Multivariable prediction models for the recovery of and claim closure related to post-collision neck pain and associated disorders.

OBJECTIVE: Few clinical prediction models are available to clinicians to predict the recovery of patients with post-collision neck pain and associated disorders. We aimed to develop evidence-based clinical prediction models to predict (1) self-reported recovery and (2) insurance claim closure from neck pain and associated disorders (NAD) caused or aggravated by a traffic collision. METHODS: The selection of potential predictors was informed by a systematic review of the literature. We used Cox regression to build models in an incident cohort of Saskatchewan adults (n = 4923). The models were internally validated using bootstrapping and replicated in participants from a randomized controlled trial conducted in Ontario (n = 340). We used C-statistics to describe predictive ability. RESULTS: Participants from both cohorts (Saskatchewan and Ontario) were similar at baseline. Our prediction model for self-reported recovery included prior traffic-related neck injury claim, expectation of recovery, age, percentage of body in pain, disability, neck pain intensity and headache intensity (C = 0.643; 95% CI 0.634-0.653). The prediction model for claim closure included prior traffic-related neck injury claim, expectation of recovery, age, percentage of body in pain, disability, neck pain intensity, headache intensity and depressive symptoms (C = 0.637; 95% CI 0.629-0.648). CONCLUSIONS: We developed prediction models for the recovery and claim closure of NAD caused or aggravated by a traffic collision. Future research needs to focus on improving the predictive ability of the models.

Examining later-in-life health risks associated with sport-related concussion and repetitive head impacts: a systematic review of case-control and cohort studies.

OBJECTIVE: Concern exists about possible problems with later-in-life brain health, such as cognitive impairment, mental health problems and neurological diseases, in former athletes. We examined the future risk for adverse health effects associated with sport-related concussion, or exposure to repetitive head impacts, in former athletes. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL Plus and SPORTDiscus in October 2019 and updated in March 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies measuring future risk (cohort studies) or approximating that risk (case-control studies). RESULTS: Ten studies of former amateur athletes and 18 studies of former professional athletes were included. No postmortem neuropathology studies or neuroimaging studies met criteria for inclusion. Depression was examined in five studies in former amateur athletes, none identifying an increased risk. Nine studies examined suicidality or suicide as a manner of death, and none found an association with increased risk. Some studies comparing professional athletes with the general population reported associations between sports participation and dementia or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) as a cause of death. Most did not control for potential confounding factors (eg, genetic, demographic, health-related or environmental), were ecological in design and had high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Evidence does not support an increased risk of mental health or neurological diseases in former amateur athletes with exposure to repetitive head impacts. Some studies in former professional athletes suggest an increased risk of neurological disorders such as ALS and dementia; these findings need to be confirmed in higher quality studies with better control of confounding factors. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022159486.

Amsterdam 2022 process: A summary of the methodology for the Amsterdam International Consensus on Concussion in Sport.

The purpose of this paper is to summarise the consensus methodology that was used to inform the International Consensus Statement on Concussion in Sport (Amsterdam 2022). Building on a Delphi process to inform the questions and outcomes from the 5th International Conference on Concussion in Sport, the Scientific Committee identified key questions, the answers to which would help encapsulate the current science in sport-related concussion and help guide clinical practice. Over 3½ years, delayed by 2 years due to the pandemic, author groups conducted systematic reviews on each selected topic. The 6th International Conference on Concussion in Sport was held in Amsterdam (27-30 October 2022) and consisted of 2 days of systematic review presentations, panel discussions, question and answer engagement with the 600 attendees, and abstract presentations. This was followed by a closed third day of consensus deliberations by an expert panel of 29 with observers in attendance. The fourth day, also closed, was dedicated to a workshop to discuss and refine the sports concussion tools (Concussion Recognition Tool 6 (CRT6), Sport Concussion Assessment Tool 6 (SCAT6), Child SCAT6, Sport Concussion Office Assessment Tool 6 (SCOAT6) and Child SCOAT6). We include a summary of recommendations for methodological improvements for future research that grew out of the systematic reviews.

