Clinical indicators to monitor health care in low back pain: a scoping review.

Clinical care indicators for low back pain can be used to monitor healthcare practices and consequently be used to evaluate success of strategies to improve care quality. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical care indicators that have been used to measure appropriateness of health care for patients with low back pain. We conducted a systematic search of five electronic databases and Google to identify clinical care indicators that have been used to measure any aspect of care for people with low back pain. Care indicators were narratively described according to their type (i.e. structure, process, or outcomes) and categorized by their purpose (e.g. to measure aspects related to assessment, imaging requests, treatment/prevention, and outcomes). A total of 3562 and 2180 records were retrieved from electronic databases and Google searches, respectively. We identified 280 indicators related to low back pain care from 40 documents and publications. Most quality indicators were process indicators (n = 213, 76%), followed by structure (n = 41, 15%) and outcome indicators (n = 26, 9%). The most common indicators were related to imaging requests (n = 41, 15%), referral to healthcare providers (n = 30, 11%), and shared decision-making (n = 21, 7%). Our review identified a range of clinical care indicators that have been used to measure the quality of health care for people with low back pain. Our findings will support a Delphi study to reach international consensus on what would be the most important and feasible indicators for a minimum dataset to be collected globally.

Effectiveness of interferential current in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is no systematic review assessing the effectiveness of interferential current (IC) in patients with low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of IC in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. METHODS: The databases PUBMED, EMBASE, PEDro, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and SCIELO were searched. Randomized controlled trials reporting pain intensity and disability in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain, in which IC was applied were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs were considered eligible for this systematic review (pooled n = 1367). Main results showed moderate-quality evidence and moderate effect sizes that IC probably reduces pain intensity and disability compared to placebo immediately post-treatment (Pain: MD = -1.57 points; 95% CI -2.17, -0.98; Disability: MD = -1.51 points; 95% CI -2.57, -0.46), but not at intermediate-term follow-up. Low-quality evidence with small effect size showed that IC may reduce pain intensity (SMD = -0.32; 95% CI -0.61, -0.03, p = 0.03) compared to TENS immediately post-treatment, but not for disability. There is very low-quality evidence that IC combined with other interventions (massage or exercises) may not further reduce pain intensity and disability compared to the other interventions provided in isolation immediately post-treatment. CONCLUSION: Moderate-quality evidence shows that IC is probably better than placebo for reducing pain intensity and disability immediately post-treatment in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and measurement properties of the psychosomatic questionnaire for children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain into Brazilian-Portuguese.

BACKGROUND: Psychosomatic symptoms seem to influence both the onset and development of pain. There is lack of Brazilian-Portuguese questionnaires that measure psychosomatic symptoms in children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Psychosomatic Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents into Brazilian-Portuguese and English and test the measurement properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese version. METHODS: The translation and cross-cultural adaptation (from Dutch to Brazilian-Portuguese and English) followed six steps. Interviews were conducted in 33 Brazilian children and adolescents. We also recruited 107 children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain from schools to test the measurement properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese version. The questionnaire was completed twice with a 7-day interval. Ceiling and floor effects, missing data, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error and construct validity were assessed. RESULTS: We recruited 140 children and adolescents from public and private schools. During the cross-cultural adaptation process, no major difficulty answering and understanding the questionnaire were reported by children and adolescents. The questionnaire did not show ceiling or floor effects and had minimal missing data (0.37%). Internal consistency by the Cronbach's Alpha was 0.69. Test-retest reliability by the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.84). The smallest detectable change was 6.5 points out of 18 points. We observed a moderate correlation of 0.54 (p<0.01) with the Spence Children's Anxiety Scale, consistent with our a-priori hypothesis. CONCLUSION: The Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Psychosomatic Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents has acceptable measurement properties and is a good option for assessing psychosomatic symptoms in clinical practice and research.

