Surgical interventions for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review with network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several surgical options for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) are available, but current guidelines do not recommend which one should be prioritized. Although previous network meta-analyses (NMAs) have been performed on this topic, they have major methodological problems and could not provide the convincing evidence and clinical practical information required. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two surgical interventions were included by searching AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE (inception to August 2023). A frequentist random-effects NMA was performed for physical function and adverse events due to any reason. For physical function, three follow-up time points were included: short-term (< 6 months post-intervention), mid-term (≥ 6 months but < 12 months), and long-term (≥ 12 months). Laminectomy was the reference comparison intervention. RESULTS: A total of 43 RCTs involving 5017 participants were included in the systematic review and 28 RCTs encompassing 14 types of surgical interventions were included in the NMA. For improving physical function (scale 0-100), endoscopic-assisted laminotomy (mean difference: - 8.61, 95% confidence interval: - 10.52 to - 6.69; moderate-quality evidence), laminectomy combined with Coflex (- 8.41, - 13.21 to - 3.61; moderate quality evidence), and X-stop (- 6.65, - 8.60 to - 4.71; low-quality evidence) had small effects at short-term follow-up; no statistical difference was observed at mid-term follow-up (very low- to low-quality evidence); at long-term follow-up, endoscopic-assisted laminotomy (- 7.02, - 12.95 to - 1.08; very low-quality evidence) and X-stop (- 10.04, - 18.16 to - 1.93; very low-quality evidence) had a small and moderate effect, respectively. Compared with laminectomy, endoscopic-assisted laminotomy was associated with fewer adverse events due to any reason (odds ratio: 0.27, 0.09 to 0.86; low-quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS: For adults with degenerative LSS, endoscopic-assisted laminotomy may be the safest and most effective intervention in improving physical function. However, the available data were insufficient to indicate whether the effect was sustainable after 6 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42018094180).

Variability in the prevalence of depression among adults with chronic pain: UK Biobank analysis through clinical prediction models.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of depression among people with chronic pain remains unclear due to the heterogeneity of study samples and definitions of depression. We aimed to identify sources of variation in the prevalence of depression among people with chronic pain and generate clinical prediction models to estimate the probability of depression among individuals with chronic pain. METHODS: Participants were from the UK Biobank. The primary outcome was a "lifetime" history of depression. The model's performance was evaluated using discrimination (optimism-corrected C statistic) and calibration (calibration plot). RESULTS: Analyses included 24,405 patients with chronic pain (mean age 64.1 years). Among participants with chronic widespread pain, the prevalence of having a "lifetime" history of depression was 45.7% and varied (25.0-66.7%) depending on patient characteristics. The final clinical prediction model (optimism-corrected C statistic: 0.66; good calibration on the calibration plot) included age, BMI, smoking status, physical activity, socioeconomic status, gender, history of asthma, history of heart failure, and history of peripheral artery disease. Among participants with chronic regional pain, the prevalence of having a "lifetime" history of depression was 30.2% and varied (21.4-70.6%) depending on patient characteristics. The final clinical prediction model (optimism-corrected C statistic: 0.65; good calibration on the calibration plot) included age, gender, nature of pain, smoking status, regular opioid use, history of asthma, pain location that bothers you most, and BMI. CONCLUSIONS: There was substantial variability in the prevalence of depression among patients with chronic pain. Clinically relevant factors were selected to develop prediction models. Clinicians can use these models to assess patients' treatment needs. These predictors are convenient to collect during daily practice, making it easy for busy clinicians to use them.

