Differential Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Physical Activity Involvements and Exercise Habits in People With and Without Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize evidence regarding differential changes in physical activity (PA) involvements and exercise habits in people with and without chronic diseases during the COVID-19 outbreak. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database were searched from November 2019 to May 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened cross-sectional and longitudinal studies that investigated changes in PA-related outcomes in people with and without chronic diseases during the pandemic. DATA EXTRACTION: PA-related outcomes and sedentary time were extracted from the included studies. Relevant risk of bias were assessed. Meta-analyses were conducted for each PA-related outcome, if applicable. Quality of evidence of each PA-related outcome was evaluated by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 1226 identified citations, 36 articles (28 with and 8 without chronic diseases) with 800,256 participants were included. Moderate evidence from wearable sensors supported a significant reduction in pooled estimates of step count (standardized mean differences [SMD]=-2.79, P<.01). Very limited to limited evidence substantiated significant decreases in self-reported PA-related outcomes and significant increases in sedentary behaviors among people with and without chronic diseases. Specifically, pooled estimates of metabolic equivalent-minute per week (SMD=-0.16, P=.02) and PA duration (SMD=-0.07, P<.01) were significantly decreased, while sedentary time (SMD=0.09, P=.04) showed significant increases in the general population (small to large effects). Very limited evidence suggested no significant PA changes among people in a country without lockdown. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, objective and self-reported assessments showed significant reductions in PA in people with and without chronic diseases globally. This mainly occurred in countries with lockdowns. Although many countries have adopted the "live with the coronavirus" policy, authorities should implement population-based strategies to revert the potential lockdown-related long-term deleterious effects on people's health.

Consensus on a standardised treatment pathway algorithm for lumbar spinal stenosis: an international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative spinal condition in older adults associated with disability, diminished quality of life, and substantial healthcare costs. Individual symptoms and needs vary. With sparse and sometimes inconsistent evidence to guide clinical decision-making, variable clinical care may lead to unsatisfactory patient outcomes and inefficient use of healthcare resources. METHODS: A three-phase modified Delphi study comprising four consensus rounds was conducted on behalf of the International Taskforce for the Diagnosis and Management of LSS to develop a treatment algorithm based on multi-professional international expert consensus. Participants with expertise in the assessment and management of people with LSS were invited using an international distribution process used for two previous Delphi studies led by the Taskforce. Separate treatment pathways for patients with different symptom types and severity were developed and incorporated into a proposed treatment algorithm through consensus rounds 1 to 3. Agreement with the proposed algorithm was evaluated in the final consensus round. RESULTS: The final algorithm combines stratified and stepped approaches. When indicated, immediate investigation and surgery is advocated. Otherwise, a stepped approach is suggested when self-directed care is unsatisfactory. This starts with tailored rehabilitation, then more complex multidisciplinary care, investigations and surgery options if needed. Treatment options in each step depend on clinical phenotype and symptom severity. Treatment response guides pathway entrance and exit points. Of 397 study participants, 86% rated their agreement ≥ 4 for the proposed algorithm on a 0-6 scale, of which 22% completely agreed. Only 7% disagreed. Over 70% of participants felt that the algorithm would be useful for clinicians in public healthcare (both primary care and specialist settings) and in private healthcare settings, and that a simplified version would help patients in shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: International and multi-professional agreement was achieved for a proposed LSS treatment algorithm developed through expert consensus. The algorithm advocates different pathway options depending on clinical indications. It is not intended as a treatment protocol and will require evaluation against current care for clinical and cost-effectiveness. It may, however, serve as a clinical guide until evidence is sufficient to inform a fully stratified care model.

