Emotion regulation skills-focused interventions for chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of emotion regulation skills-focused (ERSF) interventions to reduce pain intensity and improve psychological outcomes for people with chronic pain and to narratively report on safety and intervention compliance. METHODS: Six databases and four registries were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to 29 April 2022. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed according to the Grading, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Meta-analyses for eight studies (902 participants) assessed pain intensity (primary outcome), emotion regulation, affect, symptoms of depression and anxiety, and pain interference (secondary outcomes), at two time points when available, post-intervention (closest to intervention end) and follow-up (the first measurement after the post-intervention assessment). RESULTS: Compared to TAU, pain intensity improved post-intervention (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -10.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] [-17.55, -2.56]) and at follow-up (WMD = -11.38; 95% CI [-13.55, -9.21]). Emotion regulation improved post-intervention (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.57; 95% CI [0.14, 1.01]), and depressive symptoms improved at follow-up (SMD = -0.45; 95% CI [-0.66, -0.24]). Compared to active comparators, anxiety symptoms improved favouring the comparator post-intervention (SMD = 0.10; 95% CI [0.03, 0.18]), and compared to CBT, pain interference improved post-intervention (SMD = -0.37; 95% CI [-0.69, -0.04]). Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. SIGNIFICANCE: The findings provide evidence that ERSF interventions reduce pain intensity for people with chronic pain compared to usual treatment. These interventions are at least as beneficial to reduce pain intensity as the current gold standard psychological intervention, CBT. However, the limited number of studies and certainty of evidence mean further high-quality RCTs are warranted. Additionally, further research is needed to identify whether ERSF interventions may be more beneficial for specific chronic pain conditions.

The smallest worthwhile effect on pain intensity of exercise therapy for people with chronic low back pain: a discrete choice experiment study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) of exercise therapy for people with non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP). DESIGN: Discrete choice experiment. METHODS: The SWE was estimated as the lowest reduction in pain that participants would consider exercising worthwhile, compared to not exercising i.e., effects due to natural history and other components (e.g., regression to the mean). We recruited English-speaking adults in Australia with non-specific CLBP to our online survey via email obtained from a registry of previous participants and advertisements on social media. We used discrete choice experiment to estimate the SWE of exercise compared to no exercise for pain intensity. We analysed the discrete choice experiment using a mixed logit model, and mitigated hypothetical bias through certainty calibration, with sensitivity analyses performed with different certainty calibration thresholds. RESULTS: Two-hundred and thirteen participants completed the survey. The mean age (±SD) was 50.7±16.5, median (IQR) pain duration 10 years (5-20), and mean pain intensity (±SD) was 5.8±2.3 on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. For people with CLBP the SWE of exercise was a between-group reduction in pain of 20%, compared to no exercise. In the sensitivity analyses, the SWE varied with different levels of certainty calibration; from 0% without certainty calibration to 60% with more extreme certainty calibration. CONCLUSION: This patient-informed threshold of clinical importance could guide the interpretation of findings from randomised trials and meta-analyses of exercise therapy compared to no exercise.

Variation observed in consensus judgments between pairs of reviewers when assessing the risk of bias due to missing evidence in a sample of published meta-analyses of nutrition research.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the risk of bias due to missing evidence in a sample of published meta-analyses of nutrition research using the Risk Of Bias due to Missing Evidence (ROB-ME) tool and determine inter-rater agreement in assessments. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We assembled a random sample of 42 meta-analyses of nutrition research. Eight assessors were randomly assigned to one of four pairs. Each pair assessed 21 randomly assigned meta-analyses, and each meta-analysis was assessed by two pairs. We calculated raw percentage agreement and chance corrected agreement using Gwet's Agreement Coefficient (AC) in consensus judgments between pairs. RESULTS: Across the eight signaling questions in the ROB-ME tool, raw percentage agreement ranged from 52% to 100%, and Gwet's AC ranged from 0.39 to 0.76. For the risk-of-bias judgment, the raw percentage agreement was 76% (95% confidence interval 60% to 92%) and Gwet's AC was 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.80). In seven (17%) meta-analyses, either one or both pairs judged the risk of bias due to missing evidence as "low risk". CONCLUSION: Our findings indicated substantial variation in assessments in consensus judgments between pairs for the signaling questions and overall risk-of-bias judgments. More tutorials and training are needed to help researchers apply the ROB-ME tool more consistently.

