Exercises for the prevention of non-specific low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the effects of exercise alone or exercise plus education compared with inactive control or education alone to prevent non-specific LBP.

Can language enhance physical therapists' willingness to follow Choosing Wisely recommendations? A best-worst scaling study.

BACKGROUND: Choosing Wisely recommendations could reduce physical therapists' use of low-value care. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether language influences physical therapists' willingness to follow the Australian Physiotherapy Association's (APA) Choosing Wisely recommendations. DESIGN: Best-worst Scaling survey METHODS: The six original APA Choosing Wisely recommendations were modified based on four language characteristics (level of detail, strength- qualified/unqualified, framing, and alternatives to low-value care) to create 60 recommendations. Physical therapists were randomised to a block of seven choice tasks, which included four recommendations. Participants indicated which recommendation they were most and least willing to follow. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to create normalised (0=least preferred; 10=most preferred) and marginal preference scores. RESULTS: 215 physical therapists (48.5% of 443 who started the survey) completed the survey. Participants' mean age (SD) was 38.7 (10.6) and 47.9% were female. Physical therapists were more willing to follow recommendations with more detail (marginal preference score of 1.1) or that provided alternatives to low-value care (1.3) and less willing to follow recommendations with negative framing (-1.3). The use of qualified ('don't routinely') language (vs. unqualified - 'don't') did not affect willingness. Physical therapists were more willing to follow recommendations to avoid imaging for non-specific low back pain (3.9) and electrotherapy for low back pain (3.8) vs. recommendation to avoid incentive spirometry after upper abdominal and cardiac surgery. CONCLUSION: Physical therapists were more willing to follow recommendations that provided more detail, alternatives to low-value care, and were positively framed. These findings can inform the development of future Choosing Wisely recommendations and could help reduce low-value physical therapy.

Feasibility, Usability, and Implementation Context of an Internet-Based Pain Education and Exercise Program for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Pilot Trial of the ReabilitaDOR Program.

BACKGROUND: Internet-based self-management programs and telerehabilitation initiatives have increased and have been extensively used for delivering health care in many areas. These programs overcome common barriers that patients face with traditional face-to-face health care, such as travel expenditures, lack of time, and high demand on the public health system. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this mode of web-based health care delivery had become more popular. However, there is still a lack of studies testing this mode of delivery in low- and middle-income countries. To gain a better understanding of the context, feasibility, and factors involved in the implementation of a web-based program, pilot and implementation studies are necessary. These studies can better inform whether a strategy is feasible, acceptable, and adequate for its purposes and for optimizing resource allocation. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the feasibility, usability, and implementation context of a self-management internet-based program based on exercises and pain education (ReabilitaDOR) in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain and to compare this program with a program using only a web-based self-management booklet. METHODS: The study design was a parallel pilot study of a prospectively registered, assessor-blinded, 2-arm randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation. This study was performed using waiting lists of physiotherapy and rehabilitation centers and advertisements on social media networks. The participants were 65 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain aged between 18 and 60 years. The effects of an 8-week telerehabilitation program based on exercises and pain education (intervention group) were compared with those of a program based only on a web-based self-management booklet (control group). The main outcome measures were implementation outcomes of patients' perceptions of acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and usability of the program and the societal costs and feasibility of the main trial at 8-week posttreatment follow-up. Adverse events were also analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 56 participants were analyzed at the 8-week follow-up. The intervention group showed responses with a mean of 4.5 (SD 0.6) points for acceptability, 4.5 (SD 0.5) points for appropriateness, and 4.5 (SD 0.6) points for feasibility measured on a 1 to 5 scale. All patients in the intervention group showed satisfactory responses to the system usability outcome. There is satisfactory evidence for the feasibility of the main trial. For costs related to the interventions, health care, patients, and loss of productivity at 8 weeks, we found a total expenditure of US $278.30 per patient in the intervention group and US $141.52 per patient in the control group. No adverse events were reported during the intervention period. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the ReabilitaDOR program is feasible, appropriate, and acceptable from the users' implementation perspective. This system was considered usable by all the participants, and the main trial seemed feasible. Cost data were viable to be collected, and the program is likely to be safe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04274439; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04274439.

Physical therapy utilization, costs, and return-to-work status following lumbar spine surgery: A retrospective analysis of workers compensation claims in Australia.