Post-Concussion Symptoms and Disability in Adults With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Studies investigating long-term symptoms and disability after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) have yielded mixed results. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the prevalence of self-reported post-concussion symptoms (PCS) and disability following mTBI. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PsycInfo to identify inception cohort studies of adults with mTBI. Paired reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias with the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. We identified 43 eligible studies for the systematic review; 41 were rated as high risk of bias, primarily due to high attrition (> 20%). Twenty-one studies (49%) were included in the meta-analyses (five studies were narratively synthesized; 17 studies were duplicate reports). At 3-6 months post-injury, the estimated prevalence of PCS from random-effects meta-analyses was 31.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 25.4-38.4) using a lenient definition of PCS (2-4 mild severity PCS) and 18.3% (95% CI = 13.6-24.0) using a more stringent definition. The estimated prevalence of disability was 54.0% (95% CI = 49.4-58.6) and 29.6% (95% CI = 27.8-31.5) when defined as Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended <8 and <7, respectively. The prevalence of symptoms similar to PCS was higher in adults with mTBI versus orthopedic injury (prevalence ratio = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.22-2.02). In a meta-regression, attrition rate was the only study-related factor significantly associated with higher estimated prevalence of PCS. Setting attrition to 0%, the estimated prevalence of PCS (lenient definition) was 16.1%. We conclude that nearly one in three adults who present to an emergency department or trauma center with mTBI report at least mild severity PCS 3-6 months later, but controlling for attrition bias, the true prevalence may be one in six. Studies with representative samples and high retention rates are needed.

Inter-rater reliability of the Quebec Task Force classification system for recent-onset Whiplash Associated Disorders.

PURPOSE: The inter-rater reliability of the Quebec Task Force (QTF) classification system for Whiplash-Associated Disorders (WAD) remains unknown. Our objective was to determine the inter-rater reliability of the WAD classification between an experienced chiropractic clinician and two chiropractic residents. METHODS: We conducted an inter-rater reliability study using baseline clinical data from 80 participants assessed for inclusion in a randomized clinical trial of the conservative management of WAD grades I and II. We reported reliability using Cohen's kappa (k) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The mean duration of WAD symptoms was 7.6 days (s.d.=5.2). In our study, the interrater reliability of the WAD grade classification varied from k=0.04 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.12) to k=0.80 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.94). CONCLUSION: Inter-rater reliability of the WAD classification varied greatly across raters and may be associated with the experience of the raters and with their understanding of the criteria. Our results suggest that clinicians may benefit from training to standardize how they classify WAD. Furthermore, our results need to be tested in a different sample of patients and with a range of clinicians from different clinical disciplines.

OBJECTIF: La fiabilité inter-utilisateur du système de classification des troubles associés au coup de fouet cervical (TACF) établi par le Groupe de travail du Québec (GTQ) demeure inconnue. Notre étude visait à établir la fiabilité inter-évaluateur du système de classification des troubles associés au TACF utilisé par un chiropraticien clinicien d'expérience et deux résidents en chiropratique. MÉTHODOLOGIE: On a effectué notre étude à l'aide de données cliniques de départ sur 80 participants à un essai clinique, à répartition aléatoire, sur le traitement conservateur du TACF de stades I et II. On a utilisé le coefficient kappa (k) de Cohen et des intervalles de confiance (IC) à 95 % pour évaluer la fiabilité. RÉSULTATS: La durée moyenne des symptômes du TACF était de 7,6 jours (écart-type :5,2). La fiabilité inter-utilisateur de la classification des TACF a varié de k = 0,04 (IC à 95 % ­ de 0,04 à 0,12) à k = 0,80 (IC à 95 % de 0,67 à 0,94). CONCLUSION: La fiabilité inter-utilisateur de la classification des TACF a beaucoup varié d'un évaluateur à l'autre; l'écart pourrait être lié à l'expérience de l'évaluateur et à sa compréhension des critères de classification. Selon les résultats de notre étude, les cliniciens pourraient bénéficier d'une formation servant à normaliser leur méthode de classification des TACF. Nos résultats devraient être confirmés par une autre étude utilisant un autre échantillon de patients et un éventail de cliniciens appartenant à diverses disciplines.

