Sleep as a prognostic factor in low back pain: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies and secondary analyses of randomized controlled trials.

Sleep problems are common in individuals with low back pain (LBP) and sleep restriction seems to be associated with impaired pain processing. Our objective was to investigate whether sleep is associated with future LBP outcomes (i.e., pain intensity, disability, and recovery) in adults. We conducted a systematic review of prospective cohort studies and secondary analyses of randomized controlled trials (registration - PROSPERO CRD42022370781). In December 2022, we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases. Fourteen studies, totaling 19,170 participants were included. Thirteen studies were rated as having high risk of bias (QUIPS tool). We used vote-counting and meta-analysis approaches to synthesize the data. We found associations between baseline sleep with future pain intensity, recovery, and between changes in sleep with changes in pain intensity, changes in disability, and recovery. We further synthesized outcomes as 'overall LBP improvement' outcome. Baseline poor sleep was moderately associated with non-improvement in LBP in the long-very long term (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.39 to 1.73; three studies providing unadjusted effect sizes), and non-improvement in sleep was largely associated with non-improvement in LBP in the short-moderate term (OR 3.45, 95% CI 2.54 to 4.69; four studies providing unadjusted effect sizes). We found no association between baseline sleep with future disability and overall LBP improvement in the short-moderate term. Therefore, sleep may be a prognostic factor for pain intensity and recovery from LBP. All findings were supported by low to very low-quality evidence. Better-conducted studies are needed to strengthen our certainty about the evidence.

Research from Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries will Benefit Global Health and the Physiotherapy Profession, but it Requires Support.

Disparities in research publications are common in the physiotherapy and rehabilitation fields.1 A small proportion of published research arises from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs),1,2 home to 85% of the world's population. Systems-level, institutional-level, and individual-level factors contribute to these disparities. With urgent and unified actions, global health and the standard of physiotherapy research in LMICs can be improved and strengthened. In this editorial, we will discuss the challenges encountered by researchers from LMICs in conducting and publishing high-quality research and propose potential strategies to address these challenges.

Clinical trial registration has become more prevalent in physical therapy but it is still inadequate: A meta-research study.

BACKGROUND: A study using data from 2009 showed low prevalence and inadequate trial registration in physiotherapy. In 2013, a joint editorial recommended prospective registration in physiotherapy journals. Ten years later it is unclear whether the joint editorial achieved its intended benefit. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the proportion of randomized trials adequately registered and the extent of selective reporting of outcomes in trials of physiotherapy interventions published in 2019 and to compare these data with equivalent published data from 2009. DESIGN: Meta-research study. METHOD: A random sample of 200 trials published in 2019 was used. Evidence of registration was sought on trial registers and by contacting authors. Data from the article was compared with data from the trial registration. Data from this sample of trial published in 2019 were compared with equivalent published data from 2009. RESULTS: In 2019, the proportion of trials that were registered was 63% versus 34% in 2009 (absolute difference 29%). In 2019, 18% of the trials were prospectively registered compared to 6% in 2009 (absolute difference 12%). Unambiguous primary outcomes (i.e., method and timepoints of measurement clearly defined in the trial registry entry) were registered for 30% in 2019. Registration was adequate (i.e., prospective with unambiguous primary outcomes) for 8%, compared with 3% in 2009 (absolute difference 5%). Selective outcome reporting occurred in 73% of the trials in which it was assessable; in 2009 this proportion was 47% (absolute difference 26%). CONCLUSIONS: Registration of randomized trials in physiotherapy increased in the past decade, but it is still inadequate. More effort is still required to implement and enforce adequate registration.

Association Between Domain-Specific Physical Activity and Chronic Low Back Pain in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study.