The EPIPHA-KNEE trial: Explaining Pain to target unhelpful pain beliefs to Increase PHysical Activity in KNEE osteoarthritis - a protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial with clinical- and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite well-established benefits of physical activity for knee osteoarthritis (OA), nine of ten people with knee OA are inactive. People with knee OA who are inactive often believe that physical activity is dangerous, fearing that it will further damage their joint(s). Such unhelpful beliefs can negatively influence physical activity levels. We aim to evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of integrating physiotherapist-delivered pain science education (PSE), an evidence-based conceptual change intervention targeting unhelpful pain beliefs by increasing pain knowledge, with an individualised walking, strengthening, and general education program. METHODS: Two-arm, parallel-design, multicentre randomised controlled trial involving 198 people aged ≥50 years with painful knee OA who do not meet physical activity guideline recommendations or walk regularly for exercise. Both groups receive an individualised physiotherapist-led walking, strengthening, and OA/activity education program via 4x weekly in-person treatment sessions, followed by 4 weeks of at-home activities (weekly check-in via telehealth), with follow-up sessions at 3 months (telehealth) and 5 and 9 months (in-person). The EPIPHA-KNEE group also receives contemporary PSE about OA/pain and activity, embedded into all aspects of the intervention. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, 12 weeks, 6 and 12 months. Primary outcomes are physical activity level (step count; wrist-based accelerometry) and self-reported knee symptoms (WOMAC Total score) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, pain intensity, global rating of change, self-efficacy, pain catastrophising, depression, anxiety, stress, fear of movement, knee awareness, OA/activity conceptualisation, and self-regulated learning ability. Additional measures include adherence, adverse events, blinding success, COVID-19 impact on activity, intention to exercise, treatment expectancy/perceived credibility, implicit movement/environmental bias, implicit motor imagery, two-point discrimination, and pain sensitivity to activity. Cost-utility analysis of the EPIPHA-KNEE intervention will be undertaken, in addition to evaluation of cost-effectiveness in the context of primary trial outcomes. DISCUSSION: We will determine whether the integration of PSE into an individualised OA education, walking, and strengthening program is more effective than receiving the individualised program alone. Findings will inform the development and implementation of future delivery of PSE as part of best practice for people with knee OA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12620001041943 (13/10/2020).

Diagnostic tests in the clinical diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: Consensus and Results of an International Delphi Study.

PURPOSE: Reach a consensus on which diagnostic tests are most important in confirming the clinical diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). METHODS: Phase 1: 22 members of the International Taskforce on the Diagnosis and Management of LSS confirmed 35 diagnostic items. An on-line survey was developed that allows experts to express the logical order in which they consider the diagnostic tests, and the level of certainty ascertained from each test. Phase 2, Round 1: Survey distributed to members of the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine. Round 2: Meeting of 15 members of Taskforce defined final list of 10 items. Round 3: Survey was distributed internationally, followed by Taskforce consensus. RESULTS: Totally, 432 clinicians from 28 different countries participated. Certainty of the diagnosis was 60% after selecting the first test and significant change in certainty ceasing after eight items at 90.8% certainty (p < 0.05). The most frequently selected tests included MRI/CT scan, neurological examination and walking test with gait observation. The diagnostic test selected most frequently as the first test was neurological examination. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to reach an international consensus on which diagnostic tests should be used in the clinical diagnosis of LSS. The final recommendation includes three core diagnostic items: neurological examination, MRI/CT and walking test with gait observation. The Taskforce also recommends 3 'rule out' tests: foot pulses/ABI, hip examination and test for cervical myelopathy. If applied, this core set of diagnostic tests can standardize outcomes and improve clinical care of LSS globally.

Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a debilitating condition associated with degeneration of the spine with aging. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of different types of surgery compared with different types of non-surgical interventions in adults with symptomatic LSS. Primary outcomes included quality of life, disability, function and pain. Also, to consider complication rates and side effects, and to evaluate short-, intermediate- and long-term outcomes (six months, six months to two years, five years or longer). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registries up to February 2015. We also screened reference lists and conference proceedings related to treatment of the spine. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical versus non-operative treatments in participants with lumbar spinal stenosis confirmed by clinical and imaging findings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For data collection and analysis, we followed methods guidelines of the Cochrane Back and Neck Review Group (Furlan 2009) and those provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). MAIN RESULTS: From the 12,966 citations screened, we assessed 26 full-text articles and included five RCTs (643 participants).Low-quality evidence from the meta-analysis performed on two trials using the Oswestry Disability Index (pain-related disability) to compare direct decompression with or without fusion versus multi-modal non-operative care showed no significant differences at six months (mean difference (MD) -3.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.12 to 2.80) and at one year (MD -6.18, 95% CI -15.03 to 2.66). At 24 months, significant differences favoured decompression (MD -4.43, 95% CI -7.91 to -0.96). Low-quality evidence from one small study revealed no difference in pain outcomes between decompression and usual conservative care (bracing and exercise) at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 8.59), four years (RR 7.50, 95% CI 1.00 to 56.48) and 10 years (RR 4.09, 95% CI 0.95 to 17.58).Low-quality evidence from one small study suggested no differences at six weeks in the Oswestry Disability Index for patients treated with minimally invasive mild decompression versus those treated with epidural steroid injections (MD 5.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 10.83; 38 participants). Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) results were better for epidural injection at six weeks (MD -0.60, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.28), and visual analogue scale (VAS) improvements were better in the mild decompression group (MD 2.40, 95% CI 1.92 to 2.88). At 12 weeks, many cross-overs prevented further analysis.Low-quality evidence from a single study including 191 participants favoured the interspinous spacer versus usual conservative treatment at six weeks, six months and one year for symptom severity and physical function.All remaining studies reported complications associated with surgery and conservative side effects of treatment: Two studies reported no major complications in the surgical group, and the other study reported complications in 10% and 24% of participants, including spinous process fracture, coronary ischaemia, respiratory distress, haematoma, stroke, risk of reoperation and death due to pulmonary oedema. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have very little confidence to conclude whether surgical treatment or a conservative approach is better for lumbar spinal stenosis, and we can provide no new recommendations to guide clinical practice. However, it should be noted that the rate of side effects ranged from 10% to 24% in surgical cases, and no side effects were reported for any conservative treatment. No clear benefits were observed with surgery versus non-surgical treatment. These findings suggest that clinicians should be very careful in informing patients about possible treatment options, especially given that conservative treatment options have resulted in no reported side effects. High-quality research is needed to compare surgical versus conservative care for individuals with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Patient perception of pain versus observed pain behavior during a standardized electrodiagnostic test.

INTRODUCTION: Clinicians often assume that observations of pain behavior are adequate for assessment of patient pain perception during procedures. This has not been tested during a standardized electrodiagnostic experience. METHODS: During a prospective trial including extensive, standardized electrodiagnostic testing on persons with lumbar stenosis, vascular claudication, and asymptomatic volunteers, the subjects and an observer rated levels of pain. RESULTS: In 60 subjects, observers significantly under-rated pain (Visual Analog Scale 3.17 ± 2.23 vs. 4.38 ± 2.01, t = -4.577, df = 59, P < 0.001). Perceived pain during testing related to bodily pain as measured by the visual analog, McGill, Pain Disability, and Quebec scales, but not age, duration of symptoms, Tampa kinesiphobia, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale, or SF-36 health quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Persons with worse pain syndromes may perceive more pain during testing than others. Clinicians and researchers should understand that patients may have more pain than they recognize.

What interventions improve walking ability in neurogenic claudication with lumbar spinal stenosis? A systematic review.

PURPOSE: To investigate what interventions can improve walking ability in neurogenic claudication with lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and ICL databases up to June 2012. Only randomized controlled trials published in English and measuring walking ability were included. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and quality of the evidence evaluation were performed using methods of the Cochrane Back Review Group. RESULTS: We accepted 18 studies with 1,220 participants. There is very low quality evidence that calcitonin is no better than placebo or paracetamol regardless of mode of administration. There is low quality evidence that prostaglandins, and very low quality evidence that gabapentin or methylcobalamin, improves walking distance. There is low and very low quality evidence that physical therapy was no better in improving walking ability compared to no treatment, oral diclofenac plus home exercises, or combined manual therapy and exercise. There is very low quality evidence that epidural injections improve walking distance up to 2 weeks compared to placebo. There is low- and very low-quality evidence that various direct decompression surgical techniques show similar significant improvements in walking ability. There is low quality evidence that direct decompression is no better than non-operative treatment in improving walking ability. There is very low quality evidence that indirect decompression improves walking ability compared to non-operative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence for surgical and non-surgical treatment to improve walking ability is of low and very low quality and thus prohibits recommendations to guide clinical practice.

