N-95/P2 respirator compliance with fit testing recommendations and respirator satisfaction amongst hospital staff.

BACKGROUND: Filtering Facepiece Respirators (FFRs) are an important and readily scalable infection control measure; however their effectiveness is ultimately determined by compliance. We aimed to examine staff compliance and satisfaction with wearing the N95/P2 FFRs assigned to them via the standardised fit testing protocol implemented in a single large healthcare network in Victoria, Australia. METHODS: In this cross-sectional survey, employees from five hospital campuses who participated in the health networks N95/P2 FFR fit testing process were invited in person to participate in the study. Data were analysed descriptively, after which chi-squared analysis was performed to determine differences between respirator types, gender, and age groups. RESULTS: Amongst the 258 staff members surveyed, 28% had either never or only sometimes worn an FFR to which they had been successfully fit tested, and 11% had experienced facial changes that potentially rendered their most recent fit test invalid. More than half (53%) of those surveyed had experienced side effects, the most common being skin irritation and pressure sores. A majority (87%) of staff felt that wearing an FFR had some impact on their ability to perform their duties. Pooled mean self-reported satisfaction ratings were highest for three-panel flat-fold and duckbill models. CONCLUSION: 28% of HCWs surveyed described not wearing N-95/P2 FFRs for which they had successfully been fit tested. Reasons for non-compliance remain unclear, but rates of side effects and interference with duties were high. Further research is required to determine and address potential causative factors and ascertain ongoing optimal organisation-level fit test strategies.

Boosting treatment outcomes via the patient-practitioner relationship, treatment-beliefs or therapeutic setting. A systematic review with meta-analysis of contextual effects in chronic musculoskeletal pain.

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether manipulating contextual effects (e.g. interaction with patients, or beliefs about treatments) boosted the outcomes of non-pharmacological and non-surgicaltreatments for chronic primary musculoskeletal pain. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: We searched for trials in six databases, citation tracking, and clinical trials registers. We included trials that compared treatments with enhanced contextual effects with the same treatments without enhancement in adults with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain. DATA SYNTHESIS: The outcomes of interest were pain intensity, physical functioning, global ratings of improvement, quality of life, depression, anxiety, and sleep. We evaluated risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 and the GRADE approach, respectively. RESULTS: Of 17637 records, we included 10 trials with 990 participants and identified 5 ongoing trials. The treatments were acupuncture, education, exercise training, and physical therapy. The contextual effects that were improved in the enhanced treatments were patient-practitioner relationship, patient beliefs and characteristics, therapeutic setting/environment, and treatment characteristics. Our analysis showed that improving contextual effects in non-pharmacological and non-surgical treatments may not make much difference on pain intensity (mean difference [MD] : -1.77, 95%-CI: [-8.71; 5.16], k = 7 trials, N = 719 participants, Scale: 0-100, GRADE: Low)) or physical functioning (MD: -0.27, 95%-CI: [-1.02; 0.49], 95%-PI: [-2.04; 1.51], k = 6 , N = 567, Scale: 0-10, GRADE: Low) in the short-term and at later follow-ups. Sensitivity analyses revealed similar findings. CONCLUSION: Whilst evidence gaps exist, per current evidence it may not be possible to achieve meaningful benefit for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain by manipulating the context of non-pharmacological and non-surgical treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42023391601).

Psychological therapies for depression in older adults residing in long-term care settings.