Meditation for adults with non-specific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aim to determine the effectiveness of meditation for adults with non-specific low back pain. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO databases for randomized controlled trials that investigated the effectiveness of meditation in adults with non-specific low back pain. Two reviewers rated risk of bias using the PEDro scale and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. RESULTS: We included eight trials with a total of 1,234 participants. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that meditation is better than usual care for disability at short-term (SMD = -0.22; 95% CI = -0.42 to -0.02). We also found that meditation is better than usual care for pain intensity at long-term (SMD = -0.28; 95% CI = -0.54 to -0.02). There is no significant difference for pain intensity between meditation and minimal intervention or usual care at short and intermediate-term. We did not find differences between meditation and minimal intervention for disability at intermediate-term or usual care in any follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: We found small effect sizes and moderate-certainty evidence that meditation is slightly better than minimal intervention in the short-term for disability. Low-certainty of evidence suggests that meditation is slightly better than usual care for pain in the long-term. Meditation appears to be safe with most trials reporting no serious adverse events.

Smell tests can discriminate Parkinson's disease patients from healthy individuals: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Olfactory impairment is common in Parkinson's disease (PD). The authors aimed to identify the clinical tests used to assess olfactory function and examine their ability to distinguish PD with different disease duration from healthy individuals with physiological aging. METHODS: Cross-sectional studies published until May 2020 that assessed the olfaction of individuals with PD using search terms related to PD, olfactory function, and assessment were searched on PubMed, PsycInfo, Cinahl, and Web of Science databases. RESULTS: Twelve smell tests were identified from the reviewed studies (n = 125) that assessed 8776 individuals with PD. Data of 6593 individuals with PD and 8731 healthy individuals were included in the meta-analyses. Individuals with PD presented worse performance than healthy individuals, regardless of the smell test used. The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) was used by most studies (n = 2310 individuals with PD) and presented smaller heterogeneity. When the studies were subclassified according to the years of PD duration, there were no significant differences. CONCLUSION: All smell tests were able to discriminate the olfactory function of PD from that of healthy individuals, although the UPSIT was widely used. The abnormal olfaction was not related to the disease duration. Systematic review protocol registration (PROSPERO/2020-CRD42020160878).

Low back pain prevalence in Sao Paulo, Brazil: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide, and the burden of LBP is expected to increase in coming decades, particularly in middle-income countries. There is a lack of large and high-quality studies investigating the prevalence of LBP in Brazil. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the point, one-year, and lifetime prevalence of non-specific LBP in adults from the city of São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: This community-based, cross-sectional study recruited 3000 participants in flow point locations randomly selected from census sectors of São Paulo. Interviews and self-administered questionnaires were used to estimate point prevalence, one-year prevalence, and lifetime prevalence of LBP. RESULTS: The estimate of point prevalence was 9.8% (95% CI: 8.8, 11.0), one-year prevalence was 48.1% (95% CI: 46.3, 49.9), and lifetime prevalence was 62.6% (95% CI: 60.8, 64.3). One-year and lifetime prevalence were higher in females, obese people, people insufficiently active and sedentary, current smokers, people who are exposed to repetitive movements, crouched or kneeling position, people dissatisfied with their job, people a little bit or very stressed, a little bit or very anxious, and a little bit depressed, and people with good and fair or poor general health. Lifetime prevalence was also higher in people exposed to standing positions and exposure to carrying weight. CONCLUSIONS: The high point, one-year, and lifetime prevalence of LBP in Brazil indicates that there is a need for coordinated efforts from government, the private sector, universities, health workers, and civil society to deliver appropriate management of LBP in middle-income countries.

Smell tests to distinguish Parkinson's disease from other neurological disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Olfactory impairment has been considered for differential diagnosis in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. The authors aimed to identify the tests used to assess the olfactory function in PD patients and examine these tests' ability to distinguish them from other neurological disorders.Areas covered: Cross-sectional studies published until May 2020 comparing the olfactory function of PD patients to other neurological disorders were searched on PubMed, PsycInfo, Cinahl, and Web of Science databases using search terms related to PD, olfactory function, and assessment. Five thousand three hundred and four studies were screened, and 35 were included in the systematic review. Six smell tests that evaluated a total of 1,544 PD patients were identified. Data of 1,144 patients included in the meta-analyses revealed worse smell performance than individuals with other neurological disorders, such as progressive supranuclear palsy and essential tremor, but not with idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder.Expert opinion: The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test was the most used test to assess the olfactory function of PD. Smell loss was worse in PD than in some neurological disorders. The smell tests' ability in differentiating PD from other neurological disorders still deserves more attention in future studies. Protocol register (PROSPERO/2018-CRD42018107009).