Predicting nonrecovery in adults with incident traffic injuries including post-traumatic headache.

IMPORTANCE: The management of traffic injuries is challenging for clinicians. Knowledge about predictors of nonrecovery from traffic injuries may help to improve patient care. OBJECTIVE: To develop a prediction model for self-reported overall nonrecovery from traffic injuries six months post-collision in adults with incident traffic injuries including post-traumatic headache (PTH). DESIGN: Inception cohort studies of adults with incident traffic injuries (including PTH) injured in traffic collisions between November 1997 and December 1999 in Saskatchewan, Canada; and between January 2004 and January 2005 in Sweden. METHODS: Prediction model development and geographical external validation. SETTING: The Saskatchewan cohort (development) was population-based (N = 4,162). The Swedish cohort (validation) (N = 379) were claimants from two insurance companies covering 20% of cars driven in Sweden in 2004. PARTICIPANTS: All adults injured in traffic collisions who completed a baseline questionnaire within 30 days of collision. Excluded were those hospitalized > 2 days, lost consciousness > 30 min, or reported headache < 3/10 on the numerical rating scale. Follow-up rates for both cohorts were approximately 80%. PREDICTORS: Baseline sociodemographic, pre-injury, and injury factors. OUTCOME: Self-reported nonrecovery from all injuries (not "all better (cured)" on the self-perceived recovery scale) six months after traffic collision. RESULTS: Both cohorts were predominantly female (69.8% in Saskatchewan, 65.2% in Sweden), with median ages 35.9 years (Saskatchewan), and 38.0 years (Sweden). Predictors were age, low back pain, symptoms in arms or hands, hearing problems, sleeping problems, pre-existing headache, and lower recovery expectations. With a positive score (i.e., ≥0.85 probability), the model can rule in the presence of self-reported nonrecovery from all injuries at six months (development: specificity = 91.3%, 95% CI 89.2%-93.0%; sensitivity = 27.8%, 95% CI 26.0%-29.7%; positive likelihood ratio (LR + ) = 3.2, 95% CI 2.5-4.0; negative likelihood ratio (LR-) = 0.79, 95% CI 0.76-0.82; validation: specificity = 72.6%, 95% CI 61.4%-81.5%; sensitivity = 60.5%, 95% CI 53.9%-66.7%); LR+ = 2.2, 95% CI 1.5-3.3; LR- = 0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.7). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In adults with incident traffic injuries including PTH, predictors other than those related to baseline head and neck pain drive overall nonrecovery. Developing and testing interventions targeted at the modifiable predictors may help to improve outcomes for adults after traffic collision.

Noninvasive management of soft tissue disorders of the shoulder: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Objective of this study is to develop an evidence-based guideline for the noninvasive management of soft tissue disorders of the shoulder (shoulder pain), excluding major pathology. METHODS: This guideline is based on high-quality evidence from seven systematic reviews. Multidisciplinary experts considered the evidence of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences when formulating recommendations. Target audience is clinicians; target population is adults with shoulder pain. RESULTS: When managing patients with shoulder pain, clinicians should (a) rule out major structural or other pathologies as the cause of shoulder pain and reassure patients about the benign and self-limited nature of most soft tissue shoulder pain; (b) develop a care plan in partnership with the patient; (c) for shoulder pain of any duration, consider low-level laser therapy; multimodal care (heat/cold, joint mobilization, and range of motion exercise); cervicothoracic spine manipulation and mobilization for shoulder pain when associated pain or restricted movement of the cervicothoracic spine; or thoracic spine manipulation; (d) for shoulder pain >3-month duration, consider stretching and/or strengthening exercises; laser acupuncture; or general physician care (information, advice, and pharmacological pain management if necessary); (e) for shoulder pain with calcific tendinitis on imaging, consider shock-wave therapy; (f) for shoulder pain of any duration, do not offer ultrasound; taping; interferential current therapy; diacutaneous fibrolysis; soft tissue massage; or cervicothoracic spine manipulation and mobilization as an adjunct to exercise (i.e., range of motion, strengthening and stretching exercise) for pain between the neck and the elbow at rest or during movement of the arm; (g) for shoulder pain >3-month duration, do not offer shock-wave therapy; and (h) should reassess the patient's status at each visit for worsening of symptoms or new physical, mental, or psychological symptoms, or satisfactory recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Our evidence-based guideline provides recommendations for non-invasive management of shoulder pain. The impact of the guideline in clinical practice requires further evaluation. SIGNIFICANCE: Shoulder pain of any duration can be effectively treated with laser therapy, multimodal care (i.e., heat/cold, joint mobilization, range of motion exercise), or cervicothoracic manipulation and mobilization. Shoulder pain (>3 months) can be effectively treated with exercises, laser acupuncture, or general physician care (information, advice, and pharmacological pain management if necessary).