The smallest worthwhile effect on pain intensity of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and exercise therapy for acute and chronic low back pain: a benefit-harm trade-off study.

QUESTION: What are the smallest worthwhile effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for people with acute and chronic low back pain (LBP)? What is the smallest worthwhile effect of individualised exercise for people with chronic LBP compared with no intervention? DESIGN: Benefit-harm trade-off study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were recruited by advertisement on social media and included if they were English-speaking adults in Australia who had non-specific LBP. OUTCOME MEASURE: Pain intensity. RESULTS: A total of 116 people with acute LBP and 230 people with chronic LBP were recruited. For acute LBP, the smallest worthwhile effect of NSAIDs additional to no intervention was a 30% (IQR 10 to 40%) reduction in pain intensity. For chronic LBP, the smallest worthwhile effect of NSAIDs additional to no intervention was a 27.5% (IQR 10 to 50%) reduction in pain intensity. For chronic LBP, the smallest worthwhile effect of exercise additional to no intervention was a 20% (IQR 10 to 40%) reduction in pain intensity. There were small associations between baseline pain, duration of pain and level of exercise and the smallest worthwhile effect of NSAIDs for acute LBP. There were no other clear associations. CONCLUSIONS: For people with LBP, the smallest worthwhile effect of exercise and NSAIDs additional to no intervention is approximately a 20 to 30% reduction in pain. These results can inform the interpretation of the effects of NSAIDs and exercise in randomised trials and meta-analyses, incorporating consumers' perspectives. Further research on comparisons between different interventions and on other core LBP outcomes may inform decision-making. REGISTRATION: OSF osf.io/3erjx/.

Data Informing Governing Body Resistance-Training Guidelines Exhibit Sex Bias: An Audit-Based Review.

The objective of this review was to examine the ratio of female and male participants utilised in data informing consensus statements and position stands in the field of resistance training (RT). In order to achieve this objective, we conducted an 'audit' style review. We accessed three databases: SPORTDiscus, MEDLINE and Google Scholar utilising the following search terms: resistance or strength training AND consensus statements or position statements/stands. Eligibility criteria included consensus statements and position stands for RT in youth, adults and older adults. In this paper we have used the term 'female' to describe biological sex. Gender is a social construct and often describes roles and behaviours that society assigns to men or women. In this paper we have used the term 'women' to describe gender. Reference lists from each guideline were screened with the number of male and female participants extracted from each study. We also extracted data on the gender of the authors of the statements. We located 11 guidelines encompassing a total of 104,251,363 participants. Youth guidelines were comprised of 69% male participants. There were 287 studies that included both sexes, 205 male-only and 92 female-only studies. Adult guidelines were comprised of 70% male participants. There were 104 studies that included both sexes, 240 male-only and 44 female-only studies. Older adult guidelines were comprised of 54% female participants. There were 395 studies that included both sexes, 112 male-only and 83 female-only studies. Women authors comprised 13% of all authors of position stands and consensus statements. These results demonstrate an under-representation of females and women as both participants and as authors. It is imperative to ensure that data informing governing body guidelines and consensus statements are representative of the population they aim to inform. If this is not possible, guidelines should clearly state when their data and recommendations are based primarily upon one sex.

Exercise Increases Pain Self-efficacy in Adults With Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of exercise on pain self-efficacy in adults with nonspecific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases from October 20, 2018, to March 23, 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of exercise on pain self-efficacy to control, in adults with NSCLBP. DATA SYNTHESIS: We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) and judged the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: Seventeen trials were included, of which eight (n = 1121 participants; 60.6% female; mean age: 49.6 years) were included in the meta-analysis. Exercise increased pain self-efficacy by 3.02 points (95% confidence interval: 1.72, 4.32) on the 60-point Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. The certainty of evidence was moderate; all trials were at high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise increased pain self-efficacy in adults with NSCLBP. Future research should investigate if this effect is meaningful, whether it increases with more targeted treatments to enhance pain self-efficacy, and the effects on outcomes for adults with NSCLBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(6):1-8. Epub: 10 May 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11622.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for adults with acute non-specific low back pain: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method. RESULTS: 98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference -26.1 (95% confidence intervals -34.0 to -18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (-26.1 (-38.5 to -13.6)), pregabalin (-24.7 (-34.6 to -14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes. CONCLUSIONS: The comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019145257.