Photobiomodulation Therapy is Able to Modulate PGE2 Levels in Patients With Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is responsible for triggering increased biomarkers levels. In this way, photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) may be an interesting alternative to treat these patients. One of the possible biological mechanisms of PBMT involved to decrease pain intensity in patients with musculoskeletal disorders is modulation of the inflammatory mediators' levels. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of PBMT compared with placebo on inflammatory mediators' levels and pain intensity in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospectively registered, randomized triple-blinded (volunteers, therapists, and assessors), placebo-controlled trial was performed. Eighteen patients with chronic non-specific LBP were recruited and treated with a single session of active PBMT or placebo PBMT. The primary outcome of the study was serum prostaglandin E2 levels and the secondary outcomes were tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-6 levels, and pain intensity. All outcomes were measured before and after 15 minutes of treatment session. RESULTS: PBMT was able to decrease prostaglandin E2 levels at post-treatment compared with placebo, with a mean difference of -1470 pg/ml, 95% confidence interval -2906 to -33.67 in patients with LBP. There was no difference between groups in the other measured outcomes. Patients did not report any adverse events. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that PBMT was able to modulate prostaglandin E2 levels, indicating that this may be one of the mechanisms involved in the analgesic effects of PBMT in patients with LBP. Trial registration number (ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT03859505. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2020 The Authors. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Evaluation of the efficacy of an internet-based pain education and exercise program for chronic musculoskeletal pain in comparison with online self-management booklet: a protocol of a randomised controlled trial with assessor-blinded, 12-month follow-up, and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is one of the main causes of years lived with disability and generates the highest cost of health care among chronic pain conditions. Internet-based treatments have been shown to be an alternative for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions, in addition to reducing barriers such as travel, high demands on the public health system, lack of time, lack of insurance coverage for private care, and high costs for long-term treatment. The aim of this clinical trial is to develop and test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of, an internet-based self-management program based on pain education and exercise for people with chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: This is a prospectively registered, assessor-blinded, two-arm randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation comparing the Internet-based pain education and exercise intervention with a control group that will receive an online booklet. One hundred and sixty patients will be recruited from Sao Paulo, Brazil. Follow-ups will be conducted in post-treatment, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The conduct of the study, as well as the evaluations and follow-ups will be carried out entirely remotely, through online platforms and telephone calls. The primary outcome will be pain intensity at post-treatment (8 weeks) measured using the 11-item Pain Numerical Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes will be biopsychosocial factors presents in the chronic musculoskeletal pain condition. Costs due to chronic musculoskeletal pain will be also measured, and cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective will performed. DISCUSSION: Our hypothesis is that internet-based pain education and exercise will be better than an online booklet in reducing pain and improving biopsychosocial outcomes in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. In addition, we believe that there will be good acceptance of patients for the internet-based intervention and that internet-based intervention will be more cost effective than the online booklet. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04274439 , registered 18 February 2020).

