Mapping the characteristics, concepts and methodologies of matching-adjusted indirect comparison studies assessing pharmacological therapies in oncology: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) studies are a subtype of indirect comparison, which uses propensity score weighting to enhance comparability. This method adjusts aggregated data based on covariables from individual patient data from studies to produce population-adjusted indirect comparisons. Some national Health Technology Assessment agencies have recently received submissions containing MAIC models. However, there can be a lack of confidence in its estimates when they are poorly reported and inconsistent with other techniques. The objective of this study is to map the characteristics, concepts and methodology of MAIC studies used for pharmacological therapies in the field of oncology. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review methodology will be applied following the Joanna Briggs Institute framework and the results will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Studies that used MAIC to compare treatments in oncology conditions will be considered eligible. A systematic search will be conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. No restriction of location or language will be applied. Study screening will be documented and presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram. Data will be extracted and recorded on a predefined data form and will be presented in a tabular form accompanied by a descriptive summary. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required for this study. The results of this scoping review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.

Recurrence of an Episode of Low Back Pain: An Inception Cohort Study in Emergency Departments.

OBJECTIVES: To (1) determine the 1-year estimate of recurrence of low back pain (LBP) in a cohort of people presenting to emergency departments who have recently recovered from an episode of acute LBP in a middle-income country, (2) estimate a recurrence of LBP stratified by the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST), and (3) determine prognostic factors for the recurrence of LBP. DESIGN: Prospective inception cohort study. METHODS: We included 238 patients who presented to emergency departments with recent-onset nonspecific LBP in São Paulo, Brazil. The outcome was the recurrence of an episode of LBP, assessed using 2 definitions: (1) 12-month recall alone and (2) pain measurements at follow-up. Prognostic factors were determined by logistic regression. RESULTS: Within 1 year, the estimated recurrence of an episode of LBP ranged from 35% (79/225 events) (first definition) to 44% (100/226 events) (second definition). When patients were stratified by the SBST, the estimate of recurrence ranged from 29% to 37% (21-27/73 events) for low-risk patients, from 33% to 39% (24-28/72 events) for medium-risk patients, and from 43% to 56% (34-45/80 events) for high-risk patients. Age, perceived risk of persistent LBP, and disability were independent prognostic factors associated with LBP recurrence within 1 year. CONCLUSION: After recovering from a previous episode of acute LBP, 4 in every 10 patients experienced a recurrence within 1 year. This estimate varied depending on the classification used in the SBST. Within 1 year, age, perceived risk of persistent LBP, and baseline disability were predictors of recurrence. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(7):484-492. Epub: 18 May 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10775.

Management of acute low back pain in emergency departments in São Paulo, Brazil: a descriptive, cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe management strategies used in public emergency departments in a middle-income country for patients with acute non-specific low back pain. DESIGN: A descriptive, cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a prospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A study with 600 patients with low back pain presenting in four public emergency departments from São Paulo, Brazil was conducted. OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic tests, pharmacological interventions, and/or referral to other healthcare professionals were collected. Descriptive analyses were used to report all outcomes. RESULTS: Of all patients, 12.5% (n=75) underwent some diagnostic imaging tests. Medication was administered to 94.7% (n=568) of patients. The most common medications were non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (71.3%; n=428), opioids (29%; n=174) and corticosteroids (22.5%; n=135). Only 7.5% (n=45) of patients were referred to another type of care. CONCLUSION: There is a need for research data on low back pain from middle-income countries. There was an acceptable rate of prescription for diagnostic imaging tests. However, there were high medication prescriptions and small rates of referrals to other healthcare services. Our findings indicate that there is still a need to implement best practices in the management of acute low back pain at public emergency departments in Brazil.

The Long-Term Prognosis in People With Recent Onset Low Back Pain From Emergency Departments: An Inception Cohort Study.

Most studies investigating the course of recent-onset low back pain (LBP) included patients from primary care. We aimed to describe the prognosis in people with recent-onset LBP presenting to emergency departments (EDs) and to identify prognostic factors for nonrecovery. This inception cohort study with a 1-year follow-up recruited 600 consecutive acute LBP patients presenting to 4 EDs. The outcomes measured the days to recover from pain, recover from disability, return to previous work hours and duties, and complete recovery. Within 12 months, 73% of participants (95% confidence interval [CI] = 69-77) recovered from pain, 86% (95% CI = 82-90) recovered from disability, 79% (95% CI = 71-87) returned to previous work hours and duties, and 70% (95% CI = 66-74) completely recovered. The median recovery times were 67 days (95% CI = 54-80) to recover from pain, 37 days (95% CI = 31-43) to recover from disability, 37 days (95% CI = 25-49) to return to previous work hours and duties, and 70 days (95% CI = 57-83) to recover completely. Higher pain levels, a higher perceived risk of persistent LBP, more days of reduced activity due to LBP, more pain sites, and higher duration of LBP were associated with complete nonrecovery within 6 months. PERSPECTIVE: This information relates to prognosis and to likely recovery times for patients with recent-onset LBP in EDs. The findings also confirm previous factors associated with poor outcomes in patients with recent-onset LBP.

