Effectiveness of Telemedicine for Musculoskeletal Disorders: Umbrella Review.

BACKGROUND: Several systematic reviews (SRs) assessing the use of telemedicine for musculoskeletal conditions have been published in recent years. However, the landscape of evidence on multiple clinical outcomes remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to summarize the available evidence from SRs on telemedicine for musculoskeletal disorders. METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review of SRs with and without meta-analysis by searching PubMed and EMBASE up to July 25, 2022, for SRs of randomized controlled trials assessing telemedicine. We collected any kind of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), and objective measures, including direct and indirect costs. We assessed the methodological quality with the AMSTAR 2 tool (A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2). Findings were reported qualitatively. RESULTS: Overall, 35 SRs published between 2015 and 2022 were included. Most reviews (n=24, 69%) were rated as critically low quality by AMSTAR 2. The majority of reviews assessed "telerehabilitation" (n=29) in patients with osteoarthritis (n=13) using PROMs (n=142 outcomes mapped with n=60 meta-analyses). A substantive body of evidence from meta-analyses found telemedicine to be beneficial or equal in terms of PROMs compared to conventional care (n=57 meta-analyses). Meta-analyses showed no differences between groups in PREMs (n=4), while objectives measures (ie, "physical function") were mainly in favor of telemedicine or showed no difference (9/13). All SRs showed notably lower costs for telemedicine compared to in-person visits. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine can provide more accessible health care with noninferior results for various clinical outcomes in comparison with conventional care. The assessment of telemedicine is largely represented by PROMs, with some gaps for PREMs, objective measures, and costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022347366; https://osf.io/pxedm/.

Comparative accuracy of ChatGPT-4, Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini in the Italian entrance test for healthcare sciences degrees: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are emerging educational tools for students in healthcare science. However, assessing their accuracy is essential prior to adoption in educational settings. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of predicting the correct answers from three AI chatbots (ChatGPT-4, Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini) in the Italian entrance standardized examination test of healthcare science degrees (CINECA test). Secondarily, we assessed the narrative coherence of the AI chatbots' responses (i.e., text output) based on three qualitative metrics: the logical rationale behind the chosen answer, the presence of information internal to the question, and presence of information external to the question. METHODS: An observational cross-sectional design was performed in September of 2023. Accuracy of the three chatbots was evaluated for the CINECA test, where questions were formatted using a multiple-choice structure with a single best answer. The outcome is binary (correct or incorrect). Chi-squared test and a post hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction assessed differences among chatbots performance in accuracy. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A sensitivity analysis was performed, excluding answers that were not applicable (e.g., images). Narrative coherence was analyzed by absolute and relative frequencies of correct answers and errors. RESULTS: Overall, of the 820 CINECA multiple-choice questions inputted into all chatbots, 20 questions were not imported in ChatGPT-4 (n = 808) and Google Gemini (n = 808) due to technical limitations. We found statistically significant differences in the ChatGPT-4 vs Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot vs Google Gemini comparisons (p-value < 0.001). The narrative coherence of AI chatbots revealed "Logical reasoning" as the prevalent correct answer (n = 622, 81.5%) and "Logical error" as the prevalent incorrect answer (n = 40, 88.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Our main findings reveal that: (A) AI chatbots performed well; (B) ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Copilot performed better than Google Gemini; and (C) their narrative coherence is primarily logical. Although AI chatbots showed promising accuracy in predicting the correct answer in the Italian entrance university standardized examination test, we encourage candidates to cautiously incorporate this new technology to supplement their learning rather than a primary resource. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not required.

Revolutionizing orthopedic healthcare: a systematic review unveiling recombinant antimicrobial peptides.