Standardizing Physical Activity Monitoring in Patients With Degenerative Lumbar Disorders.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Degenerative thoracolumbar disorders (DTDs) typically cause pain and functional impairment. However, little is known regarding the DTD impact on patient's real-life physical activity. The objective of this study is to validate a wearable measure of physical activity monitoring in patients with DTD and to create gender- and sex-specific performance thresholds that are standardized to the mean of a control population. METHODS: A commercially available smartwatch (Apple Watch) was used to monitor preoperative physical activity in patients undergoing surgery for DTD. Mean preoperative physical activity 2 weeks before the scheduled surgery was expressed as raw step count. Standardized z-scores were referenced to age- and sex-specific values of a control population from a large public database. Step counts were assessed for convergent validity with established patient-reported outcome measures, and impairment in activity was stratified into performance groups based on z-score cutoff values. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients (62% female) with a mean (±SD) age of 63.8 (±12.8) years had a mean preoperative daily step count of 5556 (±3978). Physical activity showed significant correlation with patient-reported outcome measures, including Oswestry disability index (r = -0.26, 95% CI: -0.47-0.01), 36-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Summary score (r = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.06-0.51), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (r = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.27-0.65). "No," "Mild," "moderate," and "severe impairment" in activity performance were defined as corresponding z-scores of >0, 0 to -0.99, -1 to -1.99, and ≤-2, accounting for 22%, 34%, 40%, and 5% of the study population. Each one-step category increase in activity impairment resulted in increased subjective disability as measured by the Oswestry Disability Index, 36-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Summary, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (all P -values <.05). CONCLUSION: We establish the first wearable objective measure of real-life physical activity for patients with DTD, with the first age- and sex-adjusted standard scores to enable clinicians and researchers to set treatment goals and directly compare activity levels between individual patients with DTD and normal controls.

Standardizing Continuous Physical Activity Monitoring in Patients with Cervical Spondylosis.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To use a commercial wearable device to measure real-life, continuous physical activity in patients with CS and to establish age- and sex-adjusted standardized scores. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patients with cervical spondylosis (CS) often present with pain or neurologic deficits that results in functional limitations and inactivity. However, little is known regarding the influence of CS on patient's real-life physical activity. METHODS: This study included 100 English-speaking adult patients with cervical degenerative diseases undergoing elective spine surgery at Stanford University who owned iPhones. Patients undergoing surgery for spine infections, trauma, or tumors, or with lumbar degenerative disease were excluded. Activity two weeks before surgery was expressed as raw daily step counts. Standardized z-scores were calculated based on age- and sex-specific values of a control population. Responses to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) surveys assessed convergent validity. Functional impairment was categorized based on predetermined z-score cut-off values. RESULTS: 30 CS with mean(±SD) age of 56.0(±13.4) years wore an Apple Watch for ≥8 hours/day in 87.1% of the days. Mean watch wear time was 15.7(±4.2) hours/day, and mean daily step count was 6,400(±3,792). There was no significant difference in activity between 13 patients (43%) with myelopathy and 17 (57%) without myelopathy. Test-Retest reliability between wearable step count measurements was excellent (ICC ß=0.95). Physical activity showed a moderate positive correlation with SF36-PCS, EQ5D VAS, and PROMIS-PF. Activity performance was classified into categories of "no impairment" (step count=9,640(±2,412)), "mild impairment" (6,054(±816)), "moderate impairment" (3,481(±752)), and "severe impairment" (1,619(±240)). CONCLUSION: CS patients' physical activity is significantly lower than the general population, or the frequently stated goals of 7,000-10,000 steps/day. Standardized, continuous wearable physical activity monitoring in CS is a reliable, valid, and normalized outcome tool that may help characterize functional impairment before and after spinal interventions.

The spinal stenosis pedometer and nutrition lifestyle intervention (SSPANLI) randomized controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Because of symptoms, people with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) are often inactive, and this sedentary behaviour implies risk for diseases including obesity. Research has identified body mass index as the most powerful predictor of function in LSS. This suggests that function may be improved by targeting weight as a modifiable factor. An e-health lifestyle intervention was developed aimed at reducing fat mass and increasing physical activity in people with LSS. The main components of this intervention include pedometer-based physical activity promotion and nutrition education. METHODS/DESIGN: The Spinal Stenosis Pedometer and Nutrition Lifestyle INTERVENTION (SSPANLI) was developed and piloted with 10 individuals. The protocol for a randomized controlled trail comparing the SSPANLI intervention to usual non-surgical care follows. One hundred six (106) overweight or obese individuals with LSS will be recruited. Baseline and follow-up testing includes dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, blood draw, 3-day food record, 7-day accelerometry, questionnaire, maximal oxygen consumption, neurological exam, balance testing and a Self-Paced Walking Test. INTERVENTION: During Week 1, the intervention group will receive a pedometer, and a personalized consultation with both a Dietitian and an exercise specialist. For 12 weeks participants will log on to the e-health website to access personal step goals, walking maps, nutrition videos, and motivational quotes. Participants will also have access to in-person Coffee Talk meetings every 3 weeks, and meet with the Dietitian and exercise specialist at week 6. The control group will proceed with usual care for the 12-week period. Follow-up testing will occur at Weeks 13 and 24. DISCUSSION: This lifestyle intervention has the potential to provide a unique, non-surgical management option for people with LSS. Through decreased fat mass and increased function, we may reduce risk for obesity, chronic diseases of inactivity, and pain. The use of e-health interventions provides an opportunity for patients to become more involved in managing their own health. Behaviour changes including increased physical activity, and improved dietary habits promote overall health and quality of life, and may decrease future health care needs in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01902979.