BACKGROUND: No study to our knowledge has explored physical therapy utilization following lumbar spine surgery in a workers' compensation setting. OBJECTIVES: Describe physical therapy utilization and costs, and return-to-work status in patients following lumbar spine surgery under a workers' compensation claim. METHODS: Using data from the New South Wales (NSW) State Insurance Regulatory Authority (Australia), we audited physical therapy billing codes for patients who received lumbar spine surgery from 2010 to 2017. We summarised, by fusion versus decompression, the number of physical therapy sessions patients received up to 12 months post-operatively, total cost of physical therapy and time to initiation of physical therapy. Number of physical therapy sessions and physical therapy utilization at 12 months were summarised by return-to-work status at 12 months. RESULTS: We included 3524 patients (1220 had fusion; 2304 decompression). On average, patients received 22 ± 22 physical therapy sessions to 12 months post-operatively (mean cost=AU$1902, US$1217); 24% were receiving physical therapy at 12 months. Most had 9-24 (31%) or 25-50 sessions (25%); 11% had > 50 sessions, whereas 11% had no physical therapy. Patients who had fusion (compared to decompression) had more physical therapy and incurred higher physical therapy costs. Time post-surgery to initiate physical therapy increased from 2010 to 2017. Patients with > 50 sessions and still having physical therapy by 12 months were least likely to be working. CONCLUSIONS: For most patients, physical therapy utilization following lumbar spine surgery aligns with the best available evidence. However, some patients may be receiving too much physical therapy or initiating physical therapy too early.

Effectiveness of brief patient information materials for promoting correct beliefs about imaging and inevitable consequences of low back pain: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate what format for providing patient information (i.e. written summary, infographic or video animation) is most effective for promoting correct beliefs about imaging and inevitable consequences of low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING/PATIENTS: One hundred and fifty-nine patients with non-specific LBP were recruited from outpatient physiotherapy clinics. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to receive patient information in one of three formats: video animation, infographic or written summary. Patients were allowed to read or watch the materials for up to 20 min. MEASUREMENTS: Outcome were assessed before and immediately after the intervention. The primary outcome was the Back Beliefs Questionnaire. The secondary outcome was beliefs about imaging for LBP assessed by two questions. RESULTS: All 159 patients completed the study. Our findings revealed no difference between groups for the Back Beliefs Questionnaire. Correct beliefs about imaging were more likely with the infographic than the video animation (Question 1- Odds Ratio [OR] = 3.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7, 8.7; Question 2- OR = 6.8, 95%CI: 2.7, 17.2) and more likely with the written summary than the video animation (Question 1- OR = 3.3, 95%CI: 1.5, 7.4; Question 2- OR = 3.7, 95%CI: 1.6, 8.5). No difference between infographic and written summary formats were reported for the questions assessing LBP imaging beliefs. CONCLUSION: The three materials were equally effective in improving patient's general beliefs about LBP care. However, the traditional written summary or infographic formats were more effective than the video animation format for improving beliefs about imaging for LBP.

What triggers an episode of acute low back pain? A protocol of a replication case-crossover study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe all the procedures of a study that will replicate a previous case-crossover study investigating physical and psychosocial transient exposure risk factors for triggering an episode of acute non-specific low back pain (LBP) at emergency departments in an emerging country. METHODS: This case-crossover study will recruit 350 patients, aged between 18 and 80 years, with a new episode of acute non-specific LBP seeking care at emergency departments from public hospitals in Brazil. We will collect information about exposure to a range of physical (eg, awkward postures, lifting children or animals, vigorous physical activity) and psychosocial triggers (eg, distraction, tiredness, alcohol consumption) that were examined in the previous study. The exposure to each trigger during the 2 hours preceding the onset of LBP (case window) will be compared with exposure in the 2-hour periods ending 24 (24-26 hours) and 48 (48-50 hours) hours before the onset of back pain (control window). Conditional logistic regression models will be built to estimate ORs expressing the magnitude of increased risk of developing LBP associated with each factor. DISCUSSION: This study will enable the confirmation of previous findings regarding transient exposure to factors that increase risk for an episode of acute LBP in a different setting (at emergency departments of an emerging country). To minimise the potential for recall bias, the maximum time between episode onset and interview will be 7 days; we will encourage participants to use their smartphones and diaries to remember the investigated period. Also, our interview script asked participants to nominate the key aspects of each day. Despite these efforts, the retrospective study design means it is not possible to completely exclude potential for recall bias. Furthermore, participants will be blinded to the case and control periods. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics were granted by the Research Ethics Committee (#20310219.8.0000.0064). Study findings will be disseminated through publications and conference presentations.