BACKGROUND: Depression is common amongst older people residing in long-term care (LTC) facilities. Currently, most residents treated for depression are prescribed antidepressant medications, despite the potential availability of psychological therapies that are suitable for older people and a preference amongst many older people for non-pharmacological treatment approaches. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of psychological therapies for depression in older people living in LTC settings, in comparison with treatment as usual, waiting list control, and non-specific attentional control; and to compare the effectiveness of different types of psychological therapies in this setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, five grey literature sources, and two trial registers. We performed reference checking and citation searching, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. The latest search was 31 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of any type of psychological therapy for the treatment of depression in adults aged 65 years and over residing in a LTC facility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text manuscripts for inclusion. Two review authors independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We contacted study authors for additional information where required. Primary outcomes were level of depressive symptomatology and treatment non-acceptability; secondary outcomes included depression remission, quality of life or psychological well-being, and level of anxious symptomatology. We used Review Manager 5 to conduct meta-analyses, using pairwise random-effects models. For continuous data, we calculated standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using endpoint data, and for dichotomous data, we used odds ratios and 95% CIs. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs with 873 participants; 16 parallel group RCTs and three cluster-RCTs. Most studies compared psychological therapy (typically including elements of cognitive behavioural therapy, behavioural therapy, reminiscence therapy, or a combination of these) to treatment as usual or to a condition controlling for the effects of attention. We found very low-certainty evidence that psychological therapies were more effective than non-therapy control conditions in reducing symptoms of depression, with a large effect size at end-of-intervention (SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.58; 18 RCTs, 644 participants) and at short-term (up to three months) follow-up (SMD -1.03, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.56; 16 RCTs, 512 participants). In addition, very low-certainty evidence from a single study with 82 participants indicated that psychological therapy was associated with a greater reduction in the number of participants presenting with major depressive disorder compared to treatment as usual control, at end-of-intervention and short-term follow-up. However, given the limited data on the effect of psychological therapies on remission of major depressive disorder, caution is advised in interpreting this result. Participants receiving psychological therapy were more likely to drop out of the trial than participants receiving a non-therapy control (odds ratio 3.44, 95% CI 1.19 to 9.93), which may indicate higher treatment non-acceptability. However, analyses were restricted due to limited dropout case data and imprecise reporting, and the finding should be interpreted with caution. There was very low-certainty evidence that psychological therapy was more effective than non-therapy control conditions in improving quality of life and psychological well-being at short-term follow-up, with a medium effect size (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.82; 5 RCTs, 170 participants), but the effect size was small at postintervention (SMD 0.40, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.82; 6 RCTs, 195 participants). There was very low-certainty evidence of no effect of psychological therapy on anxiety symptoms postintervention (SMD -0.68, 95% CI -2.50 to 1.14; 2 RCTs, 115 participants), although results lacked precision, and there was insufficient data to determine short-term outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests that cognitive behavioural therapy, behavioural therapy, and reminiscence therapy may reduce depressive symptoms compared with usual care for LTC residents, but the evidence is very uncertain. Psychological therapies may also improve quality of life and psychological well-being amongst depressed LTC residents in the short term, but may have no effect on symptoms of anxiety in depressed LTC residents, compared to control conditions. However, the evidence for these effects is very uncertain, limiting our confidence in the findings. The evidence could be strengthened by better reporting and higher-quality RCTs of psychological therapies in LTC, including trials with larger samples, reporting results separately for those with and without cognitive impairment and dementia, and longer-term outcomes to determine when effects wane.

Contextual effects: how to, and how not to, quantify them.

The importance of contextual effects and their roles in clinical care controversial. A Cochrane review published in 2010 concluded that placebo interventions lack important clinical effects overall, but that placebo interventions can influence patient-reported outcomes such as pain and nausea. However, systematic reviews published after 2010 estimated greater contextual effects than the Cochrane review, which stems from the inappropriate methods employed to quantify contextual effects. The effects of medical interventions (i.e., the total treatment effect) can be divided into three components: specific, contextual, and non-specific. We propose that the most effective method for quantifying the magnitude of contextual effects is to calculate the difference in outcome measures between a group treated with placebo and a non-treated control group. Here, we show that other methods, such as solely using the placebo control arm or calculation of a 'proportional contextual effect,' are limited and should not be applied. The aim of this study is to provide clear guidance on best practices for estimating contextual effects in clinical research.

Exercise prescription variables predict reductions in pain intensity in adults with chronic low back pain: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