Assessment of Studies Evaluating Spinal Manipulative Therapy and Infectious Disease and Immune System Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Claims that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) can improve immune function have increased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic and may have contributed to the rapid spread of both accurate and inaccurate information (referred to as an infodemic by the World Health Organization). Objective: To identify, appraise, and synthesize the scientific literature on the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT in preventing the development of infectious disease or improving disease-specific outcomes in patients with infectious disease and to examine the association between SMT and selected immunological, endocrine, and other physiological biomarkers. Evidence Review: A literature search of MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Index to Chiropractic Literature, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase was conducted from inception to April 15, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies were included. Eligible studies were critically appraised, and evidence with high and acceptable quality was synthesized using the Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis guideline. Findings: A total of 2593 records were retrieved; after exclusions, 50 full-text articles were screened, and 16 articles reporting the findings of 13 studies comprising 795 participants were critically appraised. The literature search found no clinical studies that investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT in preventing the development of infectious disease or improving disease-specific outcomes among patients with infectious disease. Eight articles reporting the results of 6 high- and acceptable-quality RCTs comprising 529 participants investigated the effect of SMT on biomarkers. Spinal manipulative therapy was not associated with changes in lymphocyte levels or physiological markers among patients with low back pain or participants who were asymptomatic compared with sham manipulation, a lecture series, and venipuncture control groups. Spinal manipulative therapy was associated with short-term changes in selected immunological biomarkers among asymptomatic participants compared with sham manipulation, a lecture series, and venipuncture control groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review of 13 studies, no clinical evidence was found to support or refute claims that SMT was efficacious or effective in changing immune system outcomes. Although there were limited preliminary data from basic scientific studies suggesting that SMT may be associated with short-term changes in immunological and endocrine biomarkers, the clinical relevance of these findings is unknown. Given the lack of evidence that SMT is associated with the prevention of infectious diseases or improvements in immune function, further studies should be completed before claims of efficacy or effectiveness are made.

The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial. OBJECTIVES: We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders. GLOBAL SUMMIT: The Global Summit took place on September 14-15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus. RESULTS: We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.

A conceptual framework for prognostic research.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic research has many important purposes, including (i) describing the natural history and clinical course of health conditions, (ii) investigating variables associated with health outcomes of interest, (iii) estimating an individual's probability of developing different outcomes, (iv) investigating the clinical application of prediction models, and (v) investigating determinants of recovery that can inform the development of interventions to improve patient outcomes. But much prognostic research has been poorly conducted and interpreted, indicating that a number of conceptual areas are often misunderstood. Recent initiatives to improve this include the Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) and the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Statement. In this paper, we aim to show how different categories of prognostic research relate to each other, to differentiate exploratory and confirmatory studies, discuss moderators and mediators, and to show how important it is to understand study designs and the differences between prediction and causation. MAIN TEXT: We propose that there are four main objectives of prognostic studies - description, association, prediction and causation. By causation, we mean the effect of prediction and decision rules on outcomes as determined by intervention studies and the investigation of whether a prognostic factor is a determinant of outcome (on the causal pathway). These either fall under the umbrella of exploratory (description, association, and prediction model development) or confirmatory (prediction model external validation and investigation of causation). Including considerations of causation within a prognostic framework provides a more comprehensive roadmap of how different types of studies conceptually relate to each other, and better clarity about appropriate model performance measures and the inferences that can be drawn from different types of prognostic studies. We also propose definitions of 'candidate prognostic factors', 'prognostic factors', 'prognostic determinants (causal)' and 'prognostic markers (non-causal)'. Furthermore, we address common conceptual misunderstandings related to study design, analysis, and interpretation of multivariable models from the perspectives of association, prediction and causation. CONCLUSION: This paper uses a framework to clarify some concepts in prognostic research that remain poorly understood and implemented, to stimulate discussion about how prognostic studies can be strengthened and appropriately interpreted.