Health Coaching for Low Back Pain and Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Health coaching aims to empower people to reach their goals and is increasingly used in health care settings. Whether health coaching improves pain and disability for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) or low back pain (LBP) is unknown. METHODS: Six databases were searched for randomized controlled trials assessing health coaching or motivational programs in adults with hip or knee OA or LBP, with each condition investigated independently. Meta-analyses were performed with random-effects models in the Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager 5.3 program. RESULTS: Seventeen eligible studies were found. No studies analyzing hip OA alone were found. Pooled analyses found statistically significant decreases in mid-term pain (mean difference [MD]: -7.57; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -10.08 to -5.07; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%), short-term disability (standard mean difference [SMD]: -0.22; 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.03; P = 0.02, z = 2.32, I2 = 0%), and mid-term disability (SMD: -0.42; 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.09; P = 0.01, z = 2.49, I2 = 60%), favoring the intervention for chronic LBP. There were significant improvements in knee OA long-term functional disability (MD: -3.04; 95% CI: -5.70 to -0.38; P = 0.03; z = 2.24; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: Meta-analyses provide evidence that health coaching reduces both disability and pain in people with chronic LBP and reduces disability in people with knee OA, though the clinical significance is unknown. There is currently no evidence supporting or refuting the use of health coaching for hip OA.

Short-term impact of COVID-19 pandemic on low back pain: data from the PAMPA Cohort, Brazil.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the short-term impact of COVID-19 pandemic on low back pain (LBP) outcomes in southern Brazil. METHODS: Data from the PAMPA Cohort were analyzed. Adults were recruited between June and July 2020 in the Rio Grande do Sul state using online-based strategies. Participants responded a self-reported, online questionnaire on LBP with two timepoints: before (retrospectively) and during COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed LBP experience, LBP-related activity limitation (no/yes), and LBP intensity (0 to 10 [strongest pain]). RESULTS: From a total sample of 2,321 respondents (mean age: 37.6 ± 13.5; 75.4% women), the prevalence of LBP did not change significantly from before (74.7% [95%CI 72.3; 76.9]) to the first months of pandemic (74.2% [95%CI 71.9; 76.3]). However, an increased pain levels (ß: 0.40; 95%CI 0.22; 0.58) and a higher likelihood for activity limitation due to LBP was observed (PR 1.14; 95%CI 1.01; 1.29). Longitudinal analyzes showed that age, gender, BMI, chronic diseases, physical activity, and anxiety and depression symptoms, were associated with LBP in the first pandemic months. CONCLUSION: Although the prevalence of LBP did not change at the first months of COVID-19 pandemic, LBP-induced impairment in daily activities and pain intensity was higher when compared to before the pandemic.

The smallest worthwhile change on function from a self-management intervention for non-persistent low back pain.

PURPOSE: To determine: (1) the smallest change in function patients would need to see following a self-management intervention for low back pain (LBP) to consider it worthwhile; (2) the association between patient-related factors and the magnitude of the smallest worthwhile change. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 212 participants of the TEXT4myBACK randomised trial was conducted. At baseline, participants nominated the smallest change in function (0-30 scale) following a self-management program they would need to reach to consider it worthwhile. A multivariate regression model estimated the effects of demographic, comorbidities, lifestyle and LBP-related factors on the smallest worthwhile change estimates. RESULTS: On average, people with LBP need to experience an improvement of at least 9.4 points (SD: 5.7) in function to consider a self-management intervention worthwhile. Only baseline function severity was significantly associated with the smallest worthwhile estimate (-0.60; 95%CI - 0.76, - 0.44). CONCLUSION: On average, an improvement of 9.4 points (or 31%) in function is considered by people with LBP as the smallest change that makes self-management worthwhile. Those with lower levels of function needed to experience greater improvements.

New statistical process control charts for overdispersed count data based on the Bell distribution.

Poisson distribution is a popular discrete model used to describe counting information, from which traditional control charts involving count data, such as the c and u charts, have been established in the literature. However, several studies recognize the need for alternative control charts that allow for data overdispersion, which can be encountered in many fields, including ecology, healthcare, industry, and others. The Bell distribution, recently proposed by Castellares et al. (2018), is a particular solution of a multiple Poisson process able to accommodate overdispersed data. It can be used as an alternative to the usual Poisson (which, although not nested in the Bell family, is approached for small values of the Bell distribution) Poisson, negative binomial, and COM-Poisson distributions for modeling count data in several areas. In this paper, we consider the Bell distribution to introduce two new exciting, and useful statistical control charts for counting processes, which are capable of monitoring count data with overdispersion. The performance of the so-called Bell charts, namely Bell-c and Bell-u charts, is evaluated by the average run length in numerical simulation. Some artificial and real data sets are used to illustrate the applicability of the proposed control charts.