Adherence to Back Pain Clinical Practice Guidelines by Brazilian Physical Therapists: A Cross-sectional Study.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional observational study. OBJECTIVES: (i) to investigate whether Brazilian physical therapists make clinical decisions for patients with low back pain based upon clinical practice guidelines and (ii) to determine whether the physical therapists are able to recognize differential diagnoses of low back pain associated with red or yellow flags. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Early adherence to clinical practice guidelines may accelerate recovery and reduce the costs associated with low back pain. It is unknown whether Brazilian physical therapists follow clinical practice guidelines to make their clinical decisions in the treatment of patients with low back pain. METHODS: The sample consisted of physical therapists from two Brazilian physical therapy associations. The data were collected via electronic survey and face-to-face interviews. The survey was composed of six hypothetical clinical cases of low back pain, which served as a basis to evaluate clinical decisions and adherence to clinical practice guidelines for low back pain. The study participants had 27 possible answers for each clinical case and could choose up to five answers. The results were analyzed in three ways: full adherence, partial adherence, or no adherence to the recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 530 physical therapists were invited and 189 participated in the study (response rate = 35.6%). Full adherence to the guidelines was low for all six cases (rates ranging from 5%-24%). Partial adherence to the guidelines was higher when compared with full adherence (rates ranging from 32%-75%). The participants were more likely to identify differential diagnoses associated with yellow flags than with red flags. CONCLUSION: Brazilian physical therapists are not using the best available evidence in their clinical decision making for patients with low back pain. Wider dissemination of clinical practice guidelines should be urgently undertaken. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Effect of a single session of ear acupuncture on pain intensity and postural control in individuals with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ear Acupuncture (EA) is a form of acupuncture in which needles are applied to the external ear and has been used in multiple painful conditions. Low back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent in active individuals and causes high economic burden to health systems worldwide. LBP affects the person's ability to keep balance, especially in challenging conditions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to examine the effects of a single session of EA on pain intensity and body sway during postural tasks. METHOD: Eighty adults with LBP and pain intensity equal to or greater than 4 (0-10 scale) were randomly allocated (1:1) to EA group (EAG) or placebo group (PG). Initially, the level of pain intensity was assessed. Next, participants stood still on a force plate either with feet in parallel or in semi-tandem and with eyes open or closed. Then, the EAG was treated with EA for 20 min and the PG was treated with detuned ultrasound. After the treatment, pain intensity was assessed again and the postural test was repeated. Pain intensity was the primary outcome and center of pressure sway area and speed were the secondary outcomes measured. RESULTS: Results revealed that pain intensity decreased in both groups after treatment, but decreased more in the EAG. For postural control, no effect of treatment and no interaction between treatment and postural condition on body sway were found. CONCLUSION: Those findings indicate that EA is better than placebo to reduce pain, but neither treatment has any effect on postural control.

Pilates for low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Non-specific low back pain is a major health problem worldwide. Interventions based on exercises have been the most commonly used treatments for patients with this condition. Over the past few years, the Pilates method has been one of the most popular exercise programmes used in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of the Pilates method for patients with non-specific acute, subacute or chronic low back pain. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and SPORTDiscus from the date of their inception to March 2014. We updated the search in June 2015 but these results have not yet been incorporated. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers as well as six trial registry websites. We placed no limitations on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We only included randomized controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of Pilates intervention in adults with acute, subacute or chronic non-specific low back pain. The primary outcomes considered were pain, disability, global impression of recovery and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent raters performed the assessment of risk of bias in the included studies using the 'Risk of bias' assessment tool recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. We also assessed clinical relevance by scoring five questions related to this domain as 'yes', 'no' or 'unclear'. We evaluated the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach and for effect sizes we used three levels: small (mean difference (MD) < 10% of the scale), medium (MD 10% to 20% of the scale) or large (MD > 20% of the scale). We converted outcome measures to a common 0 to 100 scale when different scales were used. MAIN RESULTS: The search retrieved 126 trials; 10 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and we included them in the review (a total sample of 510 participants). Seven studies were considered to have low risk of bias, and three were considered as high risk of bias.A total of six trials compared Pilates to minimal intervention. There is low quality evidence that Pilates reduces pain compared with minimal intervention, with a medium effect size at short-term follow-up (less than three months after randomization) (MD -14.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -18.91 to -9.19). For intermediate-term follow-up (at least three months but less than 12 months after randomization), two trials provided moderate quality evidence that Pilates reduces pain compared to minimal intervention, with a medium effect size (MD -10.54, 95% CI -18.46 to -2.62). Based on five trials, there is low quality evidence that Pilates improves disability compared with minimal intervention, with a small effect size at short-term follow-up (MD -7.95, 95% CI -13.23 to -2.67), and moderate quality evidence for an intermediate-term effect with a medium effect size (MD -11.17, 95% CI -18.41 to -3.92). Based on one trial and low quality evidence, a significant short-term effect with a small effect size was reported for function (MD 1.10, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.97) and global impression of recovery (MD 1.50, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.30), but not at intermediate-term follow-up for either outcome.Four trials compared Pilates to other exercises. For the outcome pain, we presented the results as a narrative synthesis due to the high level of heterogeneity. At short-term follow-up, based on low quality evidence, two trials demonstrated a significant effect in favour of Pilates and one trial did not find a significant difference. At intermediate-term follow-up, based on low quality evidence, one trial reported a significant effect in favour of Pilates, and one trial reported a non-significant difference for this comparison. For disability, there is moderate quality evidence that there is no significant difference between Pilates and other exercise either in the short term (MD -3.29, 95% CI -6.82 to 0.24) or in the intermediate term (MD -0.91, 95% CI -5.02 to 3.20) based on two studies for each comparison. Based on low quality evidence and one trial, there was no significant difference in function between Pilates and other exercises at short-term follow-up (MD 0.10, 95% CI -2.44 to 2.64), but there was a significant effect in favour of other exercises for intermediate-term function, with a small effect size (MD -3.60, 95% CI -7.00 to -0.20). Global impression of recovery was not assessed in this comparison and none of the trials included quality of life outcomes. Two trials assessed adverse events in this review, one did not find any adverse events, and another reported minor events. AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any high quality evidence for any of the treatment comparisons, outcomes or follow-up periods investigated. However, there is low to moderate quality evidence that Pilates is more effective than minimal intervention for pain and disability. When Pilates was compared with other exercises we found a small effect for function at intermediate-term follow-up. Thus, while there is some evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates for low back pain, there is no conclusive evidence that it is superior to other forms of exercises. The decision to use Pilates for low back pain may be based on the patient's or care provider's preferences, and costs.