Effectiveness of Cognitive Functional Therapy for Reducing Pain and Disability in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate whether cognitive functional therapy (CFT) is an effective treatment for adults with chronic low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched 4 electronic databases (CENTRAL, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Embase) and 2 clinical trial registers (ClinicalTrials. gov and the EU Clinical Trials Register) from inception up to March 2022. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials evaluating CFT for adults with LBP. DATA SYNTHESIS: The primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were psychological status, patient satisfaction, global improvement, and adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Random-effects meta-analysis with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment was used to estimate pooled effects. RESULTS: Fifteen trials were included (9 ongoing and 1 terminated), of which 5 provided data (n = 507; n = 262 CFT, and n = 245 control). There was very low certainty for the effectiveness of CFT compared to manual therapy plus core exercises (2 studies, n = 265) for reducing pain intensity (mean difference: -1.02/10, 95% confidence interval: -14.75, 12.70) and disability (mean difference: -6.95/100, 95% confidence interval: -58.58, 44.68). Narrative synthesis showed mixed results for pain intensity, disability, and secondary outcomes. No adverse events were reported. All studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Cognitive functional therapy may not be more effective than other common interventions for reducing pain and disability in adults with chronic LBP. The effectiveness of CFT is very uncertain and will remain so until higher-quality studies are available. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(5):1-42. Epub: 23 February 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11447.

Evaluation of emotion-centric psychological interventions for chronic pain: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain, defined as pain persisting longer than 3 months, is more than an unpleasant sensory experience. Persistent negative emotions and emotional comorbidities, such as depression and anxiety, plague people with chronic pain leading to worsening pain intensity and increasing disability. While cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is the gold standard psychological treatment, recent evidence highlights that CBT lacks efficacy for the physical and emotional aspects of chronic pain. Increasingly, researchers are investigating emotion-centric psychological therapies. While treatment modalities vary, these interventions frequently target understanding emotions, and train individuals for an emotionally adaptive response. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to quantify the efficacy of emotion-centric interventions for the physical and emotional characteristics of chronic pain. METHODS/ANALYSIS: Electronic databases (EMBASE, PubMed, PsychINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL and Web of Science) will be systematically searched from inception to 28 April 2022 for randomised controlled trials. Studies that compare an emotion-centric intervention with another form of treatment or placebo/control for adults (≥18 years old) with chronic pain will be included. All treatment modes (eg, online or in-person), any duration and group-based or individual treatments will be included. Studies that do not investigate at least one emotion-centric treatment will be excluded. The primary outcome is pain intensity. Secondary outcomes include emotion dysregulation, depression, anxiety, affect, safety and intervention compliance. A quantitative synthesis using a random effects meta-analysis will be adopted. Risk of bias will be evaluated using Cochrane Risk of Bias V.2.0 with the certainty of evidence assessed according to Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Data permitting, subgroup analysis will be conducted for intervention type and pain condition. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. Results may inform an efficacy study examining a new emotion-centric intervention for chronic pain. Dissemination will be through peer-reviewed publications and in conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021266815.

Effects of a single exercise session on pain intensity in adults with chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is prevalent amongst society, making it necessary to find strategies to manage chronic pain. Regular exercise is efficacious; however, pain is a barrier to initiating exercise. A single exercise session is also believed to acutely reduce pain, however, the evidence for this is less robust. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify the effect of a single exercise session on pain intensity in adults with chronic pain. METHODS: We searched eight databases and trial registries to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of a single exercise session on pain intensity in adults with chronic pain compared to a non-exercise control. Literature screening, data extraction, risk of bias (Cochrane 2.0) and quality assessment (GRADE) were conducted independently and in duplicate. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using the metafor package in R. RESULTS: We included 17 trials (46 study arms with 664 adults [44% female]). There were no significant differences in pain intensity (mean difference on a 0-10 scale) immediately post-exercise -0.02 (95% CI = -0.06, 0.62; I2 = 77.1%) or up to 45-min post-exercise -0.17 (95% CI = -0.49, 0.16; I2 = 34.2%). All trials were at high risk of bias and the overall confidence in these findings was very low. CONCLUSION: A single exercise session did not reduce pain intensity up to 1-h post-exercise. Notably, increases in pain were not observed either, suggesting that while pain can be a barrier to initiating exercise, clinicians can educate patients on the unlikelihood of exercise acutely increasing pain intensity.