Use of Online Information in Musculoskeletal Conditions: An Analysis of Google Trends Data.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the yearly online public interest for gout, low back pain, neck pain, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis, the most popular topics searched for these conditions, and the association between the change in their interest over time and the sociodemographic index of the search location. METHODS: We conducted online searches in Google Trends for the aforementioned conditions between 2004 and 2020. The search volumes for each condition (relative to all searches conducted in the period) and the top and rising related queries and topics were downloaded and summarized. RESULTS: There was a rise in the online interest for musculoskeletal conditions between 2008 and 2020, with low back pain (annual percent change, 7.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.1-7.7) and neck pain (annual percent change, 7.2; 95% CI, 6.9-7.5) presenting the highest increases. There was a negative, statistically significant, but small association between change in online interest and the country's sociodemographic index for low back pain (-0.007; 95% CI, -0.011 to-0.003), neck pain (-0.005; 95% CI, 0.009 to -0.001), and rheumatoid arthritis (-0.009; 95% CI, -0.017 to -0.001) between 2013 and 2020. The interest for the cause and symptoms of the selected conditions increased over time, except for gout. The proportion of queries and topics related to treatment of all conditions decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: The worldwide interest in musculoskeletal conditions increased between 2008 and 2020. The public seems more interested in understanding what musculoskeletal conditions are and less interested in which treatment options are available. The results can guide the development of educational campaigns for musculoskeletal conditions.

Are leisure-time and work-related activities associated with low back pain during pregnancy?

BACKGROUND: Although working activities are associated with several pregnancy outcomes, there is scarce information regarding the association between working activities and low back pain (LBP) during pregnancy. This study aimed to investigate whether leisure-time and work-related physical activities during pregnancy are associated with LBP. METHODS: Data from the 2015 Pelotas Birth Cohort study were used. Demographic, socioeconomic, gestational, leisure-time (prior to and during pregnancy) and work-related (days of work, hours of work, standing and heavy lifting) physical activity data were collected at birth. LPB was assessed in the 12-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Leisure-time physical activity either prior to and during pregnancy was not associated with LBP. Working during pregnancy, days of work and standing position at work were not associated with self-reported LBP during pregnancy. However, working more than 8 h per day and always lifting heavy objects at work increased the odds ratio for LBP (OR 1.30 95%CI: 1.04; 1.63; and OR: 1.39 95%CI 1.08; 1.81, respectively). In addition, women who had lifted heavy objects often/always, reported an increase in pain intensity. CONCLUSION: Working during pregnancy and days worked per week were not related to experiencing LBP. However, women who worked more than 8 h per day, as well as women who lifted heavy objects at work on a regular basis, were more likely to experience pregnancy-related LBP.

Effectiveness of a coordinated support system linking public hospitals to a health coaching service compared with usual care at discharge for patients with chronic low back pain: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although many people with chronic low back pain (LBP) improve following conservative treatment, one in five will experience worsening symptoms after discharge from treatment and seek health care again. The current LBP clinical care pathway in many health services lacks a well-integrated, systematic approach to support patients to remain physically active and self-manage their symptoms following discharge from treatment. Health coaching can support people to improve physical activity levels and may potentially reduce health care utilisation for LBP. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of introducing a coordinated support system (linking hospital outpatient physiotherapy services to a public health coaching service) at discharge from LBP treatment, on the future use of hospital, medical, and health services for LBP, compared with usual care provided at discharge. METHODS: Three hundred and seventy-four adults with chronic non-specific LBP will be recruited from the outpatient physiotherapy departments of public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Participants will be individually randomised to a support system (n = 187) or usual care group (n = 187). All participants will receive usual care provided at discharge from treatment. Participants allocated to the support system will also receive up to 10 telephone-based health coaching sessions, delivered by the Get Healthy Service®, over a 6-month period. Health coaches will monitor and support participants to improve physical activity levels and achieve personal health-related goals. The primary outcome is the total number of encounters with hospital, medical, and health services for LBP, at 12 months from baseline. A within-trial economic evaluation will quantify the incremental costs and benefits of the support system from a health system perspective, to support reimbursement decision making. DISCUSSION: This study will establish the effect of a coordinated support system, introduced at discharge from treatment, on the future use of hospital, medical, and health services for LBP and various health outcomes. CONCLUSION: Innovative community-driven solutions to support people with chronic LBP after discharge from treatment are urgently needed. Study findings will help inform health care policy and clinical practice in Australia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12620000889954 ) on 10/09/2020.