Objectives: The relationship between exercise training variables and clinical outcomes in low back pain (LBP) is unclear. The current study aimed to explore the relationship between exercise training parameters and pain intensity in individuals with chronic LBP. Methods: This study is a secondary analysis of a previously reported randomised controlled trial comparing the effects of general strength and conditioning to motor control exercises and manual therapy. This secondary analysis includes adults with chronic LBP (n=20) randomised to the general strength and conditioning programme only. Primary outcomes of this analysis were exercise training parameters (time under tension, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), session duration, session-RPE and training frequency) and pain intensity (0-100 mm visual analogue acale) measured every 2 weeks from baseline to 6 months follow-up. Linear mixed models with random effects (participants) and allowance for heterogeneity of variance (study date) were used to determine the association between pain intensity and training parameters over time. Results: Mean (95% CI) pain intensity decreased over time from baseline to 6 months follow-up by 10.7 (2.8 to 18.7) points (p=0.008). Over the 6-month intervention, lower pain intensity was associated with higher RPE (ß (95% CI) -27.168 (-44.265 to -10.071), p=0.002), greater time under tension (-0.029 (-0.056 to -0.001), p=0.040) and shorter session duration (1.938 (0.011 to 3.865), p=0.049). Conclusion: During 6 months of general strength and conditioning, lower pain intensity was associated with higher participant-reported training intensity, greater volume and shorter session duration. To ensure positive outcomes to exercise training, these variables should be monitored on a short-term basis. Trial registration number: ACTRN12615001270505.

The Impact of Exercise Prescription Variables on Intervention Outcomes in Musculoskeletal Pain: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal pain conditions are the largest contributors to disability and healthcare burden globally. Exercise interventions improve physical function and quality of life in individuals with musculoskeletal pain, yet optimal exercise prescription variables (e.g. duration, frequency, intensity) are unclear. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine evidence gaps, methodological quality and exercise prescription recommendations in systematic reviews of exercise for musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: In our prospectively registered umbrella review, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to 14 February 2023. Backward citation tracking was performed. We included peer-reviewed, English language, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared exercise with conservative treatment, placebo or other exercise interventions in adults with musculoskeletal pain. Data were extracted from the following groups of reviews based on their reporting of exercise prescription data and analysis of the relationship between prescription variables and outcomes: (1) those that did not report any exercise prescription data, (2) those that reported exercise prescription data but did not perform a quantitative analysis and (3) those that performed a quantitative analysis of the relationship between exercise prescription variables and outcomes. Outcome measures were physical function, pain, mental health, adverse effects and adherence to treatment. AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) was used to assess methodological quality. RESULTS: From 6757 records, 274 systematic reviews were included. 6.6% of reviews did not report any exercise prescription data, and only 10.9% quantitatively analyzed the relationship between prescription variables and the outcome(s). The overall methodological quality was critically low in 85% of reviews. CONCLUSION: High methodological quality evidence is lacking for optimal exercise training prescription variables in individuals with musculoskeletal pain. To better inform practice and evidence gaps, future systematic reviews should (1) identify optimum exercise prescription variables, for example, via dose-response (network) meta-analysis, (2) perform high-quality reviews per AMSTAR-2 criteria and (3) include outcomes of mental health, adverse events and exercise adherence. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021287440 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021287440 ).

How to Interpret Effect Sizes for Biopsychosocial Outcomes and Implications for Current Research.

Biopsychosocial factors are associated with pain, but they can be difficult to compare. One way of comparing them is to use standardized mean differences. Previously, these effects sizes have been termed as small, medium, or large, if they are bigger than or equal to, respectively, .2, .5, or .8. These cut-offs are arbitrary and recent evidence showed that they need to be reconsidered. We argue it is necessary to determine cut-offs for each biopsychosocial factor. To achieve this, we propose 3 potential approaches: 1) examining, for each factor, how the effect size differs depending upon disease severity; 2) using an existing minimum clinically important difference to anchor the large effect size; and 3) define cut-offs by comparing data from people with and without pain. This is important for pain research, as exploring these methodologies has potential to improve comparability of biopsychosocial factors and lead to more directed treatments. We note assumptions and limitations of these methods that should also be considered. PERSPECTIVE: Standardized mean differences can estimate effect sizes between groups and could theoretically allow for comparison of biopsychosocial factors. However, common thresholds to define effect sizes are arbitrary and likely differ based on outcome. We propose methods that could overcome this and be used to derive biopsychosocial outcome-specific effect sizes.