To investigate the association between physical activity (PA) domains and chronic low back pain (LBP) in older adults. A cross-sectional study where sociodemographic, behavioral, and health variables; PA; and presence of chronic LBP were collected. Higher scores of PA defined the "more active" participants. Binary logistic regression was used to test the association between PA domains and chronic LBP. A total of 516 participants were included. The mean age was 71.8 (95% confidence interval, CI, [71.1, 72.5]) years, and 29%, 27%, 25%, and 31% were identified as "more active" in the household, sports, leisure-time, and total PA domains, respectively. "More active" participants in sports (odds ratio = 0.62, 95% CI [0.40, 0.97]), leisure-time (odds ratio = 0.54, 95% CI [0.35, 0.85]) and total (odds ratio = 0.60, 95% CI [0.39, 0.92]) PA domains were less likely to report chronic LBP. High levels of sports, leisure-time, and total PA were inversely associated with chronic LBP.

Systemic corticosteroids for radicular and non-radicular low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are medications with anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressant properties. Systemic corticosteroids administered through the oral, intravenous, or intramuscular routes have been used to treat various types of low back pain, including radicular back pain (not due to spinal stenosis), non-radicular back pain, and spinal stenosis. However, there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of systemic corticosteroids for low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic corticosteroids versus placebo or no corticosteroid for radicular low back pain, non-radicular low back pain, and symptomatic spinal stenosis in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was September 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials in adults of systematic corticosteroids versus placebo or no corticosteroid. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. The major outcomes were pain, function, need for surgery, serious adverse effect, and presence of hyperglycemia. The minor outcomes were quality of life, successful outcomes, non-serious adverse events, and withdrawal due to adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen trials (1047 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Nine trials included participants with radicular low back pain, two trial with low back pain, and two trials with spinal stenosis. All trials blinded participants to receipt of systemic corticosteroids. Seven trials were at low risk of bias, five at unclear risk, and one at high risk of selection bias. Two trials were at high risk of attrition bias. Doses and duration of systemic corticosteroid therapy varied. Radicular low back pain For radicular low back pain, moderate-certainty evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly decrease pain versus placebo at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0.56 points better, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 0.04 on a 0 to 10 scale) and may slightly increase the likelihood of experiencing improvement in pain at short-term follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.66; absolute effect 5% better (95% CI 5% worse to 15% better). Systemic corticosteroids may not improve function at short-term follow-up (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.14 better; range 0.49 better to 0.21 worse) and probably increase the likelihood of improvement in function at short-term follow-up (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.91; absolute effect 19% better, 95% CI 8% better to 30% better). Systemic corticosteroids were associated with greater improvement in function versus placebo at long-term follow-up (MD -7.40, 95% CI -12.55 to -2.25 on the 0 to 100 Oswestry Disability Index) and greater likelihood of functional improvement (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.56), based on a single trial. There was no difference in likelihood of surgery (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47). Evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids (administered as a single dose or as a short course of therapy) are not associated with increased risk of any adverse event, serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, or hyperglycemia, but estimates were imprecise as some trials did not report harms, and harms reporting was suboptimal in trials that did provide data. Limitations included variability across trials in interventions (e.g. corticosteroid used, dose and duration of treatment), clinical settings, and participants (e.g. duration of symptoms, methods for diagnosis); limited utility of subgroup analyses due to small numbers of trials; methodologic limitations or suboptimal reporting of methods by some trials; and too few trials to formally assess for publication bias using graphical or statistical tests for small sample effects. Non-radicular low back pain Evidence on systemic corticosteroids versus placebo for non-radicular pain was limited and suggested that systemic corticosteroids may be associated with slightly worse short-term pain but slightly better function. Spinal stenosis For spinal stenosis, limited evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids are probably no more effective than placebo for short-term pain or function. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Systemic corticosteroids appear to be slightly effective at improving short-term pain and function in people with radicular low back pain not due to spinal stenosis, and might slightly improve long-term function. The effects of systemic corticosteroids in people with non-radicular low back pain are unclear and systemic corticosteroids are probably ineffective for spinal stenosis. A single dose or short course of systemic corticosteroids for low back pain does not appear to cause serious harms, but evidence is limited.