EHealth to empower patients with musculoskeletal pain in rural Australia (EMPoweR) a randomised clinical trial: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are major contributors to disability worldwide. These conditions result in a significant burden at both individual and societal levels. Engagement in regular physical activity and exercise programs are known to improve physical function in both chronic LBP and knee OA populations. For people residing in rural areas, musculoskeletal conditions are often more frequent and disabling compared to urban populations, which could be the result of reduced access to appropriate health services and resources in rural settings. EHealth is an innovative solution to help provide equitable access to treatment for people with musculoskeletal pain living in rural settings. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a randomised clinical trial investigating the effects of an eHealth intervention compared to usual care, for people with chronic non-specific LBP or knee OA in rural Australia. We will recruit 156 participants with non-specific chronic LBP or knee OA. Following the completion of baseline questionnaires, participants will be randomly allocated to either the eHealth intervention group, involving a tailored physical activity and progressive resistance exercise program remotely delivered by a physiotherapist (n = 78), or usual care (n = 78) involving referral to a range of care practices in the community. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months post-randomisation. The primary outcome will be physical function assessed by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, physical activity levels, activity limitations, quality of life, pain coping. We will also collect process evaluation data such as recruitment rate, attendance and adherence, follow-up rate, participants' opinions and any barriers encountered throughout the trial. DISCUSSION: The findings from this trial will establish the effectiveness of eHealth-delivered interventions that are known to be beneficial for people with LBP and knee OA when delivered in person. As a result, this trial will help to inform health care policy and clinical practice in Australia and beyond for those living in non-urban areas. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12618001494224 ) registered 09.05.2018.

Weighted Lindley frailty model: estimation and application to lung cancer data.

In this paper, we propose a novel frailty model for modeling unobserved heterogeneity present in survival data. Our model is derived by using a weighted Lindley distribution as the frailty distribution. The respective frailty distribution has a simple Laplace transform function which is useful to obtain marginal survival and hazard functions. We assume hazard functions of the Weibull and Gompertz distributions as the baseline hazard functions. A classical inference procedure based on the maximum likelihood method is presented. Extensive simulation studies are further performed to verify the behavior of maximum likelihood estimators under different proportions of right-censoring and to assess the performance of the likelihood ratio test to detect unobserved heterogeneity in different sample sizes. Finally, to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed model, we use it to analyze a medical dataset from a population-based study of incident cases of lung cancer diagnosed in the state of São Paulo, Brazil.

Epidural corticosteroid injections for lumbosacral radicular pain.

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.

Family History Influences the Effectiveness of Home Exercise in Older People With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a family history of low back pain (LBP) influences patient outcomes and treatment effects following home exercises in older people with chronic LBP. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Local community. PARTICIPANTS: People older than 55 years with chronic LBP (N=60). INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the intervention group completed video game exercises for 60 minutes 3 times per week for 8 weeks. Participants in the control group were instructed to maintain their usual levels of activity and care seeking behaviors. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Participants indicated whether any of their immediate family members had a history of "any" LBP or "activity-limiting" LBP at baseline. We collected self-reported measures of pain, function, pain self-efficacy, care seeking, physical activity, disability, fear of movement and/or reinjury, and falls efficacy at baseline, 8 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. We performed regression analyses to determine whether a family history of LBP predicted patient outcomes and moderated the effects of home exercise. RESULTS: Participants with a family history of any LBP were less likely to be highly active than those without a family history (odds ratio, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01-0.42; P=.003). Home-based video game exercises led to improvements in function in those without a family history of activity-limiting LBP (ß=1.78; 95% CI, 0.56-3.00; P=.006) but not in those with a family history (ß=-0.17; 95% CI, -2.56 to 2.21; P=.880) (interaction P=.049). A family history of LBP did not influence the remaining patient outcomes or treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: A family history of LBP appears to negatively influence physical activity levels in older people with chronic LBP. Further, home-based video game exercises appear to be beneficial for older people with chronic LBP that do not have a family history of LBP.