The importance of context (placebo effects) in conservative interventions for musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Contextual effects (e.g. patient expectations) may play a role in treatment effectiveness. This study aimed to estimate the magnitude of contextual effects for conservative, non-pharmacological interventions for musculoskeletal pain conditions. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared placebo conservative non-pharmacological interventions to no treatment for musculoskeletal pain. The outcomes assessed included pain intensity, physical functioning, health-related quality of life, global rating of change, depression, anxiety and sleep at immediate, short-, medium- and/or long-term follow-up. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, CENTRAL and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception to September 2021. Trial registry searches, backward and forward citation tracking and searches for prior systematic reviews were completed. The Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool was implemented. RESULTS: The study included 64 RCTs (N = 4314) out of 8898 records. For pain intensity, a mean difference of (MD: -5.32, 95% confidence interval (CI): -7.20, -3.44, N = 57 studies with 74 outcomes, GRADE: very low) was estimated for placebo interventions. A small effect in favour of the placebo interventions for physical function was estimated (SMD: -0.22, 95% CI: -0.35, -0.09; N = 37 with 48 outcomes, GRADE: very low). Similar results were found for a broad range of patient-reported outcomes. Meta-regression analyses did not explain heterogeneity among analyses. CONCLUSION: The study found that the contextual effect of non-pharmacological conservative interventions for musculoskeletal conditions is likely to be small. However, given the known effect sizes of recommended evidence-based treatments for musculoskeletal conditions, it may still contribute an important component. SIGNIFICANCE: Contextual effects of non-pharmacological conservative interventions for musculoskeletal conditions are likely to be small for a broad range of patient-reported outcomes (pain intensity, physical function, quality of life, global rating of change and depression). Contextual effects are unlikely, in isolation, to offer much clinical care. But these factors do have relevance in an overall treatment context as they provide almost 30% of the minimally clinically important difference.

Does adolescent depression modify the association between psychosocial job stressors and mental health in emergent adulthood?

BACKGROUND: Job stressors can be particularly harmful to the mental health of disadvantaged groups through differential exposure, differential sensitivity to the effects of exposure, or both. In this paper, we assess the extent to which emergent adult workers with an adolescent history of high depression symptoms may be differentially sensitive to the effect of job stressors on mental health. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of three waves of the Australian arm of the International Youth Development Study (n = 1262). We used multivariable linear regression to assess whether self-reported measures of high depression symptoms at one or two time points in adolescence (ages 11-16 years) modified the cross-sectional association between four self-reported job stressors (job demands, job control, job strain, and incivility at work) and psychological distress (Kessler-10 scores) in emergent adulthood (ages 23-27 years). RESULTS: For all four job stressors, there was a consistent pattern of approximately a doubling in the magnitude of association for participants with a history of high depression symptoms at two points in adolescence compared with those with no history of depression. However, results of effect modification analysisfor only job demands and job strain excluded chance as a potential explanation. CONCLUSIONS: Findings showed partial support for the hypothesis that a history of high depression symptoms in adolescence predicts stronger associations between job stressor exposures and psychological distress among those employed in emergent adulthood. The limitations of this secondary analysis suggest a need for purpose-designed studies to answer this important research question more definitively.

Telemedicine for Patients with Musculoskeletal Pain Lacks High-Quality Evidence on Delivery Modes and Effectiveness: An Umbrella Review.

Background: Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Telemedicine is of growing importance, yet impacts on treatment efficacy remain unclear. Objective: This umbrella review (CRD42022298047) examined the effectiveness of telemedicine interventions on pain intensity, disability, psychological function, quality of life, self-efficacy, and adverse events in MSK pain. Methods: PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to August 9, 2022, for systematic reviews with meta-analysis, including telemedicine-delivered exercise, education, and psychological interventions, in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). AMSTAR-2 was implemented. Standardized mean differences (SMDs; negative favors telemedicine) were extracted as effect estimates. Results: Of 1,135 records, 20 reviews (RCTs: n = 97, participants: n = 15,872) were included. Pain intensity SMDs were -0.66 to 0.10 for mixed pain (estimates: n = 16), -0.64 to -0.01 for low-back pain (n = 9), -0.31 to -0.15 for osteoarthritis (n = 7), -0.29 for knee pain (n = 1), -0.66 to -0.58 for fibromyalgia (n = 2), -0.16 for back pain (n = 1), and -0.09 for rheumatic disorders (n = 1). Disability SMDs were -0.50 to 0.10 for mixed pain (n = 14), -0.39 to 0.00 for low-back pain (n = 8), -0.41 to -0.04 for osteoarthritis (n = 7), -0.22 for knee pain (n = 1), and -0.56 for fibromyalgia (n = 1). Methodological quality was "critically low" for 17 reviews. Effectiveness tended to favor telemedicine for all secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Primary RCTs are required that compare telemedicine interventions with in-person delivery of the intervention (noninferiority trials), consider safety, assess videoconferencing, and combine different treatment approaches.

