Role of Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography Imaging in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Neck or Back Pain Caused by Spinal Degeneration: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic neck or back pain is a common clinical problem. The most likely cause is degenerative change, whereas other causes are relatively rare. There is increasing evidence on using hybrid single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) to identify the pain generator in spine degeneration. This systematic review explores the diagnostic and therapeutic evidence on chronic neck or back pain examined by SPECT. METHODS: This review is reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. In October 2022, we searched the following sources: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and 3 other sources. Titles and abstracts were screened and classified into diagnostic studies, facet block studies, and surgical studies. We synthesized the results narratively. RESULTS: The search yielded 2347 records. We identified 10 diagnostic studies comparing SPECT or SPECT/computed tomography (CT) with magnetic resonance imaging, CT, scintigraphy, or clinical examination. Furthermore, we found 8 studies comparing the effect of facet block intervention in SPECT-positive and SPECT-negative patients with cervicogenic headache, neck pain, and lower back pain. Five surgical studies describing the effect of fusion for facet arthropathy in the craniocervical junction, subaxial cervical spine, or the lumbar spine were identified. CONCLUSIONS: According to the available literature, a positive finding on SPECT in facet arthropathy is associated with a significantly higher facet blockade effect. Surgical treatment of positive findings has a good effect, but this has not been confirmed by controlled studies. SPECT/CT might therefore be a useful method in the evaluation of patients with neck or back pain, especially in cases of unclear findings or multiple degenerative changes.

Decompression alone versus decompression with instrumented fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of adding instrumented spinal fusion to decompression to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to May 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing decompression with instrumented fusion to decompression alone in patients with DS. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We provide the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment of the certainty of evidence (COE). RESULTS: We identified 4514 records and included four trials with 523 participants. At a 2-year follow-up, adding fusion to decompression likely results in trivial difference in the Oswestry Disability Index (range 0-100, with higher values indicating greater impairment) with mean difference (MD) 0.86 (95% CI -4.53 to 6.26; moderate COE). Similar results were observed for back and leg pain measured on a scale of 0 to 100, with higher values indicating more severe pain. There was a slightly increased improvement in back pain (2-year follow-up) in the group without fusion shown by MD -5·92 points (95% CI -11.00 to -0.84; moderate COE). There was a trivial difference in leg pain between the groups, slightly favouring the one without fusion, with MD -1.25 points (95% CI -6.71 to 4.21; moderate COE). Our findings at 2-year follow-up suggest that omitting fusion may increase the reoperation rate slightly (OR 1.23; 0.70 to 2.17; low COE). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests no benefits of adding instrumented fusion to decompression for treating DS. Isolated decompression seems sufficient for most patients. Further RCTs assessing spondylolisthesis stability are needed to determine which patients would benefit from fusion. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022308267.

Effects of physiotherapy interventions for home-based rehabilitation on physical function after primary total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to provide a systematic and transparent overview of the effects of common physiotherapy techniques and exercises for the rehabilitation of patients following total knee arthroplasty. INTRODUCTION: Many protocols exist for the rehabilitation of patients after total knee arthroplasty, but there is a lack of systematic evidence on rehabilitation components, including precise exercise descriptions and their parameters. This review will fill in some of the gaps in reporting on scientific rehabilitation protocol components and the evaluation of their effectiveness. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We will include randomized controlled trials investigating active and passive physiotherapy techniques and exercises employed after primary total knee arthroplasty, and which report concrete parameters, such as dosage, duration, frequency, intensity, and function-related measurements. We will exclude other study types and randomized controlled trials reporting on techniques and exercises without precise descriptions. METHODS: This review will aim to find both published and unpublished studies. The key information sources to be searched are MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), PEDro, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts, and full texts; assess the methodological quality; and extract the data. We will perform narrative synthesis, followed by meta-analyses for pooled studies, where possible. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022309185.

Proton Pump Inhibitors Use and Risk of Preeclampsia: A Meta-Analysis.

Evidence from preclinical studies suggests a preventive effect of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in preeclampsia. Recently, several epidemiological studies have described a conflicting association between the use of PPIs during pregnancy and preeclampsia risk. This study aimed to evaluate the association between PPI use and the risk of preeclampsia. We searched databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, Emcare, CINAHL, and the relevant grey literature from inception until 13 September 2021. Studies reporting the preeclampsia risk with the use of PPIs were eligible for inclusion. Literature screening, data extraction, and the risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two investigators. Random-effect meta-analysis was performed to generate relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of preeclampsia and preterm preeclampsia among women receiving PPIs during pregnancy were the primary outcomes of interest. This meta-analysis comprised three studies involving 4,877,565 pregnant women, of whom 119,017 were PPI users. The included studies were judged to have a low risk of bias. The risk of preeclampsia among pregnant women who received PPIs anytime during pregnancy was significantly increased (RR 1.27 (95% CI: 1.23-1.31)), although the increase was trivial in absolute terms (2 per 1000). The subgroup analysis revealed that the risk was increased in each of the three trimesters. The risk of preterm preeclampsia among pregnant women receiving PPIs anytime during pregnancy was not significantly increased (RR 1.04 (95% CI: 0.70-1.55)). The certainty evaluated by GRADE in these estimates was low. PPI use may be associated with a trivial increase in the risk of preeclampsia in pregnant women. There is no evidence supporting that PPI use decreases the risk of preeclampsia or preterm preeclampsia.

Addressing Challenges When Applying GRADE to Public Health Guidelines: A Scoping Review Protocol and Pilot Analysis.

This is a protocol for a scoping review that aims to determine how guideline authors using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach have addressed previously identified challenges related to public health. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews will be followed. We will search and screen titles of guidelines for all languages published in 2013-2021 in: the GIN library, BIGG database, Epistemonikos GRADE guidelines repository, GRADEpro Database, MAGICapp, NICE and WHO websites. Two reviewers will independently screen full texts of the documents identified. The following information will be extracted: methods used for identifying different stakeholders and incorporating their perspectives; methods for identification and prioritization of non-health outcomes; methods for determining thresholds for decision-making; methods for incorporating and grading evidence from non-randomized studies; methods for addressing concerns with conditional recommendations in public health; methods for reaching consensus; additional methodological concerns; and any modifications made to GRADE. A combination of directed content analysis and descriptive statistics will be used for data analysis, and the findings presented narratively in a tabular and graphical form. In this protocol, we present the pilot results from 13 identified eligible guidelines issued between January and August 2021. We will publish the full review results when they become available.