Effect of a single session of ear acupuncture on pain intensity and postural control in individuals with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT Background Ear Acupuncture (EA) is a form of acupuncture in which needles are applied to the external ear and has been used in multiple painful conditions. Low back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent in active individuals and causes high economic burden to health systems worldwide. LBP affects the person’s ability to keep balance, especially in challenging conditions. Objective The aim of the study was to examine the effects of a single session of EA on pain intensity and body sway during postural tasks. Method Eighty adults with LBP and pain intensity equal to or greater than 4 (0-10 scale) were randomly allocated (1:1) to EA group (EAG) or placebo group (PG). Initially, the level of pain intensity was assessed. Next, participants stood still on a force plate either with feet in parallel or in semi-tandem and with eyes open or closed. Then, the EAG was treated with EA for 20 min and the PG was treated with detuned ultrasound. After the treatment, pain intensity was assessed again and the postural test was repeated. Pain intensity was the primary outcome and center of pressure sway area and speed were the secondary outcomes measured. Results Results revealed that pain intensity decreased in both groups after treatment, but decreased more in the EAG. For postural control, no effect of treatment and no interaction between treatment and postural condition on body sway were found. Conclusion Those findings indicate that EA is better than placebo to reduce pain, but neither treatment has any effect on postural control.

Kinesio Taping® is not better than placebo in reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Kinesio Taping® has been widely used in clinical practice. However, it is unknown whether this type of tape is more effective than placebo taping in patients with chronic lower back pain. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of Kinesio Taping® in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain against a placebo tape and a control group. METHOD: This is a 3-arm, randomized controlled trial with a blinded assessor. Sixty patients with chronic non-specific low back pain were randomized into one of the three groups: Kinesio Taping® group (n=20), Micropore® (placebo) group (n=20) and control group (n=20). Patients allocated to both the Kinesio Taping® group and the placebo group used the different types of tape for a period of 48 hours. The control group did not receive any intervention. The outcomes measured were pain intensity (measured by an 11-point numerical rating scale) and disability (measured by the 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire). A blinded assessor measured the outcomes at baseline, 48 hours and 7 days after randomization. RESULTS: After 48 hours, there was a statistically significant difference between the Kinesio Taping® group versus the control group (mean between-group difference = -3.1 points, 95% CI=-5.2 to -1.1, p=0.003), but no difference when compared to the placebo group (mean between-group difference= 1.9 points, 95% CI=-0.2 to 3.9, p=0.08). For the other outcomes no differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The Kinesio Taping® is not better than placebo (Micropore®) in patients with chronic low back pain.