Relationship Between Physical Activity, Depressive Symptoms and Low Back Pain Related Disability in Older Adults With Low Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Mediation Analysis.

Low back pain (LBP) can be less disabling in those who are physically active. This study analyzed the association between physical activity (PA)- and LBP-related disability in older people with LBP, exploring if this association was mediated by depressive symptoms. The authors analyzed the relationship between PA levels and disability using the short version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, respectively, collected at baseline from the Brazilian Back Complaints in the Elders study. The authors investigated depressive symptoms as a mediator of this association using the Center of Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale. PA was inversely associated with disability. This association was smaller when considering the indirect effect through depressive symptoms. Thus, depressive symptoms partially mediated the association between PA and disability in older adults with LBP, and higher levels of PA were associated with less depressive symptoms and disability.

Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions.

Many clinical practice guidelines recommend similar approaches for the assessment and management of low back pain. Recommendations include use of a biopsychosocial framework to guide management with initial non-pharmacological treatment, including education that supports self-management and resumption of normal activities and exercise, and psychological programmes for those with persistent symptoms. Guidelines recommend prudent use of medication, imaging, and surgery. The recommendations are based on trials almost exclusively from high-income countries, focused mainly on treatments rather than on prevention, with limited data for cost-effectiveness. However, globally, gaps between evidence and practice exist, with limited use of recommended first-line treatments and inappropriately high use of imaging, rest, opioids, spinal injections, and surgery. Doing more of the same will not reduce back-related disability or its long-term consequences. The advances with the greatest potential are arguably those that align practice with the evidence, reduce the focus on spinal abnormalities, and ensure promotion of activity and function, including work participation. We have identified effective, promising, or emerging solutions that could offer new directions, but that need greater attention and further research to determine if they are appropriate for large-scale implementation. These potential solutions include focused strategies to implement best practice, the redesign of clinical pathways, integrated health and occupational interventions to reduce work disability, changes in compensation and disability claims policies, and public health and prevention strategies.