The RESOLVE Trial for people with chronic low back pain: statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Statistical analysis plans describe the planned data management and analysis for clinical trials. This supports transparent reporting and interpretation of clinical trial results. This paper reports the statistical analysis plan for the RESOLVE clinical trial. The RESOLVE trial assigned participants with chronic low back pain to graded sensory-motor precision training or sham-control. RESULTS: We report the planned data management and analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes. The primary outcome is pain intensity at 18-weeks post randomization. We will use mixed-effects models to analyze the primary and secondary outcomes by intention-to-treat. We will report adverse effects in full. We also describe analyses if there is non-adherence to the interventions, data management procedures, and our planned reporting of results. CONCLUSION: This statistical analysis plan will minimize the potential for bias in the analysis and reporting of results from the RESOLVE trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12615000610538 (https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=368619).

The Patenting and Technological Trends in Hernia Mesh Implants.

Described as a projection (prolapse) of tissue through a fascial defect in the abdominal wall, hernias are associated with significant rates of complications, recurrence, and reoperations. This literature review is aimed at providing an overview of the prosthetic surgical meshes used for the repairing of hernia defects. The review was carried out using two specialized online databases: Espacenet, from the European Patent Office (EPO), and WIPO from the World Intellectual Property Organization. Of the 56 patents selected from 2008 to 2018, China was the largest contributor with 55% (31 patents) of the total patent applicant filings, followed by the United States of America (US), with 29% (16 patents). Although the majority of patent applications (39 documents) had at least one company (industry) assigned to the patent application, 4 patents were solely from academic research. Our data showed that only 13 industry applicants have had their products included in the market, and the majority of meshes available on the market are still made from polypropylene. Chemical, physical, and mesh surface modifications have been implemented, and a few reviews describing mesh design, composition, and mechanical properties are available. However, to date, the ideal mesh implant from a clinical point of view has not been developed.

Factors associated with the reporting quality of low back pain systematic review abstracts in physical therapy: a methodological study.

BACKGROUND: Abstracts of systematic reviews (SR) are frequently used to guide clinical decision-making. However, if the abstract is inadequately reported, key information may be missing and it may not accurately summarize the results of the review. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate 1) if abstracts are fully reported; 2) if abstract reporting is associated with review/journal characteristics in physical therapy for low back pain (LBP); and 3) if these abstracts are consistent with the corresponding full texts. METHODS: We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database for SRs in physical therapy for LBP published between 2015 and 2017. Associations between abstract reporting quality and review/journal characteristics were explored with linear regression. Abstract reporting was assessed with the 12 item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) checklist. Consistency of reporting between abstracts and the full text was evaluated by comparing responses to each item of the PRISMA-A using Kappa coefficients. Methodological quality of the reviews was assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). RESULTS: We included 66 SRs, 9 Cochrane and 57 non-Cochrane. Review methodological quality ranged from 'high' (8%) to 'critically low' (76%). The mean ± SD of the "total number of PRISMA-A fully reported items" (range 0-12 points for fully reported items) was 4.1 ±â€¯1.9 points for non-Cochrane review abstracts and 9.9 ±â€¯1.1 points for Cochrane abstracts. Factors associated with reporting quality of abstracts were: journal impact factor (ß 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.35), number of words in abstract (ß 0.01; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.01) and review methodological quality ('critically low' with ß -3.06; 95% CI: -5.30, -0.82; with 'high' as reference variable). There was typically inconsistent reporting between abstract and full text, with most Kappa values lower than 0.60. CONCLUSIONS: The abstracts of SRs in physical therapy for LBP were poorly reported and inconsistent with the full text. The reporting quality of abstracts was higher in journals with a higher impact factor, in abstracts with a greater number of words, and when the review was of higher methodological quality.