Photobiomodulation therapy is not better than placebo in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) has been used in several musculoskeletal disorders to reduce pain, inflammation, and promoting tissue regeneration. The current evidence about the effects of PBMT on low back pain (LBP) is still conflicting. We aimed to evaluate the effects of PBMT against placebo on pain intensity and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific LBP. This was a prospectively registered, randomised placebo-controlled trial, with blinded patients, therapists, and assessors. The study was conducted on an outpatient physical therapy clinic in Brazil, between April 2017 and May 2019. A total of 148 patients with chronic nonspecific LBP were randomised to either active PBMT (n = 74) or placebo (n = 74). Patients from both groups received 12 treatment sessions, 3 times a week, for 4 weeks. Patients from both groups also received an educational booklet based on "The Back Book." Clinical outcomes were measured at baseline and at follow-up appointments at 4 weeks, 3, 6, and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability measured at 4 weeks. We estimated the treatment effects using linear mixed models following the principles of intention-to-treat. There was no clinical important between-group differences in terms of pain intensity (mean difference = 0.01 point; 95% confidence interval = -0.94 to 0.96) and disability (mean difference = -0.63 points; 95% confidence interval = -2.23 to 0.97) at 4 weeks. Patients did not report any adverse events. Photobiomodulation therapy was not better than placebo to reduce pain and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific LBP.

Use of the STarT Back Screening Tool in patients with chronic low back pain receiving physical therapy interventions.

BACKGROUND: The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) is used to stratify care. It is unclear if the SBST approach works as well for patients in low- and medium-income countries as for patients from high-income countries. OBJECTIVES: (1) To investigate whether patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) stratified by the SBST are different at baseline; (2) to describe the clinical course for each SBST subgroup; (3) to investigate the SBST utility to predict clinical outcomes; and (4) to determine which SBST subgroup show greater clinical improvement. DESIGN: This is a secondary analysis of data derived from a previously published clinical trial. METHODS: 148 patients with chronic nonspecific LBP were included. Pain intensity, disability, global perceived effect, and the SBST were assessed at baseline and at 5, 12, and 24 weeks after baseline. Descriptive data were provided and ANOVA, unadjusted and adjusted regression models, and linear mixed models were used for data analysis. RESULTS: Duration of symptoms, use of medication, pain, disability, and global perceived effect were different between SBST subgroups. Clinical improvements over a 6-month period were consistently greater in patients classified as high risk. The SBST was able to predict disability but this predictability decreased when the analysis was adjusted for possible confounders. CONCLUSION: Clinical outcomes were different between SBST subgroups over 6 months. Adjusting for confounders influenced the predictability of SBST. Patients classified as high risk presented higher improvements in terms of disability.

Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19. The task-force/consensus guideline of the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine, the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology. / Diretrizes para o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19. Consenso da Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, da Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia e da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia.

INTRODUCTION: Different therapies are currently used, considered, or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19; for many of those therapies, no appropriate assessment of effectiveness and safety was performed. This document aims to provide scientifically available evidence-based information in a transparent interpretation, to subsidize decisions related to the pharmacological therapy of COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: A group of 27 experts and methodologists integrated a task-force formed by professionals from the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (Sociedad Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Rapid systematic reviews, updated on April 28, 2020, were conducted. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the development of recommendations followed the GRADE system. The recommendations were written on May 5, 8, and 13, 2020. RESULTS: Eleven recommendations were issued based on low or very-low level evidence. We do not recommend the routine use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, or tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19. Prophylactic heparin should be used in hospitalized patients, however, no anticoagulation should be provided for patients without a specific clinical indication. Antibiotics and oseltamivir should only be considered for patients with suspected bacterial or influenza coinfection, respectively. CONCLUSION: So far no pharmacological intervention was proven effective and safe to warrant its use in the routine treatment of COVID-19 patients; therefore such patients should ideally be treated in the context of clinical trials. The recommendations herein provided will be revised continuously aiming to capture newly generated evidence.

Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19. The task-force/consensus guideline of the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine, the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology

Different therapies are currently used, considered, or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19; for many of those therapies, no appropriate assessment of effectiveness and safety was performed. This document aims to provide scientifically available evidence-based information in a transparent interpretation, to subsidize decisions related to the pharmacological therapy of COVID-19 in Brazil. A group of 27 experts and methodologists integrated a task-force formed by professionals from the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (Sociedad Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Rapid systematic reviews, updated on April 28, 2020, were conducted. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the development of recommendations followed the GRADE system. The recommendations were written on May 5, 8, and 13, 2020. Eleven recommendations were issued based on low or very-low level evidence. We do not recommend the routine use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, or tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19. Prophylactic heparin should be used in hospitalized patients, however, no anticoagulation should be provided for patients without a specific clinical indication. Antibiotics and oseltamivir should only be considered for patients with suspected bacterial or influenza coinfection, respectively. So far no pharmacological intervention was proven effective and safe to warrant its use in the routine treatment of COVID-19 patients; therefore such patients should ideally be treated in the context of clinical trials. The recommendations herein provided will be revised continuously aiming to capture newly generated evidence.

Há diversas terapias sendo utilizadas, consideradas ou propostas para o tratamento da COVID-19, muitas carecendo de apropriada avaliação de efetividade e segurança. O propósito deste documento é fornecer recomendações baseadas nas evidências científicas disponíveis e em sua interpretação transparente, para subsidiar decisões sobre o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19 no Brasil. Um grupo de 27 especialistas e metodologistas integraram a força-tarefa formada pela Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira (AMIB), pela Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia (SBI) e pela Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia (SBPT). Foram realizadas revisões sistemáticas rápidas, atualizadas até 28 de abril de 2020. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o sistema GRADE. As recomendações foram elaboradas nos dias 5, 8 e 13 de maio de 2020. Foram geradas 11 recomendações, embasadas em evidência de nível baixo ou muito baixo. Não há indicação para uso de rotina de hidroxicloroquina, cloroquina, azitromicina, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroides ou tocilizumabe no tratamento da COVID-19. Heparina deve ser utilizada em doses profiláticas no paciente hospitalizado, mas não deve ser realizada anticoagulação na ausência de indicação clínica específica. Antibacterianos e oseltamivir devem ser considerados somente nos pacientes em suspeita de coinfecção bacteriana ou por influenza, respectivamente. Até o momento, não há intervenções farmacológicas com efetividade e segurança comprovada que justifiquem seu uso de rotina no tratamento da COVID-19, devendo os pacientes serem tratados preferencialmente no contexto de pesquisa clínica. As recomendações serão revisadas continuamente, de forma a capturar a geração de novas evidências

Diretrizes para o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19. Consenso da Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, da Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia e da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia / Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19. The task-force/consensus guideline of the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine, the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology

RESUMO Introdução: Há diversas terapias sendo utilizadas, consideradas ou propostas para o tratamento da COVID-19, muitas carecendo de apropriada avaliação de efetividade e segurança. O propósito deste documento é fornecer recomendações baseadas nas evidências científicas disponíveis e em sua interpretação transparente, para subsidiar decisões sobre o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19 no Brasil. Métodos: Um grupo de 27 especialistas e metodologistas integraram a força-tarefa formada pela Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira (AMIB), pela Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia (SBI) e pela Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia (SBPT). Foram realizadas revisões sistemáticas rápidas, atualizadas até 28 de abril de 2020. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o sistema GRADE. As recomendações foram elaboradas nos dias 5, 8 e 13 de maio de 2020. Resultados: Foram geradas 11 recomendações, embasadas em evidência de nível baixo ou muito baixo. Não há indicação para uso de rotina de hidroxicloroquina, cloroquina, azitromicina, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroides ou tocilizumabe no tratamento da COVID-19. Heparina deve ser utilizada em doses profiláticas no paciente hospitalizado, mas não deve ser realizada anticoagulação na ausência de indicação clínica específica. Antibacterianos e oseltamivir devem ser considerados somente nos pacientes em suspeita de coinfecção bacteriana ou por influenza, respectivamente. Conclusão: Até o momento, não há intervenções farmacológicas com efetividade e segurança comprovada que justifiquem seu uso de rotina no tratamento da COVID-19, devendo os pacientes serem tratados preferencialmente no contexto de pesquisa clínica. As recomendações serão revisadas continuamente, de forma a capturar a geração de novas evidências.