The increasing demand for orthopedic surgeries, including joint replacements, is driven by an aging population and improved diagnosis of joint conditions. Orthopedic surgeries carry a risk of infection, especially in patients with comorbidities. The rise of antibiotic resistance exacerbates this issue, necessitating alternatives like in vitro bioengineered antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), offering broad-spectrum activity and multiple action mechanisms. This review aimed to assess the prevalence of antimicrobial potential and the yield after purification among recombinant AMP families. The antimicrobial potential was evaluated using the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) values against the most common bacteria involved in clinical infections. This systematic review adhered to PRISMA guidelines, focusing on in vitro studies of recombinant AMPs. The search strategy was run on PubMed, Scopus and Embase up to 30th March 2023. The Population, Exposure and Outcome model was used to extract the data from studies and ToxRTool for the risk of bias analysis. This review included studies providing peptide production yield data and MIC values against pathogenic bacteria. Non-English texts, reviews, conference abstracts, books, studies focusing solely on chemical synthesis, those reporting incomplete data sets, using non-standard MIC assessment methods, or presenting MIC values as ranges rather than precise concentrations, were excluded. From 370 publications, 34 studies on AMPs were analyzed. These covered 46 AMPs across 18 families, with Defensins and Hepcidins being most common. Yields varied from 0.5 to 2,700 mg/L. AMPs were tested against 23 bacterial genera, with MIC values ranging from 0.125 to >1,152 µg/mL. Arenicins showed the highest antimicrobial activity, particularly against common orthopedic infection pathogens. However, AMP production yields varied and some AMPs demonstrated limited effectiveness against certain bacterial strains. This systematic review emphasizes the critical role of bioengineered AMPs to cope infections and antibiotic resistance. It meticulously evaluates recombinant AMPs, focusing on their antimicrobial efficacy and production yields. The review highlights that, despite the variability in AMP yields and effectiveness, Arenicins and Defensins are promising candidates for future research and clinical applications in treating antibiotic-resistant orthopedic infections. This study contributes significantly to the understanding of AMPs in healthcare, underscoring their potential in addressing the growing challenge of antibiotic resistance. Systematic review registration:https://osf.io/2uq4c/.

Evidence-informed and consensus-based statements about SAFEty of Physical Agent Modalities Practice in physiotherapy and rehabilitation medicine (SAFE PAMP): a national Delphi of healthcare scientific societies.

OBJECTIVE: A shared consensus on the safety about physical agent modalities (PAMs) practice in physiotherapy and rehabilitation is lacking. We aimed to develop evidence-informed and consensus-based statements about the safety of PAMs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A RAND-modified Delphi Rounds' survey was used to reach a consensus. We established a steering committee of the Italian Association of Physiotherapy (Associazione Italiana di Fisioterapia) to identify areas and questions for developing statements about the safety of the most commonly used PAMs in physiotherapy and rehabilitation. We invited 28 National Scientific and Technical Societies, including forensics and lay members, as a multidisciplinary and multiprofessional panel of experts to evaluate the nine proposed statements and formulate additional inputs. The level of agreement was measured using a 9-point Likert scale, with consensus in the Delphi Rounds assessed using the rating proportion with a threshold of 75%. RESULTS: Overall, 17 (61%) out of 28 scientific and technical societies participated, involving their most representative members. The panel of experts mainly consisted of clinicians (88%) with expertise in musculoskeletal (47%), pelvic floor (24%), neurological (18%) and lymphatic (6%) disorders with a median experience of 30 years (IQR=17-36). Two Delphi rounds were necessary to reach a consensus. The final approved criteria list comprised nine statements about the safety of nine PAMs (ie, electrical stimulation neuromodulation, extracorporeal shock wave therapy, laser therapy, electromagnetic therapy, diathermy, hot thermal agents, cryotherapy and therapeutic ultrasound) in adult patients with a general note about populations subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The resulting consensus-based statements inform patients, healthcare professionals and policy-makers regarding the safe application of PAMs in physiotherapy and rehabilitation practice. Future research is needed to extend this consensus on paediatric and frail populations, such as immunocompromised patients.

Wearable Devices to Improve Physical Activity and Reduce Sedentary Behaviour: An Umbrella Review.