Changes in objectively measured physical activity (performance) after epidural steroid injection for lumbar spinal stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in objectively measured physical activity (performance) at 1 week following epidural steroid injection for lumbar spinal stenosis. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: University spine program. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals (N=17) who were undergoing fluoroscopically guided epidural steroid injection for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (mean age ± SD, 70.1±6.7; 47% women). INTERVENTION: Fluoroscopically guided epidural injection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The 2 primary outcomes, measured with accelerometers, were total activity (performance) measured over 7 days and maximum continuous activity (capacity). Walking capacity was also assessed with the Self-Paced Walking Test, and subjects completed the Oswestry Disability Index, Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, visual analog pain scales, and body diagrams. RESULTS: At 1 week postinjection, 58.8% of the subjects demonstrated increased total activity and 53% had increased maximum continuous activity, although neither change was statistically significant. Significant improvements were observed in a number of the self-report instruments, including the Physical Function Scale of the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, general health (Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey), role-limitation emotional (Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey), leg pain intensity (visual analog pain scales), and presence of leg weakness. CONCLUSIONS: While patients perceived improvements in pain and function following injection, these improvements were not reflected in significant changes in performance or capacity. Future studies will continue to find value in subjective measures of pain and quality of life. However, with modern technology, performance is no longer a subjective variable. Use of activity monitors to objectively measure performance can result in more rigorous validation of treatment effects, while simultaneously highlighting the potential need for additional postinjection rehabilitation aimed at improving performance.

Predictors of walking performance and walking capacity in people with lumbar spinal stenosis, low back pain, and asymptomatic controls.

OBJECTIVE: To examine predictors of community walking performance and walking capacity in people with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), compared with people with low back pain and asymptomatic control subjects. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: University spine program. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (N=126; 50 LSS, 44 low back pain, 32 asymptomatic control subjects) aged 55 to 80 years were studied. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Seven-day community walking distance measured by pedometer (walking performance) and a 15-minute walking test (walking capacity). All participants had lumbosacral magnetic resonance imaging, electrodiagnostic testing, and a history and physical examination, including a history of pain and neurologic symptoms, a straight leg raise test, and tests for directional symptoms, reflexes, strength, and nerve tension signs. The study questionnaire included demographic information, a history of back/leg pain, and questions about walking, exercise frequency, and pain level, as well as the standardized Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. RESULTS: Body mass index (BMI), pain, age, and female sex predicted walking performance (r(2)=.41) and walking capacity (r(2)=.41). The diagnosis of LSS itself had no clear relationship with either walking variable. Compared with the asymptomatic group, LSS participants had significantly lower values for all walking parameters, with the exception of stride length, while there was no significant difference between the LSS and low back pain groups. CONCLUSIONS: BMI, pain, female sex, and age predict walking performance and capacity in people with LSS, those with low back pain, and asymptomatic control subjects. While pain was the strongest predictor of walking capacity, BMI was the strongest predictor of walking performance. Average pain, rather than leg pain, was predictive of walking performance and capacity. Obesity and pain are modifiable predictors of walking deficits that could be targets for future intervention studies aimed at increasing walking performance and capacity in both the low back pain and LSS populations.

