Intracluster correlation coefficients in osteoarthritis cluster randomized trials: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The design, analysis, and interpretation of cluster randomized clinical trials (RCTs) require accounting for potential correlation of observations on individuals within the same cluster. Reporting of observed intracluster correlation coefficients (ICCs) in cluster RCTs, as recommended by Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), facilitates sample size calculation of future cluster RCTs and understanding of the trial statistical power. Our objective was to summarize observed ICCs in osteoarthritis (OA) cluster RCTs. DESIGN: Systematic review of knee/hip OA cluster RCTs. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for trials published from 2012, when CONSORT cluster RCTs extension was published, to September 2022. We calculated the proportion of cluster RCTs that reported observed ICCs. Of those that did, we extracted observed ICCs. PROSPERO: CRD42022365660. RESULTS: We screened 1121 references and included 20 cluster RCTs. Only 5 trials (25%) reported the observed ICC for at least one outcome variable. ICC values for pain outcomes were: 0, 0.01, 0.18; for physical function outcomes were: 0, 0.06, 0.13 (knee)/0.27 (hip); Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) total: 0.02, 0.02; symptoms of anxiety/depression: 0.22; disability: 0; and global change: 0. One out of four (25%) trials reported an ICC that was larger than the ICC used for sample size calculation and thus was underpowered. CONCLUSIONS: Despite CONSORT statement recommendations for reporting cluster RCTs, few OA trials reported the observed ICC. Given the importance of the ICC to interpretation of trial results and future trial design, this reporting gap warrants attention.

Patient-reported outcome measures used for hand and wrist disorders: An overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Multiple options for patient reported outcome measures are available to assess patients with hand, wrist and elbow impairments. This review of systematic reviews (overview) evaluated the evidence on these outcome measures. METHODS: An electronic search of six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ILC, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and LILACS) was performed in September 2019, and updated in August 2022. The search strategy was designed to locate systematic reviews that addressed at least one clinical measurement property of PROMs used for patients with hand and wrist impairment. Two independent reviewers screened the articles and extracted the data. The AMSTAR tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included articles. RESULTS: Eleven systematic reviews were included in this overview. A total of 27 outcome assessments were assessed, with DASH, PRWE and MHQ assessed by five, four, and three reviews, respectively. We found high-quality evidence of good to excellent internal consistency (ICC = 0.88-0.97), poor content validity but high construct validity (r > 0.70), moderate- to high-quality evidence for the DASH. The reliability of the PRWE was excellent (ICC >0.80), the convergent validity was excellent (r > 0.75), but poor criterion validity compared to the SF-12. The MHQ also reported excellent reliability (ICC = 0.88-0.96), and good criterion validity (r > 0.70), but poor construct validity (r > 0.38). CONCLUSION: Clinical decisions around which tool will depend on which psychometric property is most important for the assessment and whether global or specific condition assessment is needed. All of the tools demonstrated at least good reliability; therefore, the clinical decisions will rely on the type of validity for clinical application. The DASH has good construct validity, while the PRWE has good convergent validity, and the MHQ has good criterion validity.

Patient-reported outcome measures used for shoulder disorders: An overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to synthesize the psychometric evidence on different patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for shoulder disorders. METHODS: This overview conducted a search of six databases. Included systematic reviews must address at least one psychometric property from a PROM for shoulder disorders. Risk of bias was assessed by A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). RESULTS: Thirteen systematic reviews were identified that assessed measurement properties of 15 different PROMs. Based on AMSTAR, 1 review had a high risk of bias and 7 reviews had a moderate risk of bias. Excellent test-reliability scores of intraclass correlation coefficients (0.85-0.99) were reported by the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, Shoulder Pain and Dsiability Index, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. Construct validity was supported (r = 0.5-0.8) for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, Shoulder Pain and Dsiability Index, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. Limited evidence of responsiveness was reported across various PROMs. CONCLUSION: Strong reliability and convergent validity properties have been reported across multiple reviews for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, Shoulder Pain and Dsiability Index, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score, Simple Shoulder Test and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, which could be considered for a core clinical outcome set.

Performance-based outcome measures of dexterity and hand function in person with hands and wrist injuries: A scoping review of measured constructs.

