies were rated as having high risk of bias (QUIPS tool). We used vote-counting and meta-analysis approaches to synthesize the data. We found associations between baseline sleep with future pain intensity, recovery, and between changes in sleep with changes in pain intensity, changes in disability, and recovery. We further synthesized outcomes as "overall LBP improvement" outcomes. Baseline poor sleep was moderately associated with non-improvement in LBP in the long-very long term (OR 1.55, 95% CI: 1.39 to 1.73; three studies providing unadjusted effect sizes), and non-improvement in sleep was largely associated with non-improvement in LBP in the short-moderate term (OR 3.45, 95% CI: 2.54 to 4.69; four studies providing unadjusted effect sizes). We found no association between baseline sleep with future disability and overall LBP improvement in the short-moderate term. Therefore, sleep may be a prognostic factor for pain intensity and recovery from LBP. All findings were supported by low to very low-quality evidence. Better-conducted studies are needed to strengthen our certainty about the evidence.

Description of massage interventions in randomised clinical trials for neck pain; a review using the TIDieR checklist.

OBJECTIVE: How interventions are reported can impact the ability to implement these intervention in clinical practice. Therefore, our aim is to assess the reporting of massage interventions in randomised controlled trials for patients with neck pain. DATA SOURCES: This manuscript concerns a secondary analysis of trials evaluating massage for neck pain selected for a scoping review. An updated literature search was completed using four databases to 31 July 2023. REVIEW METHODS: Trials were selected that evaluate massage interventions. Two independent assessors extracted descriptive information, methodological quality (PEDro-scale) and assessed completeness of reporting of the intervention using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDier-checklist). We present frequencies of the extracted data. RESULTS: We included 35 trials (2840 patients) with neck pain. Most trials (n = 23) included patients with chronic non-specific neck pain. We found a wide variety of massage interventions from Chinese massage, Swedish massage to myofascial release. In addition, the dose, number of sessions and the duration of the intervention varied widely. The methodological quality overall was fair to good (varied between 4-8/10), and we found a moderate completeness of reporting. All trials provided the name of the intervention, 30 (86%) provided a rationale and 26 (74%) trials described details of the massage intervention. CONCLUSION: The massage interventions were moderately described in trials in patients with neck pain, but provided enough information to guide the decision making for designing future Network Meta-analysis as to what trials need to be considered when grouping massage interventions in a clinically relevant way.

Clinical validation of grouping conservative treatments in neck pain for use in a network meta-analysis: a Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: A network meta-analysis aims to help clinicians make clinical decisions on the most effective treatment for a certain condition. Neck pain is multifactorial, with various classification systems and treatment options. Classifying patients and grouping interventions in clinically relevant treatment nodes for a NMA is essential, but this process is poorly defined. OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to obtain consensus among experts on neck pain classifications and the grouping of interventions into nodes for a future network meta-analysis. DESIGN: A Delphi consensus study involving neck pain experts worldwide. METHODS: We invited authors of neck pain clinical practice guidelines published from 2014 onwards. The Delphi baseline questionnaire was developed based on the findings of a scoping review, including four items on classifications and 19 nodes. Participants were asked to record their level of agreement on a seven-point Likert scale or using Yes/No/Not sure answer options for the various statements. We used descriptive analysis to summarise the responses on each statement with content analysis of the free-text comments. RESULTS: In total, 18/80 experts (22.5%) agreed to participate in one or more Delphi rounds. We needed three rounds to reach consensus for two classification of neck pain: one based on aetiology and one on duration. In addition, we also reached consensus on the grouping of interventions, including a definition of each node, with the number of nodes reduced to 17. CONCLUSION: With this consensus we clinically validated two neck pain classifications and grouped conservative treatments into 17 well-defined and clinically relevant nodes.

Test procedures and positive diagnostic criteria of the upper limb tension tests differ: a systematic review of the DiTA database.