ABSTRACT Introduction: Different therapies are currently used, considered, or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19; for many of those therapies, no appropriate assessment of effectiveness and safety was performed. This document aims to provide scientifically available evidence-based information in a transparent interpretation, to subsidize decisions related to the pharmacological therapy of COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods: A group of 27 experts and methodologists integrated a task-force formed by professionals from the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (Sociedad Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Rapid systematic reviews, updated on April 28, 2020, were conducted. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the development of recommendations followed the GRADE system. The recommendations were written on May 5, 8, and 13, 2020. Results: Eleven recommendations were issued based on low or very-low level evidence. We do not recommend the routine use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, or tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19. Prophylactic heparin should be used in hospitalized patients, however, no anticoagulation should be provided for patients without a specific clinical indication. Antibiotics and oseltamivir should only be considered for patients with suspected bacterial or influenza coinfection, respectively. Conclusion: So far no pharmacological intervention was proven effective and safe to warrant its use in the routine treatment of COVID-19 patients; therefore such patients should ideally be treated in the context of clinical trials. The recommendations herein provided will be revised continuously aiming to capture newly generated evidence.

Profile of Patients With Acute Low Back Pain Who Sought Emergency Departments: A Cross-sectional Study.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe the profile of patients with acute low back pain (LBP) who sought emergency departments (EDs) in Brazilian public hospitals. We also described the profile of these patients according to the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: LBP is the most common musculoskeletal condition worldwide and is one of the main complaints in EDs. There is a lack of evidence describing the profile of these patients from low- to middle-income countries. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study involving patients with a new episode of nonspecific acute LBP that was conducted between August 2014 and August 2016. Variables related to clinical, psychological, sociodemographic and work status characteristics were investigated through structured, in-person oral questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 600 patients were included in the study. The majority of the patients were women (58%), with a median of eight points on pain intensity (measured on an 11-point scale) and 17 points on disability (measured on a 24-item questionnaire). With regards to the SBST evaluation, 295 (49.2%) patients were classified as being at high risk of developing an unfavorable prognosis with a median pain intensity of nine points on pain intensity, 20 points on disability, and seven points on depression (measured on an 11-point scale). Despite this, the majority of the patients (74%) continued working normally without interference from LBP. CONCLUSION: Identifying the profile of patients seeking care in EDs can help to define effective management for LBP in low- and middle-income countries. Patients with nonspecific acute LBP who seek EDs in Brazil present high levels of pain intensity and disability. Most patients were classified as having a high risk of developing an unfavorable prognosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

The use of STarT BACK Screening Tool in emergency departments for patients with acute low back pain: a prospective inception cohort study.

PURPOSE: (1) To analyse the clinical utility of the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) in emergency departments by describing changes in classification over time and; (2) to identify what would be the best time to use the SBST to predict long-term clinical outcomes in patients with acute nonspecific low back pain (LBP) seeking emergency care. METHODS: A 6 months prospective inception cohort study was conducted. 200 participants with LBP seeking emergency medical treatment were included. Pain intensity, disability and SBST were collected at baseline, 6 and 26 weeks. Categories of improvement, clinical worsening, and stability were created to calculate the changes in the SBST subgroups. Linear regression models were built to analyse the predictive ability of SBST when applied at baseline, 6 weeks as well as changes in the subgroup from baseline to 6 weeks. These models were adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: 45% of patients were classified as high risk of chronicity at baseline. Most patients classified as medium (86.7%) or high (52.4%) risk changed their risk subgroup after 6 weeks and most of them improved. The SBST improved the prediction for all outcomes when applied at 6 weeks (R2 = 22.1% for disability and R2 = 15.6% for pain intensity), but not at baseline. CONCLUSION: Most of patients seeking care in emergency departments with a new episode of acute LBP improved after 6 weeks. The use of SBST to guide initial treatment and to predict clinical outcomes are most indicated when the instrument is applied after 6 weeks after presentation to emergency care. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary material.

Effects of photobiomodulation therapy in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the largest and most frequent public health problems worldwide. Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) is a frequently used non-pharmacological therapy for the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. However, there is little high-quality scientific evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of PBMT in the treatment of patients with chronic LBP in the short, medium and long term. Therefore, the objective of this clinical trial is to evaluate the effects of PBMT in patients with chronic non-specific LBP in the short, medium and long term. METHODS AND ANALYSES: This is a prospectively registered, two-arm randomised placebo-controlled trial with blinded patients, assessors and treatment providers. One hundred and forty-eight patients with chronic non-specific LBP will be recruited. Treatment sessions will be provided three times a week for 4 weeks (totaling 12 sessions) with patients receiving either placebo or active PBMT. For ethical reasons, all patients, regardless of treatment allocation, will also receive an information booklet based on 'The Back Book'. Clinical outcomes will be measured at baseline, at the end of treatment, as well as 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcomes will be pain intensity and disability measured after 12 sessions of treatment. The secondary outcomes will be pain intensity and disability measured at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation, in addition to specific disability and global perceived effect in all time points. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Universidade Cidade de São Paulo. The results will be disseminated through scientific publications and presentations at national and international scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03089424.