A united statement of the global chiropractic research community against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity.

BACKGROUND: In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) posted reports claiming that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. These claims clash with recommendations from the World Health Organization and World Federation of Chiropractic. We discuss the scientific validity of the claims made in these ICA reports. MAIN BODY: We reviewed the two reports posted by the ICA on their website on March 20 and March 28, 2020. We explored the method used to develop the claim that chiropractic adjustments impact the immune system and discuss the scientific merit of that claim. We provide a response to the ICA reports and explain why this claim lacks scientific credibility and is dangerous to the public. More than 150 researchers from 11 countries reviewed and endorsed our response. CONCLUSION: In their reports, the ICA provided no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. We call on regulatory authorities and professional leaders to take robust political and regulatory action against those claiming that chiropractic adjustments have a clinical impact on the immune system.

Development and validation of a model predicting post-traumatic headache six months after a motor vehicle collision in adults.

IMPORTANCE: The prognosis of post-traumatic headache is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a prognostic model to predict the presence of post-traumatic headache six months after a traffic collision in adults with incident post-traumatic headache. DESIGN: Secondary analyses of adults with incident post-traumatic headache injured in traffic collisions between November 1997 and December 1999 in Saskatchewan, Canada (development cohort); and between January 2004 and January 2005 in Sweden (validation cohort). SETTING: The Saskatchewan cohort (development) was population-based (N = 4162). The Swedish cohort (validation) (N = 379) were claimants from two insurance companies covering 20 % of cars driven in Sweden in 2004. PARTICIPANTS: All adults injured in traffic collisions who completed a baseline questionnaire within 30 days of collision. Excluded were those hospitalized >2 days, lost consciousness >30 min, or reported headache <3/10 on the numerical rating scale. Follow-up rates for both cohorts were approximately 80 %. PREDICTORS: Baseline sociodemographic, pre-injury, and injury factors. OUTCOME: Self-reported headache pain intensity ≥3 (numerical rating scale) six months after injury. RESULTS: Both cohorts were predominantly female (69.7 % in Saskatchewan, 65.2 % in Sweden), with median ages 35.9 years (Saskatchewan), and 38.0 years (Sweden). Predictors were age, work status, headache pain intensity, symptoms in arms or hands, dizziness or unsteadiness, stiffness in neck, pre-existing headache, and lower recovery expectations. With a positive score (i.e., ≥0.75 probability), the model can rule in the presence of post-traumatic headache at six months (development: specificity = 99.8 %, 95 % CI 99.5 %-99.9 %; sensitivity = 1.6 %, 95 % CI 1.0 %-2.6 %; positive likelihood ratio (LR+) = 8.0, 95 % CI 2.7-24.1; negative likelihood ratio (LR-) = 1.0, 95 % CI 1.0-1.0; validation: specificity = 95.5 %, 95 % CI 91.1 %-97.8 %; sensitivity = 27.2 %, 95 % CI 20.4 %-35.2 %); LR+ = 6.0, 95 % CI 2.8-13.2; LR- = 0.8, 95 % CI 0.7-0.8). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Clinicians can collect patient information on the eight predictors of our model to identify patients that will report ongoing post-traumatic headache six months after a traffic collision. Future research should focus on selecting patients at high risk of poor outcomes (using our model) for inclusion in intervention studies, and determining effective interventions for these patients.