Client and Clinician Experiences and Perspectives of Exercise Physiology Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to changes in the delivery of exercise physiology services. The lived experience of those who continued to provide or receive exercise physiology services during the heightened public health restrictions of the inaugural year of the COVID-19 pandemic has received little attention to date. Acquiring this knowledge will be fundamental in addressing whether telehealth is a viable option for service delivery in exercise care, research, and policy. This is especially pertinent in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent global interest in digital health delivery of health care services. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the clinician and client experiences and perspectives of exercise physiology services delivered in person or via telehealth during the inaugural year of the COVID-19 pandemic (after January 25, 2020; the date of the first confirmed case in Australia). METHODS: Eligible participants for this study were adult (aged 18 years or older; capable of understanding and writing in English) clients who received and clinicians who delivered 1 or more exercise physiology sessions in Australia during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (June 2020 to June 2021). The data collection period spanned from January 20, 2021, to September 24, 2021. A total of 18 semistructured individual interviews were conducted with accredited exercise physiologists (n=7) and clients (n=11) who engaged with exercise physiology services during this period. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was conducted with themes and subthemes derived using deductive and inductive approaches. RESULTS: A total of 3 dominant themes, each with 2 subthemes, were identified. The first theme was that telehealth enables access to services but limits the use of some clinical tools. Remote access to services was valued by both clinicians and clients, but the exercise clinical environment could not be replicated over telehealth. This was especially true regarding access to exercise equipment. Second, engagement and the "relational space" are limited by telehealth. Perceived challenges regarding social interactions and a sense of community were a limitation for clients, and difficulties fostering clinician-client report were noted by clinicians. Finally, technological challenges are pervasive in the telehealth delivery of exercise services. Both clinicians and clients noted that systems necessary to facilitate telehealth frequently disrupted delivery, and client-based technical issues were influenced by digital health literacy. CONCLUSIONS: Shared client and accredited exercise physiologist experiences highlight key considerations for the ongoing implementation of telehealth to facilitate the uptake and effectiveness of exercise physiology services. These findings imply that the co-design of solutions to client-perceived limitations of telehealth delivery is warranted.

Epidemiology of musculoskeletal injury in military recruits: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Injuries are a common occurrence in military recruit training, however due to differences in the capture of training exposure, injury incidence rates are rarely reported. Our aim was to determine the musculoskeletal injury epidemiology of military recruits, including a standardised injury incidence rate. METHODS: Epidemiological systematic review following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Five online databases were searched from database inception to 5th May 2021. Prospective and retrospective studies that reported data on musculoskeletal injuries sustained by military recruits after the year 2000 were included. We reported on the frequency, prevalence and injury incidence rate. Incidence rate per 1000 training days (Exact 95% CI) was calculated using meta-analysis to allow comparisons between studies. Observed heterogeneity (e.g., training duration) precluded pooling of results across countries. The Joanna Briggs Institute Quality Assessment Checklist for Prevalence Studies assessed study quality. RESULTS: This review identified 41 studies comprising 451,782 recruits. Most studies (n = 26; 63%) reported the number of injured recruits, and the majority of studies (n = 27; 66%) reported the number of injuries to recruits. The prevalence of recruits with medical attention injuries or time-loss injuries was 22.8% and 31.4%, respectively. Meta-analysis revealed the injury incidence rate for recruits with a medical attention injury may be as high as 19.52 injuries per 1000 training days; and time-loss injury may be as high as 3.97 injuries per 1000 training days. Longer recruit training programs were associated with a reduced injury incidence rate (p = 0.003). The overall certainty of the evidence was low per a modified GRADE approach. CONCLUSION: This systematic review with meta-analysis highlights a high musculoskeletal injury prevalence and injury incidence rate within military recruits undergoing basic training with minimal improvement observed over the past 20 years. Longer training program, which may decrease the degree of overload experienced by recruit, may reduce injury incidence rates. Unfortunately, reporting standards and reporting consistency remain a barrier to generalisability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42021251080).