Kinesio Taping® is not better than placebo in reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Background: Kinesio Taping® has been widely used in clinical practice. However, it is unknown whether this type of tape is more effective than placebo taping in patients with chronic lower back pain. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of Kinesio Taping® in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain against a placebo tape and a control group. Method: This is a 3-arm, randomized controlled trial with a blinded assessor. Sixty patients with chronic non-specific low back pain were randomized into one of the three groups: Kinesio Taping® group (n=20), Micropore® (placebo) group (n=20) and control group (n=20). Patients allocated to both the Kinesio Taping® group and the placebo group used the different types of tape for a period of 48 hours. The control group did not receive any intervention. The outcomes measured were pain intensity (measured by an 11-point numerical rating scale) and disability (measured by the 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire). A blinded assessor measured the outcomes at baseline, 48 hours and 7 days after randomization. Results: After 48 hours, there was a statistically significant difference between the Kinesio Taping® group versus the control group (mean between-group difference = -3.1 points, 95% CI=-5.2 to -1.1, p=0.003), but no difference when compared to the placebo group (mean between-group difference= 1.9 points, 95% CI=-0.2 to 3.9, p=0.08). For the other outcomes no differences were observed. Conclusions: The Kinesio Taping® is not better than placebo (Micropore®) in patients with chronic low back pain.

Evidence-Based Practice: a survey regarding behavior, knowledge, skills, resources, opinions and perceived barriers of Brazilian physical therapists from São Paulo state.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) has been widely used by health professionals. However, no study in Brazil has investigated the data regarding the knowledge and difficulties related to EBP from a representative sample of physical therapists. OBJECTIVE: To identify behavior, knowledge, skills, resources, opinions and perceived barriers of Brazilian physical therapists from the state of São Paulo regarding EBP. METHOD: A customized questionnaire about behavior, knowledge, skills, resources, opinions and perceived barriers regarding EBP was sent by email to a sample of 490 physical therapists registered by the Registration Board of São Paulo, Brazil. Physical therapists who did not respond to the questionnaire were contacted by telephone and/or letter. The data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: The final response rate was 64.4% (316/490). Because 60 physical therapists were no longer practicing, 256 answers were analyzed. The physical therapists reported that they routinely read scientific papers (89.5%) as a resource for professional development, followed by continuing education courses (88.3%) and books (86.3%). Approximately 35% of the respondents reported a clear understanding of the implementation of research findings in their practice; approximately 37% reported no difficulties in critically appraising scientific papers; and 67.2% strongly agreed that EBP is important for their practice. The most commonly reported barriers were related to difficulties in obtaining full-text papers (80.1%), using EBP may represent higher cost (80.1%) and the language of publication of the papers (70.3%). CONCLUSION: Physical therapists from São Paulo state believe that they have knowledge and skills to use EBP. Although they have favorable opinions regarding its implementation, they still encounter difficulties in implementing EBP successfully.

Evidence-Based Practice: a survey regarding behavior, knowledge, skills, resources, opinions and perceived barriers of Brazilian physical therapists from São Paulo state

BACKGROUND: Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) has been widely used by health professionals. However, no study in Brazil has investigated the data regarding the knowledge and difficulties related to EBP from a representative sample of physical therapists.OBJECTIVE: To identify behavior, knowledge, skills, resources, opinions and perceived barriers of Brazilian physical therapists from the state of São Paulo regarding EBP.METHOD: A customized questionnaire about behavior, knowledge, skills, resources, opinions and perceived barriers regarding EBP was sent by email to a sample of 490 physical therapists registered by the Registration Board of São Paulo, Brazil. Physical therapists who did not respond to the questionnaire were contacted by telephone and/or letter. The data were analyzed descriptively.RESULTS: The final response rate was 64.4% (316/490). Because 60 physical therapists were no longer practicing, 256 answers were analyzed. The physical therapists reported that they routinely read scientific papers (89.5%) as a resource for professional development, followed by continuing education courses (88.3%) and books (86.3%). Approximately 35% of the respondents reported a clear understanding of the implementation of research findings in their practice; approximately 37% reported no difficulties in critically appraising scientific papers; and 67.2% strongly agreed that EBP is important for their practice. The most commonly reported barriers were related to difficulties in obtaining full-text papers (80.1%), using EBP may represent higher cost (80.1%) and the language of publication of the papers (70.3%).CONCLUSION: Physical therapists from São Paulo state believe that they have knowledge and skills to use EBP. Although they have favorable opinions regarding its implementation, they still encounter difficulties in implementing EBP successfully.