Determining the reliability and convergent validity of a return-to-work status questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: In occupational rehabilitation programs, return-to-work is a key outcome measure; however, the studies either used different definitions for return-to-work or do not provide their definition. In order to provide a solution to this issue, we developed a self-report return-to-work measure. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the reliability and validity of a self-report return-to-work questionnaire in a cohort of workers with a work-related injury. METHODS: Two research assistants independently administered the baseline questionnaires and a follow-up questionnaire. The questionnaires contained work-related questions (e.g., currently working, if duties changed) that were used to create a four-category work status measure. Pain-related and a recovery questions were also asked. We obtained loss of earnings data from the compensation board. The short-term reliability and convergent validity were assessed. RESULTS: We recruited 75 workers, and 57 completed the test-re-test baseline questionnaire, and 51 completed the follow-up. The mean age was 45.4 years and 57% were female. The participants had a mixture of musculoskeletal injuries. Most were in the acute stage, but 17% of the participants were injured for more than a year. The short-term reliability of current working status had a kappa value of 0.90. Participants who were not working had higher levels of pain-related disability than those who were working. The kappa value for the agreement between self-reported working status and administrative data on receiving any loss of earnings payment was around 0.65. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence of reliability and validity for a new return-to-work measure.

Non-pharmacological management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario protocol for traffic injury management (OPTIMa) collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an evidence-based guideline for the non-pharmacological management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain (i.e., tension-type or cervicogenic). METHODS: This guideline is based on systematic reviews of high-quality studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel considered the evidence of clinical benefits, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences when formulating recommendations. Target audience includes clinicians; target population is adults with persistent headaches associated with neck pain. RESULTS: When managing patients with headaches associated with neck pain, clinicians should (a) rule out major structural or other pathologies, or migraine as the cause of headaches; (b) classify headaches associated with neck pain as tension-type headache or cervicogenic headache once other sources of headache pathology has been ruled out; (c) provide care in partnership with the patient and involve the patient in care planning and decision making; (d) provide care in addition to structured patient education; (e) consider low-load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises for tension-type headaches (episodic or chronic) or cervicogenic headaches >3 months duration; (f) consider general exercise, multimodal care (spinal mobilization, craniocervical exercise and postural correction) or clinical massage for chronic tension-type headaches; (g) do not offer manipulation of the cervical spine as the sole form of treatment for episodic or chronic tension-type headaches; (h) consider manual therapy (manipulation with or without mobilization) to the cervical and thoracic spine for cervicogenic headaches >3 months duration. However, there is no added benefit in combining spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization and exercises; and (i) reassess the patient at every visit to assess outcomes and determine whether a referral is indicated. CONCLUSIONS: Our evidence-based guideline provides recommendations for the conservative management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain. The impact of the guideline in clinical practice requires validation. SIGNIFICANCE: Neck pain and headaches are very common comorbidities in the population. Tension-type and cervicogenic headaches can be treated effectively with specific exercises. Manual therapy can be considered as an adjunct therapy to exercise to treat patients with cervicogenic headaches. The management of tension-type and cervicogenic headaches should be patient-centred.

SafetyNET Community-based patient safety initiatives: development and application of a Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To: 1) develop/adapt and validate an instrument to measure patient safety attitudes and opinions of community-based spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) providers; 2) implement the instrument; and 3) compare results among healthcare professions. METHODS: A review of the literature and content validation were used for the survey development. Community-based chiropractors and physiotherapists in 4 Canadian provinces were invited. RESULTS: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture was the preferred instrument. The survey was modified and validated, measuring 14 patient safety dimensions. 276 SMT providers volunteered to respond to the survey. Generally, SMT providers had similar or better patient safety dimension scores compared to the AHRQ 2016 medical offices database. DISCUSSION: We developed the first instrument measuring patient safety attitudes and opinions of community-based SMT providers. This instrument provides understanding of SMT providers' opinions and attitudes on patient safety and identifies potential areas for improvement.