Paracetamol versus placebo for knee and hip osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is vastly recommended as the first-line analgesic for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. However, there has been controversy about this recommendation given recent studies have revealed small effects of paracetamol when compared with placebo. Nonetheless, past studies have not systematically reviewed and appraised the literature to investigate the effects of this drug on specific osteoarthritis sites, that is, hip or knee, or on the dose used. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of paracetamol compared with placebo in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts to 3 October 2017, and ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal on 20 October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing paracetamol with placebo in adults with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Major outcomes were pain, function, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and abnormal liver function tests. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors used standard Cochrane methods to collect data, and assess risk of bias and quality of the evidence. For pooling purposes, we converted pain and physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function) scores to a common 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst possible pain or disability) scale. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 randomised placebo-controlled trials involving 3541 participants with hip or knee osteoarthritis. The paracetamol dose varied from 1.95 g/day to 4 g/day, and the majority of trials followed participants for three months only. Most trials did not clearly report randomisation and concealment methods and were at unclear risk of selection bias. Trials were at low risk of performance, detection, and reporting bias.At 3 weeks' to 3 months' follow-up, there was high-quality evidence that paracetamol provided no clinically important improvements in pain and physical function. Mean reduction in pain was 23 points (0 to 100 scale, lower scores indicated less pain) with placebo and 3.23 points better (5.43 better to 1.02 better) with paracetamol, an absolute reduction of 3% (1% better to 5% better, minimal clinical important difference 9%) and relative reduction of 5% (2% better to 8% better) (seven trials, 2355 participants). Physical function improved by 12 points on a 0 to 100 scale (lower scores indicated better function) with placebo and was 2.9 points better (0.95 better to 4.89 better) with paracetamol, an absolute improvement of 3% (1% better to 5% better, minimal clinical important difference 10%) and relative improvement of 5% (2% better to 9% better) (7 trials, 2354 participants).High-quality evidence from eight trials indicated that the incidence of adverse events was similar between groups: 515/1586 (325 per 1000) in the placebo group versus 537/1666 (328 per 1000, range 299 to 360) in the paracetamol group (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.11). There was less certainty (moderate-quality evidence) around the risk of serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and the rate of abnormal liver function tests, due to wide CIs or small event rates, indicating imprecision. Seventeen of 1480 (11 per 1000) people treated with placebo and 28/1729 (16 per 1000, range 8 to 29) people treated with paracetamol experienced serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.53; 6 trials). The incidence of withdrawals due to adverse events was 65/1000 participants in with placebo and 77/1000 (range 59 to 100) participants with paracetamol (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.55; 7 trials). Abnormal liver function occurred in 18/1000 participants treated with placebo and 70/1000 participants treated with paracetamol (RR 3.79, 95% CI 1.94 to 7.39), but the clinical importance of this effect was uncertain. None of the trials reported quality of life.Subgroup analyses indicated that the effects of paracetamol on pain and function did not differ according to the dose of paracetamol (3.0 g/day or less versus 3.9 g/day or greater). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on high-quality evidence this review confirms that paracetamol provides only minimal improvements in pain and function for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis, with no increased risk of adverse events overall. Subgroup analysis indicates that the effects on pain and function do not differ according to the dose of paracetamol. Due to the small number of events, we are less certain if paracetamol use increases the risk of serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and rate of abnormal liver function tests.Current clinical guidelines consistently recommend paracetamol as the first-line analgesic medication for hip or knee osteoarthritis, given its low absolute frequency of substantive harm. However, our results call for reconsideration of these recommendations.

Contributions of birthweight, annualised weight gain and BMI to back pain in adults: a population-based co-twin control study of 2754 Australian twins.

PURPOSE: To investigate associations between anthropometric measures (birthweight, weight gain and current BMI) and back pain; and to determine whether these associations differ between those born with low or full birthweight. METHODS: The cross-sectional associations between the lifetime prevalence of back pain and anthropometric measures (birthweight, weight gain and current BMI) among 2754 adult twins were investigated in three stages: total sample; within-pair case-control for monozygotic and dizygotic twins together; and within-pair case-control analysis separated by dizygotic and monozygotic. Results were expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Birthweight was not associated with back pain (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.99-1.00), but a weak association was found between weight gain (OR 1.01; CI 1.00-1.01) or current BMI (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.05) and back pain in the total sample analysis. These associations did not remain significant after adjusting for genetics. The associations did not differ between those whose were born with low or full birthweight. CONCLUSION: Birthweight was not associated with prevalence of back pain in adulthood. Weight gain and current BMI were weakly associated with back pain prevalence in the total sample analysis but did not differ between those born with low or full birthweight. However, the small-magnitude association only just achieved significance and appeared to be confounded by genetics and the early shared environment. Our results suggest that a direct link between these predictors and back pain in adults is unlikely. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Integrating Mobile-health, health coaching, and physical activity to reduce the burden of chronic low back pain trial (IMPACT): a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is one of the most prevalent musculoskeletal conditions and the highest contributor to disability in the world. It is characterized by frequent relapses leading to additional care-seeking. Engagement in leisure physical activity is associated with lower recurrences and better prognosis and potentially reduced care-seeking. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a patient-centred physical activity intervention, supported by health coaching and mobile health, to reduce care-seeking, pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain after treatment discharge. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment. Sixty-eight participants were recruited from four public outpatient physiotherapy departments and the general community in Sydney. The intervention group received a physical activity information booklet, plus one face-to-face and 12 telephone-based health coaching sessions. The intervention was supported by an internet-based application and an activity tracker (Fitbit). Control group (standard care) received the physical activity information booklet and advice to stay active. Feasibility measures included recruitment rate, intervention compliance, data completeness, and participant satisfaction. Primary outcomes were care-seeking, pain levels and activity limitation. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 6-month follow-up and weekly for 6 months. RESULTS: Ninety potential participants were invited over 15 months, with 68 agreeing to take part (75%). Overall, 903 weekly questionnaires were answered by participants from a total of 1107 sent (89%). Participants were largely satisfied with the intervention (mean = 8.7 out of 10 on satisfaction scale). Intervention group participants had a 38% reduced rate of care-seeking (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR): 0.62, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.18, p = 0.14, using multilevel mixed-effects Poisson regression analysis) compared to standard care, although none of the estimates was statistically significant. No between groups differences were found for pain levels or activity limitation. CONCLUSION: The health coaching physical activity approach trialed here is feasible and well accepted by participants and may reduce care-seeking in patients with low back pain after treatment discharge, although further evaluation with an adequately powered trial is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Trial Registry ACTRN12615000189527 . Registered prospectively on 26-02-2015.