Rescaling pain intensity measures for meta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain appears justified: an empirical examination from randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: Meta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain often rescale measures of pain intensity to use mean difference (MD) instead of standardised mean difference for pooled estimates. Although this improves clinical interpretability, it is not clear whether this method is justified. Our study evaluated the justification for this method. METHODS: We identified randomised clinical trials of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain that used two scales with different ranges to measure the same construct of pain intensity. We transformed all data to a 0-100 scale, then compared between-group estimates across pairs of scales with different ranges. RESULTS: Twelve trials were included. Overall, differences in means between pain intensity measures that were rescaled to a common 0-100 scale appeared to be small and randomly distributed. For one study that measured pain intensity on a 0-100 scale and a 0-10 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the difference in MD between the scales was 0.8 points out of 100. For three studies that measured pain intensity on a 0-10 scale and 0-3 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.2 points out of 100 (range 5.5 points lower to 2.7 points higher). For two studies that measured pain intensity on a 0-100 scale and a 0-3 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.7 points out of 100 (range 6.2 points lower to 12.1 points higher). Finally, for six studies that measured pain intensity on a 0-100 scale and a 0-4 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.7 points (range 5.4 points lower to 8.3 points higher). CONCLUSION: Rescaling pain intensity measures may be justified in meta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain. Systematic reviewers may consider this method to improve clinical interpretability and enable more data to be included. STUDY REGISTRATION/DATA AVAILABILITY: Open Science Framework (osf.io/8rq7f).

Feasibility of an Audit and Feedback Intervention to Facilitate Journal Policy Change Towards Greater Promotion of Transparency and Openness in Sports Science Research.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate (1) the feasibility of an audit-feedback intervention to facilitate sports science journal policy change, (2) the reliability of the Transparency of Research Underpinning Social Intervention Tiers (TRUST) policy evaluation form, and (3) the extent to which policies of sports science journals support transparent and open research practices. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, audit-feedback, feasibility study of transparency and openness standards of the top 38 sports science journals by impact factor. The TRUST form was used to evaluate journal policies support for transparent and open research practices. Feedback was provided to journal editors in the format of a tailored letter. Inter-rater reliability and agreement of the TRUST form was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients and the standard error of measurement, respectively. Time-based criteria, fidelity of intervention delivery and qualitative feedback were used to determine feasibility. RESULTS: The audit-feedback intervention was feasible based on the time taken to rate journals and provide tailored feedback. The mean (SD) score on the TRUST form (range 0-27) was 2.05 (1.99), reflecting low engagement with transparent and open practices. Inter-rater reliability of the overall score of the TRUST form was moderate [ICC (2,1) = 0.68 (95% CI 0.55-0.79)], with standard error of measurement of 1.17. However, some individual items had poor reliability. CONCLUSION: Policies of the top 38 sports science journals have potential for improved support for transparent and open research practices. The feasible audit-feedback intervention developed here warrants large-scale evaluation as a means to facilitate change in journal policies. REGISTRATION: OSF ( https://osf.io/d2t4s/ ).