OBJECTIFS: 1) Élaborer/adapter et valider un instrument servant à évaluer les attitudes à l'égard de la sécurité du patient et les opinions des praticiens effectuant des manipulations vertébrales (MV); 2) adopter cet instrument; et 3) comparer les résultats obtenus entre les professionnels de la santé. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Pour élaborer le sondage, on a revu la littérature, on a validé le contenu et on a invité des chiropraticiens et des physiothérapeutes de quatre provinces canadiennes à participer. RÉSULTATS: Le Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture de l'Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) était l'instrument préféré. Le sondage a été modifié et validé et a servi à mesurer 14 aspects de la sécurité du patient. 276 professionnels effectuant des MV ont accepté de répondre au sondage. En règle générale, les cotes obtenues chez les professionnels effectuant des MV pour ce qui des aspects de la sécurité étaient comparables ou meilleurs que celles des professionnels de la santé enregistrés dans la base de données de 2016 de l'AHRQ. DISCUSSION: On a élaboré le premier instrument servant à évaluer les attitudes à l'égard de la sécurité et les opinions des praticiens effectuant des MV dans une collectivité. Cet instrument permet de comprendre les opinions et les attitudes à l'égard de la sécurité du patient des professionnels effectuant des MV et de cerner les aspects qui pourraient être améliorés.

Chiropractic spinal manipulation and the risk for acute lumbar disc herniation: a belief elicitation study.

PURPOSE: Chiropractic spinal manipulation treatment (SMT) is common for back pain and has been reported to increase the risk for lumbar disc herniation (LDH), but there is no high quality evidence about this. In the absence of good evidence, clinicians can have knowledge and beliefs about the risk. Our purpose was to determine clinicians' beliefs regarding the risk for acute LDH associated with chiropractic SMT. METHODS: Using a belief elicitation design, 47 clinicians (16 chiropractors, 15 family physicians and 16 spine surgeons) that treat patients with back pain from primary and tertiary care practices were interviewed. Participants' elicited incidence estimates of acute LDH among a hypothetical group of patients with acute low back pain treated with and without chiropractic SMT, were used to derive the probability distribution for the relative risk (RR) for acute LDH associated with chiropractic SMT. RESULTS: Chiropractors expressed the most optimistic belief (median RR 0.56; IQR 0.39-1.03); family physicians expressed a neutral belief (median RR 0.97; IQR 0.64-1.21); and spine surgeons expressed a slightly more pessimistic belief (median RR 1.07; IQR 0.95-1.29). Clinicians with the most optimistic views believed that chiropractic SMT reduces the incidence of acute LDH by about 60% (median RR 0.42; IQR 0.29-0.53). Those with the most pessimistic views believed that chiropractic SMT increases the incidence of acute LDH by about 30% (median RR 1.29; IQR 1.11-1.59). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians' beliefs about the risk for acute LDH associated with chiropractic SMT varied systematically across professions, in spite of a lack of scientific evidence to inform these beliefs. These probability distributions can serve as prior probabilities in future Bayesian analyses of this relationship.

The association between a lifetime history of low back injury in a motor vehicle collision and future low back pain: a population-based cohort study.

PURPOSE: This population-based cohort study investigated the association between a lifetime history of a low back injury in a motor vehicle collision (MVC) and future troublesome low back pain. Participants with a history of a low back injury in a motor vehicle collision who had recovered (no or mild low back pain) were compared to those without a history of injury. Current evidence from two cross-sectional and one prospective study suggests that individuals with a history of a low back injury in a MVC are more likely to experience future LBP. There is a need to test this association prospectively in population-based cohorts with adequate control of known confounders. METHODS: We formed a cohort of 789 randomly sampled Saskatchewan adults with no or mild LBP. At baseline, participants were asked if they had ever injured their low back in a MVC. Six and 12 months later, participants were asked about the presence of troublesome LBP (grade II-IV) on the Chronic Pain Grade Questionnaire. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to estimate the association while controlling for known confounders. RESULTS: The follow-up rate was 74.8% (590/789) at 6 months and 64.5% (509/789) at 12 months. There was a positive crude association between a history of low back injury in a MVC and the development of troublesome LBP over a 12-month period (HRR = 2.76; 95% CI 1.42-5.39). Controlling for arthritis reduced this association (HRR = 2.25; 95% CI 1.11-4.56). Adding confounders that may be on the casual pathway (baseline LBP, depression and HRQoL) to the multivariable model further reduced the association (HRR = 2.20; 95% CI 1.04-4.68). CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that a history of low back injury in a MVC is a risk factor for developing future troublesome LBP. The consequences of a low back injury in a MVC can predispose individuals to experience recurrent episodes of low back pain.