Objective features of sedentary time and light activity differentiate people with low back pain from healthy controls: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Physical inactivity has been described as both a cause and a consequence of low back pain (LBP) largely based on self-reported measures of daily activity. A better understanding of the connections between routine physical activity and LBP may improve LBP interventions. PURPOSE: In this study, we aim to objectively characterize the free-living physical activity of people with low back pain in comparison to healthy controls using accelerometers, and we aim to derive a set of LBP-specific physical activity minutes thresholds that may be used as targets for future physical activity interventions. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 22 low back pain patients and 155 controls. OUTCOME MEASURES: Accelerometry derived physical activity measures. METHODS: Twenty-two people with LBP were compared to 155 age and gender-matched healthy controls. All subjects wore an ActiGraph accelerometer on the right hip for 7 consecutive days. Accelerometry-based physical activity features (count-per-minute CPM) were derived using Freedson's intervals and physical performance intervals. A random forest machine learning classifier was trained to classify LBP status using a leave-one-out cross-validation procedure. An interpretation algorithm, the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) algorithm was subsequently applied to assess the feature importance and to establish LBP-specific physical activity thresholds. RESULTS: The LBP group reported mild to moderate disability (average ODI=18.5). The random forest classifier identified a set of 8 features (digital biomarkers) that achieved 88.1% accuracy for distinguishing LBP from controls. All of the top distinguishing features were related to differences in the sedentary and light activity ranges (<800 CPM), whereas moderate to vigorous physical activity was not discriminative. In addition, we identified and ranked physical activity thresholds that are associated with LBP prediction that can be used in future studies of physical activity interventions for LBP. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a set of physical activity features from accelerometry data associated with LBP. All of the discriminating features were derived from the sedentary and light activity range. We also identified specific activity intensity minutes thresholds that distinguished LBP subjects from healthy controls. Future examination on the digital markers and thresholds identified through this work can be used to improve physical activity interventions for LBP treatment and prevention by allowing the development of LBP-specific physical activity guidelines.

Examining the Association Between Self-Reported Estimates of Function and Objective Measures of Gait and Physical Capacity in Lumbar Stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of self-reported physical function with subjective and objective measures as well as temporospatial gait features in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). DESIGN: Cross-sectional pilot study. SETTING: Outpatient multispecialty clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with LSS and matched controls without LSS (n=10 per group; N=20). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported physical function (36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36] physical functioning domain), Oswestry Disability Index, Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, the Neurogenic Claudication Outcome Score, and inertia measurement unit (IMU)-derived temporospatial gait features. RESULTS: Higher self-reported physical function scores (SF-36 physical functioning) correlated with lower disability ratings, neurogenic claudication, and symptom severity ratings in patients with LSS (P<.05). Compared with controls without LSS, patients with LSS have lower scores on physical capacity measures (median total distance traveled on 6-minute walk test: controls 505 m vs LSS 316 m; median total distance traveled on self-paced walking test: controls 718 m vs LSS 174 m). Observed differences in IMU-derived gait features, physical capacity measures, disability ratings, and neurogenic claudication scores between populations with and without LSS were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Further evaluation of the association of IMU-derived temporospatial gait with self-reported physical function, pain related-disability, neurogenic claudication, and spinal stenosis symptom severity score in LSS would help clarify their role in tracking LSS outcomes.

Non-Surgical Interventions for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Leading To Neurogenic Claudication: A Clinical Practice Guideline.

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) causing neurogenic claudication (NC) is increasingly common with an aging population and can be associated with significant symptoms and functional limitations. We developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on nonsurgical management of patients with LSS causing NC. Using the GRADE approach, a multidisciplinary guidelines panel based recommendations on evidence from a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews published through June 2019, or expert consensus. The literature monitored up to October 2020. Clinical outcomes evaluated included pain, disability, quality of life, and walking capacity. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with LSS (congenital and/or acquired, lateral recess or central canal, with or without low back pain, with or without spondylolisthesis) causing NC. The guidelines panel developed 6 recommendations based on randomized controlled trials and 5 others based on professional consensus, summarized in 3 overarching recommendations: (Grade: statements are all conditional/weak recommendations) Recommendation 1. For patients with LSS causing NC, clinicians and patients may initially select multimodal care nonpharmacological therapies with education, advice and lifestyle changes, behavioral change techniques in conjunction with home exercise, manual therapy, and/or rehabilitation (moderate-quality evidence), traditional acupuncture on a trial basis (very low-quality evidence), and postoperative rehabilitation (supervised program of exercises and/or educational materials encouraging activity) with cognitive-behavioral therapy 12 weeks postsurgery (low-quality evidence). Recommendation 2. In patients LSS causing NC, clinicians and patients may consider a trial of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors or tricyclic antidepressants. (very low-quality evidence). Recommendation 3. For patients LSS causing NC, we recommend against the use of the following pharmacological therapies: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methylcobalamin, calcitonin, paracetamol, opioids, muscle relaxants, pregabalin (consensus-based), gabapentin (very low-quality), and epidural steroidal injections (high-quality evidence). PERSPECTIVE: This guideline, on the basis of a systematic review of the evidence on the nonsurgical management of lumbar spine stenosis, provides recommendations developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel. Safe and effective non-surgical management of lumbar spine stenosis should be on the basis of a plan of care tailored to the individual and the type of treatment involved, and multimodal care is recommended in most situations.