BACKGROUND: Dexterity impairments are common and disabling. Currently, there is no consensus on an operational definition to measure dexterity. PURPOSE: This review aims to provide an overview of constructs measured by performance-based outcome measures of dexterity and hand function (PBOMD) validated for use in persons with musculoskeletal hand and wrist conditions. STUDY DESIGN: Scoping review, with qualitative content analysis. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO were searched from inception until November 2019. Three reviewers identified studies investigating the psychometric properties of PBOMD in persons with hand and wrist conditions. Original articles and manuals of validated PBOMD were obtained. Reviewers independently extracted and performed a content analysis of constructs comparing the theoretical concepts of dexterity and function. RESULTS: Twenty PBOMD were identified. PBOMD featured 1-57 tasks and 1-8 potential grasps patterns per tool. Description of the constructs measured indicated overlap between dexterity and hand function. In newer tools, there was a greater representation of daily activities to include domains like self-care and domestic life; and measurement of qualitative aspects of performance. Concurrently, there was less focus on mobility. The majority of identified tools (70%) used speed as the criterion evaluation of performance. None of the PBOMD evaluated dexterity associated with leisure activities or modern technologies like smartphones, nor measured the ability to adapt to changing demands when completing tasks. CONCLUSIONS: Hand function and dexterity are imprecisely defined and operationalized in PBOMD. Dexterity is a complex construct that current PBOMD incompletely captures. PBOMD often quantified as the speed of movement, ignoring other important aspects like accommodating environmental changes during task performance. Clinicians should consider tasks included in PBOMD, the quantification method, and each PBOMD's limitations when choosing PBOMD.

Impact of climate and public health interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether seasonal changes, school closures or other public health interventions will result in a slowdown of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to determine whether epidemic growth is globally associated with climate or public health interventions intended to reduce transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of all 144 geopolitical areas worldwide (375 609 cases) with at least 10 COVID-19 cases and local transmission by Mar. 20, 2020, excluding China, South Korea, Iran and Italy. Using weighted random-effects regression, we determined the association between epidemic growth (expressed as ratios of rate ratios [RRR] comparing cumulative counts of COVID-19 cases on Mar. 27, 2020, with cumulative counts on Mar. 20, 2020) and latitude, temperature, humidity, school closures, restrictions of mass gatherings, and measures of social distancing during an exposure period 14 days previously (Mar. 7 to 13, 2020). RESULTS: In univariate analyses, there were no associations of epidemic growth with latitude and temperature, but weak negative associations with relative humidity (RRR per 10% 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-0.96) and absolute humidity (RRR per 5 g/m3 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-0.99). Strong associations were found for restrictions of mass gatherings (RRR 0.65, 95% CI 0.53-0.79), school closures (RRR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52-0.78) and measures of social distancing (RRR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.85). In a multivariable model, there was a strong association with the number of implemented public health interventions (p for trend = 0.001), whereas the association with absolute humidity was no longer significant. INTERPRETATION: Epidemic growth of COVID-19 was not associated with latitude and temperature, but may be associated weakly with relative or absolute humidity. Conversely, public health interventions were strongly associated with reduced epidemic growth.

Evaluation of the content validity index of the Australian/Canadian osteoarthritis hand index, the patient-rated wrist/hand evaluation and the thumb disability exam in people with hand arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN), the Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) and the Thumb Disability Exam (TDX) are patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) designed to assess pain and hand function in patients with hand arthritis, hand pain and disability, or thumb pathology respectively. This study evaluated the content validity of AUSCAN, PRWHE and TDX in people with hand arthritis. METHODS: This study enrolled participants with hand arthritis to rate the items of all 3 PROM in terms of relevance and clarity. The Content Validity Index (CVI) was computed for each item in each scale (I-CVI) as well as for the overall scale (S-CVI). Kappa was used to determine the inter-rater agreement among the raters. RESULTS: Overall, 64 individuals with hand arthritis (27% with OA, 67% with rheumatoid arthritis and 6% with psoriatic arthritis) participated in the study. The I-CVI for all items and all scales were very high (I-CVI > 0.76) and the modified Kappa agreement among the raters demonstrated excellent agreement (k > 0.76). The S-CVI for all PROMs was very high for relevance (AUSCAN = 0.92, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.94; PRWHE = 0.85, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.88 and TDX = 0.87, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.89) and for clarity (AUSCAN = 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00; PRWHE = 0.95, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.97 and TDX = 0.91, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.94), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated very high content validity indices for the AUSCAN, PRWHE and TDX; with strong consensus across raters. This augments prior studies demonstrating appropriate statistical measurement properties, to provide confidence that all three measures assess important patient concepts of pain and disability.