BACKGROUND: Several systematic reviews (SRs), with and without meta-analyses, have investigated the use of wearable devices to improve physical activity, and there is a need for frequent and updated syntheses on the topic. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate whether using wearable devices increased physical activity and reduced sedentary behaviour in adults. METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review searching PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library, MedRxiv, Rxiv and bioRxiv databases up to February 5th, 2023. We included all SRs that evaluated the efficacy of interventions when wearable devices were used to measure physical activity in adults aged over 18 years. The primary outcomes were physical activity and sedentary behaviour measured as the number of steps per day, minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per week, and minutes of sedentary behaviour (SB) per day. We assessed the methodological quality of each SR using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR 2) and the certainty of evidence of each outcome measure using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations). We interpreted the results using a decision-making framework examining the clinical relevance and the concordances or discordances of the SR effect size. RESULTS: Fifty-one SRs were included, of which 38 included meta-analyses (302 unique primary studies). Of the included SRs, 72.5% were rated as 'critically low methodological quality'. Overall, with a slight overlap of primary studies (corrected cover area: 3.87% for steps per day, 3.12% for MVPA, 4.06% for SB) and low-to-moderate certainty of the evidence, the use of WDs may increase PA by a median of 1,312.23 (IQR 627-1854) steps per day and 57.8 (IQR 37.7 to 107.3) minutes per week of MVPA. Uncertainty is present for PA in pathologies and older adults subgroups and for SB in mixed and older adults subgroups (large confidence intervals). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the use of WDs may increase physical activity in middle-aged adults. Further studies are needed to investigate the effects of using WDs on specific subgroups (such as pathologies and older adults) in different follow-up lengths, and the role of other intervention components.

Performance of ChatGPT Compared to Clinical Practice Guidelines in Making Informed Decisions for Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: A Cross-sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of an artificial intelligence chatbot to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommendations for providing answers to complex clinical questions on lumbosacral radicular pain. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: We extracted recommendations from recent CPGs for diagnosing and treating lumbosacral radicular pain. Relative clinical questions were developed and queried to OpenAI's ChatGPT (GPT-3.5). We compared ChatGPT answers to CPGs recommendations by assessing the (1) internal consistency of ChatGPT answers by measuring the percentage of text wording similarity when a clinical question was posed 3 times, (2) reliability between 2 independent reviewers in grading ChatGPT answers, and (3) accuracy of ChatGPT answers compared to CPGs recommendations. Reliability was estimated using Fleiss' kappa (κ) coefficients, and accuracy by interobserver agreement as the frequency of the agreements among all judgments. RESULTS: We tested 9 clinical questions. The internal consistency of text ChatGPT answers was unacceptable across all 3 trials in all clinical questions (mean percentage of 49%, standard deviation of 15). Intrareliability (reviewer 1: κ = 0.90, standard error [SE] = 0.09; reviewer 2: κ = 0.90, SE = 0.10) and interreliability (κ = 0.85, SE = 0.15) between the 2 reviewers was "almost perfect." Accuracy between ChatGPT answers and CPGs recommendations was slight, demonstrating agreement in 33% of recommendations. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT performed poorly in internal consistency and accuracy of the indications generated compared to clinical practice guideline recommendations for lumbosacral radicular pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(3):1-7. Epub 29 January 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12151.

Substantial discrepancies exist between registered protocol and published manuscript in trials on exercise interventions for chronic low back pain: a metaresearch study.

OBJECTIVES: Reporting bias, prevalent in biomedical fields, can undermine evidence credibility. Our objective was to evaluate the proportion of discrepancies between registered protocols and published manuscripts in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on exercise interventions for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a cross-sectional meta-research study, starting from the 2021 "Exercise therapy for CLBP" Cochrane Review. We selected all RCTs reporting a protocol registration on a primary register of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) or in ClinicalTrials.gov. We extracted data from both registered protocol and published manuscript of RCTs, collecting recruitment and administrative information (eg, record dates) and details of trial characteristics (eg, outcomes, arms, statistical analysis plan details [SAPs]). Independent pairs of reviewers assessed discrepancies between registered protocol and published manuscript for the reporting of primary and secondary outcomes domains, measurement instruments, time-points, number of arms and SAPs(if attached). Outcome discrepancies were characterized as addition, omission, upgrade or downgrade. RESULTS: We included 116 RCTs reporting an available protocol registration. Overall, 100 RCTs (86.2%) distinguished between primary and secondary outcomes. Of these, 39 RCTs (39.0%) reported one or more discrepancies in primary outcomes, and 78 RCTs (78.0%) reported one or more discrepancies in secondary outcomes. Focusing on discrepancies for the primary outcome, 64.5% of added, upgraded or downgraded outcomes favored statistically significant effects. Few RCTs (n = 6) reported discrepancies in the number of arms. SAPs were poorly reported in the registered protocols (n = 3) for being compared to the publications. CONCLUSION: We found substantial outcome discrepancies comparing registered protocols and published manuscripts in RCTs assessing exercise interventions for patients with CLBP, with some impacting the statistical significance of the effects. Readers are encouraged to approach RCTs results in this field with caution.