Tutorial for writing systematic reviews for the Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy (BJPT) / Tutorial para elaboração de revisões sistemáticas para o Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy (BJPT)

Systematic reviews aim to summarize all evidence using very rigorous methods in order to address a specific research question with less bias as possible. Systematic reviews are widely used in the field of physical therapy, however not all reviews have good quality. This tutorial aims to guide authors of the Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy on how systematic reviews should be conducted and reported in order to be accepted for publication. It is expected that this tutorial will help authors of systematic reviews as well as journal editors and reviewers on how to conduct, report, critically appraise and interpret this type of study design. .

Revisões sistemáticas têm como objetivo sumarizar toda a evidência disponível, através de métodos rigorosos, para responder a uma pergunta de pesquisa específica com o mínimo de viés possível. Revisões sistemáticas são amplamente utilizadas na fisioterapia, porém nem todas as revisões possuem boa qualidade. Esse tutorial tem como objetivo guiar os autores do Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy sobre como revisões sistemáticas deveriam ser conduzidas e descritas para que sejam aceitas para publicação. Espera-se que esse tutorial irá auxiliar autores de revisões sistemáticas, assim como editores e revisores de periódicos em como conduzir, descrever, fazer análise crítica e interpretar esse tipo de delineamento de pesquisa.

Description of research design of articles published in four Brazilian physical therapy journals.

BACKGROUND: While the research design of articles published in medical journals and in some physical therapy journals has already been evaluated, this has not been investigated in Brazilian physical therapy journals. Objective : To describe the research design used in all articles published in Brazilian scientific journals that are freely available, have high Qualis rankings, and are relevant to physical therapy over a 7-year period. METHOD: We extracted the bibliometric data, research design, research type (human or animal), and clinical area for all articles published. The articles were grouped into their level of evidence, and descriptive analyses were performed. We calculated the frequency, proportions of articles, and 95% confidence interval of these proportions with each research design in each journal. We cross-tabulated the clinical areas with research designs (expressed as number and percentages). RESULTS: A total of 1,458 articles from four Brazilian journals were found: Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia, Revista Fisioterapia em Movimento, Revista Fisioterapia e Pesquisa, and Revista Acta Fisiátrica. The majority of articles were classified as level II of evidence (60%), followed by level III (29%) and level I (10%). The most prevalent research designs were cross-sectional studies (38%), single-case or case-series studies, and narrative reviews. Most articles reported human research and were in the musculoskeletal, neurologic, and cardiothoracic areas. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the research published in Brazilian physical therapy journals used levels II and III of evidence. Increasing the publication rate of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials would provide more high-quality evidence to guide evidence-based physical therapy practice.

Description of research design of articles published in four Brazilian physical therapy journals

Background : While the research design of articles published in medical journals and in some physical therapy journals has already been evaluated, this has not been investigated in Brazilian physical therapy journals. Objective : To describe the research design used in all articles published in Brazilian scientific journals that are freely available, have high Qualis rankings, and are relevant to physical therapy over a 7-year period. Method : We extracted the bibliometric data, research design, research type (human or animal), and clinical area for all articles published. The articles were grouped into their level of evidence, and descriptive analyses were performed. We calculated the frequency, proportions of articles, and 95% confidence interval of these proportions with each research design in each journal. We cross-tabulated the clinical areas with research designs (expressed as number and percentages). Results : A total of 1,458 articles from four Brazilian journals were found: Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia, Revista Fisioterapia em Movimento, Revista Fisioterapia e Pesquisa, and Revista Acta Fisiátrica. The majority of articles were classified as level II of evidence (60%), followed by level III (29%) and level I (10%). The most prevalent research designs were cross-sectional studies (38%), single-case or case-series studies, and narrative reviews. Most articles reported human research and were in the musculoskeletal, neurologic, and cardiothoracic areas. Conclusions : Most of the research published in Brazilian physical therapy journals used levels II and III of evidence. Increasing the publication rate of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials would provide more high-quality evidence to guide evidence-based physical therapy practice. .