Do wearable fitness devices correlate with performance-based tests of work-related functional capacity?

BACKGROUND: The use of wearable accelerometers in conjunction with Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) may provide additional useful information about maximum performance in workers and enhance the validity of functional testing. However, little research has been conducted to compare accelerometer output with performance during FCE. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to: (1) Determine the magnitude and direction of correlation between participant performance on five FCE tasks and scores from Actigraph activity monitors; and (2) Compare the results of two different placements of Actigraph devices. METHOD: We used a cross-sectional design and convenience sampling to collect data from 46 healthy participants. Each participant completed 5 functional tasks selected from the WorkWell FCE protocol while wearing 2 Actigraph devices, 1 on the dominant side waist and 1 on the non-dominant wrist. The FCE tasks included 5-repetition maximum lifting (floor-to-waist, waist to crown and front carry), a sustained overhead work endurance task, and the 6-minute walk test. Analysis included calculating Pearson regression coefficients between maximum FCE item performance and Actigraph vector magnitudes (VM) along with Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) to compare VM activity counts derived from the Actigraphs on the waist and wrist. RESULTS: Thirty-Nine (84.8%) participants had complete data and were included in analysis. Findings indicate Actigraph VM data from the device worn on the waist correlated positively with maximum lift performance (r = 0.39-0.64, p < 0.001 to 0.08) and 6-minute walk distance (r = 0.66, p < 0.001). Actigraph data from wrist placement were not significantly correlated with FCE performance on any of the functional tasks, except when comparing average VM data and waist to crown lift (r = 0.44, p < 0.001). There was no significant correlation in either Actigraph placement for VM and overhead work time. ICCs between the two Actigraph placements ranged from poor to acceptable agreement (ICC = 0.24-0.70, p < 0.001 to 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Actigraph device output correlated moderately with maximum performance on FCE lift and ambulation tests. Waist placement appears more suitable than wrist during performance-based tests.

Variability among methods and timing of pain assessment tools for tracking improvement of lumbar stenosis patients after surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Many different pain and functional outcomes are used to determine progress after surgical intervention for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS); it is unknown how these different outcomes correlate, or whether timing of pain measurement is important. PURPOSE: The goal was to determine whether method and timing of pain measurement is important in the context of LSS surgical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: LSS patients (N=21). OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-report measures. METHODS: Each patient completed the 36-item Short Form, Oswestry Disability Index, and Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire 1 week presurgery and 6 months postsurgery. Objective function was measured using the Self-Paced Walking Test (SPWT). Low back and leg pain were assessed by visual analogue scale both immediately before the SPWT (prewalking pain) and at the symptom-limited endpoint (provoked pain). Pain was also assessed before and after surgery using the pain subscales of 36-item Short Form pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire. RESULTS: Patients averaged 65.3 years of age with 15 being female. After surgery, all outcome measures improved significantly. Postwalking pain (provoked pain) demonstrating a strong relationship with objectively measured function (SPWT). Pain (visual analogue scale prewalk and postwalk) showed little correlation with reported changes in disability, general health or physical function. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that for patients with LSS, the context of the pain measurement matters, and it is important to measure pain after walking (provoked pain). Results also suggest that when examining the relationship between pain and function, objective measures of function are preferable (eg, a walking test). Finally, given the lack of association between measures of pain, it is important to understand that each pain measure is addressing a different pain construct. Therefore, when conducting outcomes studies, it is imperative to compare the exact same pain measures across time points.