Effect of Graded Sensorimotor Retraining on Pain Intensity in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effects of altered neural processing, defined as altering neural networks responsible for perceptions of pain and function, on chronic pain remains unclear. Objective: To estimate the effect of a graded sensorimotor retraining intervention (RESOLVE) on pain intensity in people with chronic low back pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 2-group, randomized clinical trial recruited participants with chronic (>3 months) nonspecific low back pain from primary care and community settings. A total of 276 adults were randomized (in a 1:1 ratio) to the intervention or sham procedure and attention control groups delivered by clinicians at a medical research institute in Sydney, Australia. The first participant was randomized on December 10, 2015, and the last was randomized on July 25, 2019. Follow-up was completed on February 3, 2020. Interventions: Participants randomized to the intervention group (n = 138) were asked to participate in 12 weekly clinical sessions and home training designed to educate them about and assist them with movement and physical activity while experiencing lower back pain. Participants randomized to the control group (n = 138) were asked to participate in 12 weekly clinical sessions and home training that required similar time as the intervention but did not focus on education, movement, and physical activity. The control group included sham laser and shortwave diathermy applied to the back and sham noninvasive brain stimulation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity at 18 weeks, measured on an 11-point numerical rating scale (range, 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain imaginable]) for which the between-group minimum clinically important difference is 1.0 point. Results: Among 276 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 46 [14.3] years; 138 [50%] women), 261 (95%) completed follow-up at 18 weeks. The mean pain intensity was 5.6 at baseline and 3.1 at 18 weeks in the intervention group and 5.8 at baseline and 4.0 at 18 weeks in the control group, with an estimated between-group mean difference at 18 weeks of -1.0 point ([95% CI, -1.5 to -0.4]; P = .001), favoring the intervention group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial conducted at a single center among patients with chronic low back pain, graded sensorimotor retraining, compared with a sham procedure and attention control, significantly improved pain intensity at 18 weeks. The improvements in pain intensity were small, and further research is needed to understand the generalizability of the findings. Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12615000610538.

Baseline imbalance and heterogeneity are present in meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials examining the effects of exercise and medicines for blood pressure management.

Randomized clinical trials attempt to reduce bias and create similar groups at baseline to infer causal effects. In meta-analyses, baseline imbalance may threaten the validity of the treatment effects. This meta-epidemiological study examined baseline imbalance in comparisons of exercise and antihypertensive medicines. Baseline data for systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and age were extracted from a network meta-analysis of 391 randomized trials comparing exercise types and antihypertensive medicines. Fixed-effect meta-analyses were used to determine the presence of baseline imbalance and/or inconsistency. Meta-regression analyses were conducted on sample size, the risk of bias for allocation concealment, and whether data for all randomized participants were presented at baseline. In one exercise comparison, the resistance group was 0.3 years younger than the control group (95% confidence interval 0.6 to 0.1). Substantial inconsistency was observed in other exercise comparisons. Less data were available for medicines, but there were no occurrences of baseline imbalance and only a few instances of inconsistency. Several moderator analyses identified significant associations. We identified baseline imbalance as well as substantial inconsistency in exercise comparisons. Researchers should consider conducting meta-analyses of key prognostic variables at baseline to ensure balance across trials.

Back to the drawing board-The relationship between self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility in clinical cohorts: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive flexibility has been previously described as the ability to adjust cognitive and behavioral strategies in response to changing contextual demands. Cognitive flexibility is typically assessed via self-report questionnaires and performance on neuropsychological tests in research and clinical practice. A common assumption among researchers and clinicians is that self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility assess the same or similar constructs, but the extent of the relationship between these two assessment approaches in clinical cohorts remains unknown. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the relationship between self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility in clinical samples. METHOD: We searched 10 databases and relevant gray literature (e.g., other databases and pearling) from inception to October 2020 and used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines. Eleven articles including 405 participants satisfied our eligibility criteria. RESULTS: A multilevel random-effects meta-analysis revealed no relationship between self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility (0.01, 95% CI [-0.16 to 0.18]). Individual random-effects meta-analyses between 12 different tests pairs also found no relationship. CONCLUSION: Based on our results, it is clear that the two assessment approaches of cognitive flexibility provide independent information-they do not assess the same construct. These findings have important ramifications for future research and clinical practice-there is a need to reconsider what constructs self-report and neuropsychological tests of "cognitive flexibility" actually assess, and avoid the interchangeable use of these assessments in clinical samples. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