Effectiveness of Exercise Interventions for Preventing Neck Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To update the evidence on the effectiveness of exercise interventions to prevent episodes of neck pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, and trial registries from inception to December 2, 2022. Forward and backward citation searches. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled adults without neck pain at baseline and compared exercise interventions to no intervention, placebo/sham, attention control, or minimal intervention. Military populations and astronauts were excluded. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The certainty of evidence was judged according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Of 4703 records screened, 5 trials (1722 participants at baseline) were included and eligible for meta-analysis. Most (80%) participants were office workers. Risk of bias was rated as some concerns for 2 trials and high for 3 trials. There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise interventions probably reduce the risk of a new episode of neck pain (OR, 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.31, 0.76) compared to no or minimal intervention in the short-term (≤12 months). The results were not robust to sensitivity analyses for missing outcome data. CONCLUSION: There was moderate-certainty evidence supporting exercise interventions for reducing the risk for an episode of neck pain in the next 12 months. The clinical significance of the effect is unclear. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(10):1-16. Epub: 8 September 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12063.

Evidence- and data-driven classification of low back pain via artificial intelligence: Protocol of the PREDICT-LBP study.

In patients presenting with low back pain (LBP), once specific causes are excluded (fracture, infection, inflammatory arthritis, cancer, cauda equina and radiculopathy) many clinicians pose a diagnosis of non-specific LBP. Accordingly, current management of non-specific LBP is generic. There is a need for a classification of non-specific LBP that is both data- and evidence-based assessing multi-dimensional pain-related factors in a large sample size. The "PRedictive Evidence Driven Intelligent Classification Tool for Low Back Pain" (PREDICT-LBP) project is a prospective cross-sectional study which will compare 300 women and men with non-specific LBP (aged 18-55 years) with 100 matched referents without a history of LBP. Participants will be recruited from the general public and local medical facilities. Data will be collected on spinal tissue (intervertebral disc composition and morphology, vertebral fat fraction and paraspinal muscle size and composition via magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]), central nervous system adaptation (pain thresholds, temporal summation of pain, brain resting state functional connectivity, structural connectivity and regional volumes via MRI), psychosocial factors (e.g. depression, anxiety) and other musculoskeletal pain symptoms. Dimensionality reduction, cluster validation and fuzzy c-means clustering methods, classification models, and relevant sensitivity analyses, will classify non-specific LBP patients into sub-groups. This project represents a first personalised diagnostic approach to non-specific LBP, with potential for widespread uptake in clinical practice. This project will provide evidence to support clinical trials assessing specific treatments approaches for potential subgroups of patients with non-specific LBP. The classification tool may lead to better patient outcomes and reduction in economic costs.

Effects of Moderate- to High-Impact Exercise Training on Bone Structure Across the Lifespan: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Moderate- to high-impact exercise improves bone mineral density (BMD) across the lifespan, but its effects on bone structure, which predicts fracture independent of areal BMD, are unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated effects of impact exercise on volumetric BMD (vBMD) and bone structure. Four databases (PubMed, Embase, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science) were searched up to March 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of impact exercise, with ground reaction forces equal to or greater than running, compared with sham or habitual activity, on bone vBMD and structure. Bone variables were measured by quantitative computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging at the tibia, radius, lumbar spine, and femur. Percentage changes in bone variables were compared among groups using mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated via random effects meta-analyses. Subgroup analyses were performed in children/adolescents (<18 years), adults (18-50 years), postmenopausal women, and older men. Twenty-eight RCTs (n = 2985) were included. Across all studies, impact exercise improved trabecular vBMD at the distal tibia (MD = 0.54% [95% CI 0.17, 0.90%]), total vBMD at the proximal femur (3.11% [1.07, 5.14%]), and cortical thickness at the mid/proximal radius (1.78% [0.21, 3.36%]). There was no effect on vBMD and bone structure at the distal radius, femoral shaft, or lumbar spine across all studies or in any subgroup. In adults, impact exercise decreased mid/proximal tibia cortical vBMD (-0.20% [-0.24, -0.15%]). In postmenopausal women, impact exercise improved distal tibia trabecular vBMD (0.79% [0.32, 1.25%]). There was no effect on bone parameters in children/adolescents in overall analyses, and there were insufficient studies in older men to perform meta-analyses. Impact exercise may have beneficial effects on bone structure and vBMD at various skeletal sites, but additional high-quality RCTs in different age and sex subgroups are needed to identify optimal exercise protocols for improving bone health across the lifespan. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Towards data-driven biopsychosocial classification of non-specific chronic low back pain: a pilot study.