Gait features for discriminating between mobility-limiting musculoskeletal disorders: Lumbar spinal stenosis and knee osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Functional ambulation limitations are features of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and knee osteoarthritis (OA). With numerous validated walking assessment protocols and a vast number of spatiotemporal gait parameters available from sensor-based assessment, there is a critical need for selection of appropriate test protocols and variables for research and clinical applications. RESEARCH QUESTION: In patients with knee OA and LSS, what are the best sensor-derived gait parameters and the most suitable clinical walking test to discriminate between these patient populations and controls? METHODS: We collected foot-mounted inertial measurement unit (IMU) data during three walking tests (fast-paced walk test-FPWT, 6-min walk test- 6MWT, self-paced walk test - SPWT) for subjects with LSS, knee OA and matched controls (N = 10 for each group). Spatiotemporal gait characteristics were extracted and pairwise compared (Omega partial squared - ωp2) between patients and controls. RESULTS: We found that normal paced walking tests (6MWT, SPWT) are better suited for distinguishing gait characteristics between patients and controls. Among the sensor-based gait parameters, stance and double support phase timing were identified as the best gait characteristics for the OA population discrimination, whereas foot flat ratio, gait speed, stride length and cadence were identified as the best gait characteristics for the LSS population discrimination. SIGNIFICANCE: These findings provide guidance on the selection of sensor-derived gait parameters and clinical walking tests to detect alterations in mobility for people with LSS and knee OA.

Objective activity tracking in spine surgery: a prospective feasibility study with a low-cost consumer grade wearable accelerometer.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used to estimate disability of patients with spinal degenerative disease. Emerging technological advances present an opportunity to provide objective measurements of activity. In a prospective, observational study we utilized a low-cost consumer grade wearable accelerometer (LCA) to determine patient activity (steps per day) preoperatively (baseline) and up to one year (Y1) after cervical and lumbar spine surgery. We studied 30 patients (46.7% male; mean age 57 years; 70% Caucasian) with a baseline activity level of 5624 steps per day. The activity level decreased by 71% in the 1st postoperative week (p < 0.001) and remained 37% lower in the 2nd (p < 0.001) and 23% lower in the 4th week (p = 0.015). At no time point until Y1 did patients increase their activity level, compared to baseline. Activity was greater in patients with cervical, as compared to patients with lumbar spine disease. Age, sex, ethnic group, anesthesia risk score and fusion were variables associated with activity. There was no correlation between activity and PROMs, but a strong correlation with depression. Determining activity using LCAs provides real-time and longitudinal information about patient mobility and return of function. Recovery took place over the first eight postoperative weeks, with subtle improvement afterwards.

A pain science education and walking program to increase physical activity in people with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Nine of 10 people with knee osteoarthritis are inactive. Unhelpful pain beliefs may negatively influence physical activity levels. Targeting these unhelpful pain beliefs, through contemporary pain science education (PSE), may provide benefit. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of conducting a clinical trial to determine the effect of adding PSE (vs adding sham ultrasound) to an individualised, physiotherapist-led education and walking program in people with painful knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: Twenty participants were randomised (1:1) into the PSE group or Control group, each receiving 4 in-person weekly treatments, then 4 weeks of at-home activities (weekly telephone check-in). Clinical outcomes and physical activity (7 days of wrist-worn accelerometry) were assessed at baseline, 4 (clinical outcomes only), 8, and 26 weeks. A priori feasibility criteria for recruitment, intervention adherence, viability of wrist-based accelerometry, and follow-up retention were set. Perceived intervention credibility, acceptability, and usefulness from participants and clinicians were assessed (ratings, written/verbal feedback). RESULTS: Most feasibility criteria were met. On average, 7 adults/wk were eligible, with 70% recruited. Treatment compliance was high (in-person: 80% PSE; 100% Control; at-home: 78% PSE; 75% Control). Wrist-based accelerometry had >75% valid wear-time. Sufficient follow-up rates were not achieved (26 weeks: 65%). Participant and clinician feedback highlighted that PSE was too complex and did not match patient expectations of "physiotherapy", that sham ultrasound was problematic (clinician), but that both treatments had high credibility, acceptability, and usefulness. CONCLUSIONS: Progression to a full trial is warranted. Strategies to increase participant retention, refine the PSE content/delivery, and replace/remove the sham intervention are required.