Genetic and Environmental Contributions to Sleep Quality and Low Back Pain: A Population-Based Twin Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to estimate the extent to which the co-occurrence of poor sleep quality and low back pain is due to the same genetic and/or environmental risk factors or due to a causal association. METHODS: Cross-sectional data on sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality index) and low back pain were collected in a population-based sample of adult twins (N = 2134) registered with the Murcia Twin Registry. Bivariate analysis and structural equation modeling were used. RESULTS: The phenotypic correlation between sleep quality and low back pain was 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.17-0.28). The best-fitting bivariate model included additive genetic and unique environmental factors. Genetic factors accounted for 26% (95% CI = 10-40) and 34% (95% CI = 25-43) of the variability of low back pain and sleep quality, respectively. The correlation between the genetic factors underlying each trait was rG of 0.33 (95% CI = 0.03-0.66), and this overlap of genetic factors explained 42.5% of the phenotypic correlation. On the other hand, nonshared environmental factors of each variable were only fairly correlated rE of 0.19 (95% CI = 0.06-0.31), although this overlap explained 57.5% of the phenotypic correlation. In addition, twins in monozygotic pairs with poorer sleep quality presented more often with low back pain than their co-twins (ρ^ = 0.25, p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The data are compatible with a causal effect of sleep quality on low back pain (or the reverse effect), because the correlations between the genetic and unique environmental factors for each trait were significant and there was a significant correlation between the monozygotic twins' difference scores. Apart from environmental factors that affect both characteristics, there are many individual-specific events that influence low back pain but differ from those influencing sleep quality.

Association between pain and the frailty phenotype in older men: longitudinal results from the Concord Health and Ageing in Men Project (CHAMP).

Objectives: to determine whether pain increases the risk of developing the frailty phenotype and whether frailty increases the risk of developing chronic or intrusive pain, using longitudinal data. Design/Setting: longitudinal data from the Concord Health and Ageing in Men Project (CHAMP), a prospective population based cohort study. Participants: a total of 1,705 men aged 70 years or older, living in an urban area of New South Wales, Australia. Measurements: data on the presence of chronic pain (daily pain for at least 3 months), intrusive pain (pain causing moderate to severe interference with activities) and the criteria for the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) frailty phenotype were collected in three waves, from January 2005 to October 2013. Data on age, living arrangements, education, smoking status, alcohol consumption, body mass index, comorbidities, cognitive function, depressive symptoms and history of vertebral or hip fracture were also collected and included as covariates in the analyses. Results: a total of 1,705 participants were included at baseline, of whom 1,332 provided data at the 2-year follow-up and 940 at the 5-year follow-up. Non-frail (robust and pre-frail) men who reported chronic pain were 1.60 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-2.51, P = 0.039) times more likely to develop frailty at follow-up, compared to those with no pain. Intrusive pain did not significantly increase the risk of future frailty. Likewise, the frailty status was not associated with future chronic or intrusive pain in the adjusted analysis. Conclusions: the presence of chronic pain increases the risk of developing the frailty phenotype in community-dwelling older men.