Satisfação de pacientes que recebem cuidados fisioterapêuticos para condições musculoesqueléticas: um estudo transversal / Satisfacción de pacientes que reciben cuidados fisioterapéuticos para condiciones musculoesqueléticas: un estudio trasversal / Satisfaction of patients receiving physiotherapy care for musculoskeletal conditions: a cross-sectional study

RESUMO Mensurou-se a satisfação dos pacientes que recebem cuidados fisioterapêuticos para condições musculoesqueléticas na região Sudeste do Brasil. O instrumento MedRisk Instrument for Measuring Patient Satisfaction (MRPS) foi utilizado para mensurar a satisfação de 403 pacientes de oito clínicas de fisioterapia dos estados de Minas Gerais e São Paulo. Além disso, foram coletadas as características demográficas e clínicas dos participantes e a Escala de Percepção do Efeito Global (GPE). O MRPS foi descrito por meio de média e desvio-padrão. Coeficientes de correlação de Pearson foram calculados para investigar a associação entre a GPE e o escore total do MRPS. Modelos de regressão linear foram utilizados para analisar as características dos pacientes que poderiam predizer a satisfação total. Foi observada alta satisfação com os cuidados fisioterapêuticos, sendo a média do escore total 4,5 pontos (DP=0,4). Foi observada moderada correlação entre a satisfação total e a GPE (coeficiente de Pearson -0,31, p<0,001). Apenas o gênero influenciou o escore total de satisfação, sendo que o gênero masculino apresentou maior satisfação com os cuidados recebidos. O nível de satisfação do paciente com o tratamento de fisioterapia recebido na região Sudeste do Brasil pode ser considerado alto.

RESUMEN Se mensuró la satisfacción de los pacientes que reciben cuidados fisioterapéuticos para condiciones musculoesqueléticas en la región Sudeste del Brasil. Se utilizó el instrumento MedRisk Instrument for Measuring Patient Satisfaction (MRPS) para mensurar la satisfacción de 403 pacientes de ocho clínicas de fisioterapia de los estados de Minas Gerais (MG) y São Paulo (SP). Además, se colectó las características demográficas y clínicas de los participantes y la Escala de Percepción de Efecto Global (GPE). El MRPS fue descrito mediante la media y desviación estándar. Se calculó los coeficientes de correlación de Pearson para investigar la asociación entre la GPE y la puntuación total del MRPS. Modelos de regresión linear fueron utilizados para analizar las características de los pacientes que podrían predecir la satisfacción total. Se observó alta satisfacción con los cuidados fisioterapéuticos, siendo la media de puntuación total 4,5 puntos (DP=0,4). Se observó moderada correlación entre la satisfacción total y la GPE (coeficiente de Pearson -0,31, p<0,001). Solamente el género influenció la puntuación total de satisfacción; el género masculino presentó mayor satisfacción con los cuidados recibidos. El nivel de satisfacción del paciente con el tratamiento de fisioterapia recibido en la región Sudeste del Brasil es considerado alto.

ABSTRACT We measured the satisfaction of patients who receive physiotherapy care for musculoskeletal conditions in the Southeast region of Brazil. The MRPS instrument (MedRisk instrument for measuring Patient Satisfaction) was used to measure the satisfaction of 403 patients of eight physiotherapy clinics of the states of Minas Gerais and São Paulo. In addition, we collected demographic and clinical characteristics of participants and the Global Perceived Effect (GPE) scale. The MRPS was described through mean and standard deviation. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to investigate the association between GPE and the total score of the MRPS. Linear regression models were used to analyze the characteristics of patients that could predict total satisfaction. High satisfaction was observed with the physiotherapeutic care, being the mean score a total of 4.5 points (SD=0.4). A moderate correlation was observed between the total satisfaction and the GPE (Pearson's r of -0.31, p<0.001). Only gender influenced the total score of satisfaction, as males showed the highest satisfaction with the received care. The level of patient satisfaction with the physiotherapy treatment in the Southeast region of Brazil can be considered high.