BACKGROUND: The validity of the ULTT is unclear, due to heterogeneity of test procedures and variability in the definition of a positive test OBJECTIVE: To evaluate test procedures and positive diagnostic criteria for the upper limb tension test (ULTT) in diagnostic test accuracy studies. METHODS: A systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies was performed. We conducted a search of the DiTA (Diagnostic Test Accuracy) database and selected primary studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of the ULTT. We assessed risk of bias, performed data extraction on study characteristics, test procedures, and positive diagnostic criteria, and performed a descriptive analysis. RESULTS: We included nine studies (681 participants), four diagnosing people with cervical radiculopathy (CR), four diagnosing people with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), and one included both CR and CTS. The risk of bias varied between 2 and 6 out of 6 positive items. Eight studies reported on the ULTT1 (median nerve). Overall, all studies clearly described their test procedures and positive diagnostic criteria although the order of movements and the diagnostic criteria between studies varied. We suggest a more standardised test procedure for the ULTT1 to consist of: 1) stabilising the shoulder in abduction, 2) extending the wrist/fingers, 3) supinating the forearm, 4) externally rotating the shoulder, 5) extending the elbow, and finally 6) performed structural differentiation by side bending (lateral flexion) of the neck. This proposed test procedure should reproduce the symptoms and enables the clinician to evaluate whether symptoms increase/decrease when stressing or relaxing the nerves. CONCLUSION: Based on our findings we proposed a more standardised test procedure for the ULTT1 with accompanying positive diagnostic criteria to facilitate homogeneity in future diagnostic accuracy studies of the ULTT.

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.

Treatment classifications and interventions for neck pain: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim is to provide an overview of how neck pain is classified in the literature, define and group conservative interventions into 'nodes', and develop draft networks of interventions in preparation for a network meta-analysis (NMA). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: We performed a scoping review. For feasibility reasons, we searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) via neck pain clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published from 2014. We used standardized data extraction forms to extract data about classification of neck pain and interventions evaluated in the included RCTs. We calculated frequencies of neck pain classifications and grouped interventions into nodes based on the definitions used in Cochrane reviews. Draft network graphs comparing interventions were constructed using the online Shiny R application CINEMA. RESULTS: We included 242 RCTs from seven CPGs, evaluating 28,581 patients. We found three different classification systems of which The Neck Pain Task Force classification was used most often. We defined and grouped all interventions into 19 discrete potential nodes. CONCLUSION: We found a wide variation in neck pain classifications and conservative interventions. Grouping the interventions was challenging and needs further evaluation before conducting a final NMA.

Can patients and clinicians find conservative management protocols of anterior cruciate ligament injuries online? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically search the internet for conservative rehabilitation protocols for people with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and critically appraise the websites and exercise protocols. DESIGN: Systematic review of online rehabilitation protocols. SEARCH: We searched four online search-engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo). SELECTION CRITERIA: Rehabilitation protocols on active, English language websites aimed at conservative (non-surgical) management of an ACL injury. DATA SYNTHESIS: We extracted descriptive information and assessed quality of the websites using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, the Health on the Net Code (HONcode) certificate, and the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FKRE). We assessed completeness of exercise protocol reporting using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT). We performed a descriptive analysis. RESULTS: We found 14 websites that met our selection criteria. The protocols varied between 10 and 26 weeks duration, nine were from the United States, five targeted patients, and 13 used multiple phases with a variety of different criteria for progression. Three protocols scored good quality with the JAMA, two were HonCode certified, and ten had good readability according to the FKRE. Completeness of exercise protocol reporting in all but one protocol was poor according to the CERT. CONCLUSION: Few rehabilitation protocols for conservative management of ACL injuries were available online. Most of the websites showed good readability, but poor quality and credibility with inadequate description of exercise protocols.

Effect of exercise therapy in patients with hip osteoarthritis: A systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis.

Objective: To evaluate the existing evidence on the effect of exercise therapy in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) compared to no treatment and explore whether a further trial will change the current evidence. Design: Systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis using randomized controlled trials (RCT) to determine the effect on pain and function post-treatment, and at 6-9 months after treatment. Standardized mean difference (SMD) â€‹≤ â€‹-0.37 was considered clinically worthwhile. Extended funnel plots were used to simulate the impact of a new trial on the pooled effect size of pain and function. Results: 18 RCTs were included. Post-treatment we found a beneficial effect of exercise therapy on pain (SMD -0.38, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.55 to -0.22) and function (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.11). A beneficial effect of exercise therapy on pain (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: 0.41 to -0.05) and function (SMD -0.29, 95% CI: 0.45 to -0.12) was found 6-9 months after treatment. Most effect estimates were small, and it is unclear whether these are clinically meaningful. Extended funnel plots and a simulation of a new trial showed that only a new trial with a larger effect than the current pooled effect or a trial including 74,843 participants would change the pooled effect estimate from an unclear to a clearly clinically worthwhile effect. Conclusions: We found a beneficial effect of exercise therapy on pain and function in hip OA. It is unlikely a new trial added to current evidence will change the conclusion.