Chronic back pain among Brazilian adults: data from the 2019 National Health Survey. / Dor crônica na coluna entre adultos brasileiros: dados da Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde 2019.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of chronic back pain (CBP) and its associated factors. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed the 2019 National Health Survey, with 88,531 adults, using logistic regression to identify associated factors. RESULTS: CBP was reported by 21.6% of adults and was more likely to occur among women (odds ratio - OR=1.27; 95% confidence interval - 95%CI 1.19-1.35), increased with age: 25-34 years (OR=1.30; 95%CI 1.11-1.51), 35-44 (OR=1.78; 95%CI 1.54-2.07), 45-54 years (OR=2.23; 95%CI 1.91-2.59), 55-64 years (OR=2.47; 95%CI 2.12-2.88), and 65 years or older (OR=2.17; 95%CI 1.85-2.54); among smokers (OR=1.24; 95%CI 1.13-1.35); ex-smokers (OR=1.30; 95%CI 1.21-1.39); those who mentioned heavy housework (OR=1.41; 95%CI 1.31-1.53); obesity (OR=1.12; 95%CI 1.03-1.21); hypertension (OR=1.21; 95%CI 1.11-1.32); high cholesterol (OR=1.53; 95%CI 1.42-1.65); with self-rated health - with a very good reference - in the gradients: good (OR=1.38; 95%CI 1.23-1.55), regular (OR=2.64; 95%CI 2.34-2.98), poor (OR=4.24; 95%CI 3.64-4.94), and very poor (OR=5.24; 95%CI 4.13-6.65); its likelihood was lower in adults with complete elementary school/incomplete high school (OR=0.82; 95%CI 0.75-0.90) and complete high school/incomplete higher education (OR=0.87; 95%CI 0.81-0.95). CONCLUSION: Back pain has a high prevalence and shows associations with demographic and socioeconomic factors, lifestyle, chronic diseases, and self-rated health.

OBJETIVO: Estimar a prevalência da dor crônica na coluna (DCC) e os fatores associados à sua ocorrência. MÉTODOS: Estudo transversal analisando a Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde 2019, com 88.531 adultos, usando regressão logística para identificar fatores associados. RESULTADOS: A DCC foi apontada por 21,6% dos adultos, mostrou maior chance em mulheres (odds ratio ­ OR=1,27; intervalo de confiança de 95% ­ IC95% 1,19­1,35), aumentou com a idade de 25­34 anos (OR=1,30; IC95% 1,11­1,51), 35­44 (OR=1,78; IC95% 1,54­2,07), 45­54 anos (OR=2,23; IC95% 1,91­2,59), 55­64 anos (OR=2,47; IC95% 2,12­2,88) e 65 anos ou mais (OR=2,17; IC95% 1,85­2,54); fumantes (OR=1,24; IC95% 1,13­1,35); ex-fumantes (OR=1,30; IC95% 1,21­1,39); que citaram atividade física doméstica pesada (OR=1,41; IC95% 1,31­1,53); obesidade (OR=1,12; IC95% 1,03­1,21); hipertensos (OR=1,21; IC95% 1,11­1,32); colesterol aumentado (OR=1,53; IC95% 1,42­1,65); autoavaliação, cuja referência era muito boa, mostrou gradiente boa (OR=1,38; IC95% 1,23­1,55); regular (OR=2,64; IC95% 2,34­2,98), ruim (OR=4,24; IC95% 3,64­4,94), e muito ruim (OR=5,24; IC95% 4,13­6,65); e menor chance em adultos com ensino fundamental completo/ensino médio incompleto (OR=0,82; IC95% 0,75­0,90) e médio completo/superior incompleto (OR=0,87; IC95% 0,81­0,95). CONCLUSÃO: A dor na coluna tem elevada prevalência e mostra associação com fatores demográficos, socioeconômicos, estilo de vida, doenças crônicas e autoavaliação de saúde.