Epidural Corticosteroid Injections for Sciatica: An Abridged Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic with meta-analysis OBJECTIVES.: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo injection in reducing leg pain and disability in patients with sciatica. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Conservative treatments, including pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments, are typically the first treatment options for sciatica but the evidence to support their use is limited. The overall quality of evidence found by previous systematic reviews varies between moderate and high, which suggests that future trials may change the conclusions. New placebo-controlled randomized trials have been published recently which highlights the importance of an updated systematic review. METHODS: The searches were performed without language restrictions in the following databases from 2012 to 25 September 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and trial registers. We included placebo-controlled randomized trials investigating epidural corticosteroid injections in patients with sciatica. The primary outcomes were leg pain intensity and disability. The secondary outcomes were adverse events, overall pain, and back pain intensity. We grouped similar trials according to outcome measures and their respective follow-up time points. Short-term follow-up (>2 weeks but ≤3 months) was considered the primary follow-up time point due to the expected mechanism of action of epidural corticosteroid injection. Weighted mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. We assessed the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach and conducted the analyses using random effects. RESULTS: We included 25 clinical trials (from 29 publications) providing data for a total of 2470 participants with sciatica, an increase of six trials when compared to the previous review. Epidural corticosteroid injections were probably more effective than placebo in reducing short-term leg pain (MD -4.93, 95% CI -8.77 to -1.09 on a 0-100 scale), short-term disability (MD -4.18, 95% CI: -6.04 to -2.17 on a 0-100 scale) and may be slightly more effective in reducing short-term overall pain (MD -9.35, 95% CI -14.05 to -4.65 on a 0-100 scale). There were mostly minor adverse events (i.e., without hospitalization) after epidural corticosteroid injections and placebo injections without difference between groups (RR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.91-1.42). The quality of evidence was at best moderate mostly due to problems with trial design and inconsistency. CONCLUSION: A review of 25 placebo-controlled trials provides moderate-quality evidence that epidural corticosteroid injections are effective, although the effects are small and short-term. There is uncertainty on safety due to very low-quality evidence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Impact of Low Back Pain Clinical Trials Measured by the Altmetric Score: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: There is interest from authors and publishers in sharing the results of their studies over the Internet in order to increase their readership. In this way, articles tend to be discussed and the impact of these articles tends to be increased. In order to measure this type of impact, a new score (named Altmetric) was created. Altmetric aims to understand the individual impact of each article through the attention attracted online. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to analyze potential factors related with the publishing journal and the publishing trial that could be associated with Altmetric scores on a random sample of low back pain randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The secondary objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of these trials and their Altmetric scores. METHODS: We searched for all low back pain RCTs indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; www.pedro.org.au) published between 2010 and 2015. A total of 200 articles were randomly selected, and we extracted data related to the publishing trial, the publishing journal, methodological quality of the trials (measured by the 0-10 item PEDro scale), and total and individual scores of Altmetric mentioned and Altmetric reader. The study was a cross-sectional study, and multivariate regression models and descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: A total of four variables were associated with Altmetric mentioned score: impact factor (ß-coefficient=3.4 points), number of years since publication (ß-coefficient=-4.9 points), number of citations divided by years since publication (ß-coefficient=5.2 points), and descriptive title (ß-coefficient=-29.4 points). Only one independent variable was associated with Altmetric reader score: number of citations divided by years since publication (ß-coefficient=10.1 points, 95% CI 7.74-12.46). We also found that the majority of articles were published in English, with a descriptive title, and published in open access journals endorsing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should preferably select high impact factor journals for submission and use declarative or interrogative titles, as these factors are likely to increase the visibility of their studies in social media.

Back Complaints in the Elders in Brazil and the Netherlands: a cross-sectional comparison.

Background: although back pain is most prevalent in older adults, there is a paucity of studies investigating back pain in older people. Our objective was to characterize and compare Brazilian and Dutch older adults presenting to primary care with a new episode of back pain. We also aimed to investigate whether socio-demographic characteristics were associated with pain severity and disability. Methods: we sourced data on 602 Brazilian and 675 Dutch participants aged ≥55 years with a new episode of back pain from the Back Complaints in the Elders consortium. We analyzed country differences in participants' characteristics, and associations between socio-demographic/clinical characteristics and pain severity and pain-related disability. Results: the two populations differed in most characteristics. More Dutch participants were smokers, heavy drinkers, and reported back stiffness. More Brazilian participants were less educated, had higher prevalence of comorbidities; higher levels of pain intensity, disability and psychological distress. When controlling for the effect of country, being female and having altered quality of sleep were associated with higher pain intensity. Altered quality of sleep, having two or more comorbidities and physical inactivity were associated with higher disability. Higher educational levels were negatively associated with both pain and disability outcomes. Conclusions: back pain is disabling in the older population. Our country comparison has shown that country of residence is an important determinant of higher disability and pain in older people with back pain. Irrespective of country, women with poor sleep quality, comorbidities, low education and who are physically inactive report more severe symptoms.

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.