Identifying common core outcome domains from core outcome sets of musculoskeletal conditions: protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets (COSs) aim to reduce outcome heterogeneity in clinical practice and research by suggesting a minimum number of agreed-upon outcomes in clinical trials. Most COSs in the musculoskeletal field are developed for specific conditions. We propose that there are likely to be common core domains within existing musculoskeletal COSs that may be used as a starting point in the development of future COSs. We aim to identify common core domains from existing COSs and to facilitate the development of new COSs for musculoskeletal conditions. As a secondary aim, we will assess the development quality of these COSs. METHODS: A systematic review including musculoskeletal COSs. We will search Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Methodology Register and International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement (ICHOM). Studies will be included if related to the development of a COS in adults with musculoskeletal conditions and for any type of intervention. Quality will be assessed using the Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development (COS-STAD) recommendations. Data extracted will include scope of the COS, health condition, interventions and outcome domains. Primary outcomes will be all core domains recommended within each COS. We define a common core outcome domain as one present in at least 67% of all COSs. All findings will be summarized and presented using descriptive statistics. DISCUSSION: This systematic review of COSs will describe the core domains recommended within each musculoskeletal COS. Common domains found may be used in the initial stages of development of future musculoskeletal COSs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021239141.

The Working Alliance Inventory's Measurement Properties: A Systematic Review.

Measurement properties of the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI) and its various translations and adaptations for specific target groups have been investigated for over 30 years. No systematic review analyzing studies on measurement properties of the WAI has been conducted to date. COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurements INstruments (COSMIN) were developed for conducting high-quality systematic reviews on measurement properties in a transparent and standardized way. Aim of this study was to systematically review studies on measurement properties of the WAI, and its adapted versions, within psychotherapy, and other healthcare contexts using COSMIN criteria. PsycINFO, Medline, and EMBASE were searched (1989-2021). In all phases of the review procedure, study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, rating of the quality of measurement properties, and rating of the quality of evidence for measurement properties, disagreement between reviewers was resolved by discussion. Results on validity, internal structure, reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness were analyzed. In total 66 studies were included. In most studies, evidence for measurement properties was according to COSMIN criteria, insufficient, lacking, or conflicting. Content validity was rated insufficient because neither patients nor healthcare professionals were involved in the development and validation process. Hence evidence for content validity of the WAI is unknown. Conflicting evidence was found for structural validity. Evidence for internal consistency could not be established. Limited evidence was found for inter-rater reliability and convergent validity. Conflicting evidence was also found for test-retest reliability and divergent validity. COSMIN criteria exposed persistent problems in validation studies of the WAI. These findings may indicate that measurement properties of the WAI are not up to current standards, or that COSMIN criteria may be less appropriate for assessing measurement properties of the WAI, or it could indicate both. The results of this systematic review suggest that WAI outcomes should be interpreted with caution and further research is needed regarding the content validity and hypotheses development. For the future, the theoretical framework underlying the measurement of the working alliance needs to be studied in psychotherapy and other health contexts, and tested in methodologically sound studies. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42019051428.

Classification criteria for cervical radiculopathy: An international e-Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Establishing a set of uniform classification criteria (CC) for cervical radiculopathy (CR) is required to aid future recruitment of homogenous populations to clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To establish expert informed consensus on CC for CR. DESIGN: A pre-defined four round e-Delphi study in accordance with the guidance on Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies. METHODS: Individuals with a background in physiotherapy who had authored two or more peer-reviewed publications on CR were invited to participate. The initial round asked opinions on CC for CR. Content analysis was performed on round one output and a list of discrete items were generated forming the round two survey. In rounds two to four, participants were asked to rate the level of importance of each item on a six-point Likert scale. Data were analysed descriptively using median, interquartile range and percentage agreement. Items reaching pre-defined consensus criteria were carried forward to the next round. Items remaining after the fourth round constituted expert consensus on CC for CR. RESULTS: Twelve participants participated with one drop out. The final round identified one inclusion CC and 12 exclusion CC. The inclusion CC that remained achieved 82% agreement and was a cluster criterion consisting of radicular pain with arm pain worse than neck pain; paraesthesia or numbness and/or weakness and/or altered reflex; MRI confirmed nerve root compression compatible with clinical findings. CONCLUSIONS: The CC identified can be used to inform eligibility criteria for future CR trials although caution should be practiced as consensus on measurement tools requires further investigation.