The classification of non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP) according to multidimensional data could guide clinical management; yet recent systematic reviews show this has not been attempted. This was a prospective cross-sectional study of participants with CLBP (n = 21) and age-, sex- and height-matched pain-free controls (n = 21). Nervous system, lumbar spinal tissue and psychosocial factors were collected. Dimensionality reduction was followed by fuzzy c-means clustering to determine sub-groups. Machine learning models (Support Vector Machine, k-Nearest Neighbour, Naïve Bayes and Random Forest) were used to determine the accuracy of classification to sub-groups. The primary analysis showed that four factors (cognitive function, depressive symptoms, general self-efficacy and anxiety symptoms) and two clusters (normal versus impaired psychosocial profiles) optimally classified participants. The error rates in classification models ranged from 4.2 to 14.2% when only CLBP patients were considered and increased to 24.2 to 37.5% when pain-free controls were added. This data-driven pilot study classified participants with CLBP into sub-groups, primarily based on psychosocial factors. This contributes to the literature as it was the first study to evaluate data-driven machine learning CLBP classification based on nervous system, lumbar spinal tissue and psychosocial factors. Future studies with larger sample sizes should validate these findings.

Does adding exercise or physical activity to pharmacological osteoporosis therapy in patients with increased fracture risk improve bone mineral density and lower fracture risk? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This prospectively registered systematic review and meta-analysis examines whether exercise (EX) training has an additive effect to osteoanabolic and/or antiresorptive pharmacological therapy (PT) in people with osteoporosis on bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover markers (BTMs), fracture healing, and fractures. Four databases (inception to 6 May 2022), 5 trial registries, and reference lists were searched. Included were randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of EX + PT vs. PT with regard to BMD, BTM, fracture healing, and fractures. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 and certainty of evidence by the GRADE approach. Random-effects meta-analysis with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment was used to estimate standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Out of 2593 records, five RCTs with 530 participants were included. Meta-analysis showed with very low certainty evidence and wide confidence intervals that EX + PT compared to PT had larger effect sizes for BMD at 12 months at the hip (SMD [95%CI]: 0.18 [- 1.71; 2.06], n = 3 studies), tibia (0.25 [- 4.85; 5.34], n = 2), lumbar spine (0.20 [- 1.15; 1.55], n = 4), and forearm (0.05 [- 0.35; 0.46], n = 3), but not femoral neck (- 0.03 [- 1.80; 1.75], n = 3). Furthermore, no improvement was revealed for BTM such as bone ALP (- 0.68 [- 5.88; 4.53], n = 3), PINP (- 0.74 [- 10.42; 8.93], n = 2), and CTX-I (- 0.69 [- 9.61; 8.23], n = 2), but with very wide confidence intervals. Three potentially relevant ongoing trials were identified via registries. No data were found for fracture healing or fracture outcomes. It remains unclear whether EX has an additive impact to PT in people with osteoporosis. High-quality, adequately powered, targetted RCTs are required. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022336132.

Classifying Nonspecific Low Back Pain for Better Clinical Outcomes: Current Challenges and Paths Forward.

SYNOPSIS: Low back pain classification systems are structured assessments used to guide choices of more specific treatments. Classification systems examined in randomized controlled trials have limited effects on pain intensity and disability compared to nonclassified interventions. Potential reasons for the lack of efficacy include (1) failing to assess multidimensional factors that contribute to pain, (2) relying on clinician judgement, (3) low accessibility, and (4) poor classification reliability. Overcoming these limitations is critical to deciding whether classification systems can improve clinical practice. Only once these limitations are addressed, can we feel certain about the efficacy, or lack thereof, of classification systems. This Viewpoint guides the reader through some limitations of common classification approaches and presents a path forward to open-access, reliable, and multidimensional precision medicine for managing low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(5):1-5. Epub: 5 April 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11658.