Physical Activity Interventions for Increasing Objectively Measured Physical Activity Levels in Patients With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether physical activity interventions increase objectively measured physical activity levels of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain (e.g., osteoarthritis, low back pain) compared to no/minimal intervention. METHODS: We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis searching the Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, SportDiscus, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) databases, and the main clinical trials registries. Quasirandomized or randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of physical activity interventions on objectively measured physical activity levels (e.g., using accelerometers or pedometers) of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain compared with no/minimal intervention were considered eligible. Analyses were conducted separately for short-term (≤3 months), intermediate (>3 months and <12 months), and long-term (≥12 months) followups. Pooled effects were calculated using the standardized mean difference (SMD), and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used in summary conclusions. RESULTS: Eight published trials and 6 registered trials were included. For the short-term followup, pooling of 6 trials showed no significant effect (SMD 0.34, 95% confidence interval -0.09, 0.77) between a physical activity intervention and no/minimal intervention. Similarly nonsignificant results were found for the intermediate and long-term followups. The overall evidence according to the GRADE approach was classified as low quality. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that physical activity-based interventions may lead to little or no difference in objectively measured physical activity levels of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain compared with no/minimal interventions. Given the number of registered trials, the pooled effect found in this review is likely to change once the results of these trials become available.

What triggers an episode of acute low back pain? A case-crossover study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate a range of transient risk factors for an episode of sudden-onset, acute low back pain (LBP). METHODS: This case-crossover study recruited 999 subjects with a new episode of acute LBP between October 2011 and November 2012 from 300 primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. Each participant was asked to report exposure to 12 putative triggers over the 96 hours preceding the onset of back pain. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) expressing the magnitude of increased risk with exposure to each trigger. RESULTS: Exposure to a range of physical and psychosocial triggers significantly increased the risk of a new onset of LBP; ORs ranged from 2.7 (moderate or vigorous physical activity) to 25.0 (distracted during an activity or task). Age moderated the effect of exposure to heavy loads and sexual activity. The ORs for heavy loads for people ages 20, 40, or 60 years were 13.6, 6.0, and 2.7, respectively. The risk of developing back pain was greatest between 7:00 AM and noon. CONCLUSION: Transient exposure to a number of modifiable physical and psychosocial triggers substantially increases risk for a new episode of LBP. Triggers previously evaluated in occupational injury studies, but never in LBP, have been shown to significantly increase risk. These results aid our understanding of the causes of LBP and can inform the development of new prevention approaches.

Primary care research priorities in low back pain: an update.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey report. OBJECTIVE: To reassess an existing list of research priorities in primary care low back pain (LBP) and to develop a new research agenda. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Primary care LBP researchers developed an agenda of research priorities in 1997 at an international conference. In 2009, a survey was conducted to re-evaluate the 1997 research priorities and to develop a new research agenda. METHODS: Two-phase, Internet-based survey of participants in one of the LBP primary care research fora. The first phase collected information on importance, feasibility, and progress for the 1997 priorities; during this phase, the respondents were also asked to list the 5 most important current primary care-relevant LBP research questions. The second phase ranked these current research priorities. RESULTS: A total of 179 persons responded to the first phase, representing 30% of those surveyed. Rankings of the 1997 priorities were somewhat similar compared with 2009, although research on beliefs and expectations and improving the quality of LBP research became more important, and research on guidelines and psychosocial interventions became less important. Organizing more effective primary care for LBP, implementing best practices, and translating research to practice were ranked higher compared with 1997. Most priorities were also ranked as relatively feasible. The new agenda was similar, and included subgroup-based treatment and studies on causes and mechanisms of LBP as new top priorities. CONCLUSION: Changes in research priorities seem to reflect recent advances, new opportunities, and limitations in our ability to improve care.

Language of publication has a small influence on the quality of reports of controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the methodological quality is influenced by language of publication in reports of randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of physiotherapy interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Bibliometric and methodological quality data from all reports of trials indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) up to February 2011 were extracted. Descriptive statistics on the total PEDro score and the 11 individual PEDro items were calculated for each language of publication and for all non-English-language reports combined. Regression models were calculated to predict the total PEDro score and the presence of each of the 11 items of the PEDro scale using the language of publication as an independent variable. RESULTS: A total of 13,392 reports of trials were used for this study, 12,532 trials published in English and 860 published in other languages. Overall methodological quality was better for English reports than reports written in other languages (ß = 0.15, 95% confidence interval = 0.04, 0.25). Specifically, reporting was better for items relating to random allocation, concealed allocation, and blinding of assessors, worse for more than 85% follow-up and intention-to-treat analysis, and no different for eligibility criteria and source specified, baseline comparability, blinding of subjects and therapists, reporting of between-group statistical comparisons, and reporting of point measures and measures of variability. CONCLUSION: Language of publication is associated with the methodological quality of reports of physiotherapy trials. Although English reports are more likely to have better methodological quality than reports written in other languages, the magnitude of this influence is small.