If exercise is medicine, why don't we know the dose? An overview of systematic reviews assessing reporting quality of exercise interventions in health and disease.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how well exercise interventions are reported in trials in health and disease. DESIGN: Overview of systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and PsycINFO from inception until June 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Reviews of any health condition were included if they primarily assessed quality of exercise intervention reporting using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) or the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). We assessed review quality using a modified version of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews. RESULTS: We identified 7804 studies and included 28 systematic reviews. The median (IQR) percentage of CERT and TIDieR items appropriately reported was 24% (19%) and 49% (33%), respectively. TIDieR items 1, Brief name (median=100%, IQR 4) and 2, Why (median=98%, IQR 6), as well as CERT item 4, Supervision and delivery (median=68%, IQR 89), were the best reported. For replication of exercise interventions, TIDieR item 8, When and how much, was moderately well reported (median=62%, IQR 68) although CERT item 8, Description of each exercise to enable replication (median=23%, IQR 44) and item 13, Detailed description of the exercise intervention (median=24%, IQR 66) were poorly reported. Quality of systematic reviews ranged from moderate to critically low quality. CONCLUSION: Exercise interventions are poorly reported across a range of health conditions. If exercise is medicine, then how it is prescribed and delivered is unclear, potentially limiting its translation from research to practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021261285; Open Science Framework: osf.io/my3ec/.

Targeting neurotrophic factors for low back pain and sciatica: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of medicines that target neurotrophic factors for low back pain (LBP) or sciatica. METHODS: We searched published and trial registry reports of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of medicines that target neurotrophic factors to LBP or sciatica in seven databases from inception to December 2020. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty in the evidence. RESULTS: Nine studies (3370 participants) were included in the meta-analyses. Low certainty evidence showed that anti-nerve growth factor (NGF) may reduce pain at 4 weeks (mean difference [MD] -6.75, 95% CI: -8.61, -4.90) and 12 weeks (MD -6.16, 95% CI: -8.38, -3.94), and may increase adverse effects for chronic LBP (odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.38). Higher doses of anti-NGF may offer a clinically important reduction in pain at the cost of increased adverse effects for chronic LBP. Very low certainty evidence showed that anti-NGF and glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (pro-GDNF) may not reduce pain for sciatica at 4 weeks (MD -1.40, 95% CI: -8.26, 5.46), at 12 weeks (MD -2.91, 95% CI: -13.69, 7.67) and may increase adverse effects for sciatica (OR 3.27, 95% CI: 1.78, 6.00). CONCLUSION: Anti-NGF may offer small reductions in pain intensity for chronic LBP. The effect may depend on the dose and types of medicines. For sciatica, anti-NGF or pro-GDNF may not reduce pain. Medicines that target neurotrophic factors for LBP or sciatica are associated with different adverse effects compared to those observed in commonly prescribed medicines for these conditions.

The Effect of Resistance Training in Healthy Adults on Body Fat Percentage, Fat Mass and Visceral Fat: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Resistance training is the gold standard exercise mode for accrual of lean muscle mass, but the isolated effect of resistance training on body fat is unknown. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated resistance training for body composition outcomes in healthy adults. Our primary outcome was body fat percentage; secondary outcomes were body fat mass and visceral fat. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched five electronic databases up to January 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised trials that compared full-body resistance training for at least 4 weeks to no-exercise control in healthy adults. ANALYSIS: We assessed study quality with the TESTEX tool and conducted a random-effects meta-analysis, with a subgroup analysis based on measurement type (scan or non-scan) and sex (male or female), and a meta-regression for volume of resistance training and training components. RESULTS: From 11,981 records, we included 58 studies in the review, with 54 providing data for a meta-analysis. Mean study quality was 9/15 (range 6-15). Compared to the control, resistance training reduced body fat percentage by - 1.46% (95% confidence interval - 1.78 to - 1.14, p < 0.0001), body fat mass by - 0.55 kg (95% confidence interval - 0.75 to - 0.34, p < 0.0001) and visceral fat by a standardised mean difference of - 0.49 (95% confidence interval - 0.87 to - 0.11, p = 0.0114). Measurement type was a significant moderator in body fat percentage and body fat mass, but sex was not. Training volume and training components were not associated with effect size. Resistance training reduces body fat percentage, body fat mass and visceral fat in healthy adults. STUDY REGISTRATION: osf.io/hsk32.