Measurement Properties of the Hand Grip Strength Assessment: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to critically appraise, compare, and summarize the quality of the measurement properties of grip strength (GS) in patients with musculoskeletal, neurologic, or systemic conditions and healthy participants without these conditions. DATA SOURCES: We followed the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guideline. To identify studies on measurement properties of GS, we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, Physiotherapy Evidence, and Cochrane Library databases from inception until June 2019. Meta-analyses were carried out using a random effects model and 95% CIs were calculated. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they reported at least 1 measurement property of hand GS in a population with musculoskeletal, neurologic, and systemic conditions or a healthy population without these conditions. DATA EXTRACTION: The extracted data included the study population, setting, sample size, measurement evaluated, and the test interval. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-five studies were included with 1879 participants. The pooled results indicated excellent intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.92 (95% CI, -0.88-0.94 for healthy participants without any conditions, ICC of 0.95 (95% CI, -0.93-0.97) for upper extremity conditions, and an ICC of 0.96 (95% CI, -0.94-0.97) for patients with neurologic conditions. Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) scores for hand GS were 5.0 kg (dominant side) and 6.2 kg (nondominant side) for patients post stroke, 6.5 kg for the affected side after distal radius fracture, 10.5 lb and 10 kPa for immune-mediated neuropathies, 17 kg for patients with lateral epicondylitis, and 0.84 kg (affected side) and 1.12 kg (unaffected side) in the carpometacarpal osteoarthritis group; MCID GS estimates were 2.69-2.44 kg in the healthy group without conditions. CONCLUSION: Our synthesized evidence indicated that GS assessment is a reliable and valid procedure among healthy participants as well as across various clinical populations. Furthermore, our MCID summary scores provided useful information for evaluating (clinical importance) new interventions regarding hand GS.

The Effectiveness of Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization in Athletes, Participants Without Extremity or Spinal Conditions, and Individuals with Upper Extremity, Lower Extremity, and Spinal Conditions: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) to other treatments or placebo in athletes or participants without extremity or spinal conditions and individuals with upper extremity, lower extremity, and spinal conditions. DATA SOURCES: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro electronic databases were searched from January 1998 to March 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of participants without extremity or spinal conditions or athletes and people with upper extremity, lower extremity, or spinal conditions, who revived IASTM vs other active treatment, placebo, or control (no treatment), to improve outcome (function, pain, range of motion). DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent review authors extracted data, assessed the trials for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool in included studies, and performed the rating of quality of individual trials per outcome across trials was also performed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations guidelines. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine trials with 43 reported outcomes (function, pain, range of motion, grip strength), compared the addition of IASTM over other treatments vs other treatments. Six trials with 36 outcomes reported no clinically important differences in outcomes between the 2 groups. Two trials with 2 outcomes displayed clinically important differences favoring the other treatment (without IASTM) group. Six trials with 15 reported outcomes (pressure sensitivity, pain, range of motion, muscle performance), compared IASTM vs control (no treatment). Three trials with 5 outcomes reported no clinically important differences in outcomes between the 2 groups. Furthermore, in 1 trial with 5 outcomes, IASTM demonstrated small effects (standard mean difference range 0.03-0.24) in terms of improvement muscle performance in physically active individuals when compared to a no treatment group. CONCLUSION: The current evidence does not support the use of IASTM to improve pain, function, or range of motion in individuals without extremity or spinal conditions or those with varied pathologies.

Cognition Predicts Mobility Change in Lower Extremity Amputees Between Discharge From Rehabilitation and 4-Month Follow-up: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess (1) the effect of task (single and dual task), time (discharge and 4mo), and their interaction for mobility; (2) task prioritization during dual-task testing; and (3) the association between cognition on change in mobility between discharge from rehabilitation and 4 months' follow-up. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS: People with lower extremity amputations (N=22) were consecutively recruited at discharge from an inpatient prosthetic rehabilitation program. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Gait velocity and the L Test of Functional Mobility, single and dual task (serial subtractions by 3), were the primary outcomes. Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Trail Making Test quantified cognition as secondary outcomes. Repeated measures analysis of variance evaluated the effects of task (single task and dual task) and time (at discharge and 4 months' follow-up) and their interaction on each outcome. A performance-resource operating characteristic graph evaluated gait and cognitive task prioritization. Multivariable linear regression evaluated the association between cognition and change in mobility over time. RESULTS: No significant interactions between task and time were found (all P>.121) for L Test and gait velocity. The L Test single task (P=.001) and dual task (P=.004) improved over time. Gait velocity improved over time for both single task and dual task (P<.001). Dual-task performance was slower than single-task performances at each time point. The Trail Making Test B was independently associated with the change in dual-task L Test (P=.012), and single-task (P=.003) and dual-task (P=.006) gait velocity at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Gait velocity and L Test single and dual task improved over time. No significant interactions indicated that cognitive task did not differentially affect performance over time. Lower executive function scores at discharge were independently associated with lower gains in all gait velocity and dual-task L Test outcomes at follow-up.

Effectiveness of Nonsurgical Interventions for Managing Adhesive Capsulitis in Patients With Diabetes: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of nonsurgical interventions for managing adhesive capsulitis (AC) in patients with diabetes on pain, function, and range of motion. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and other databases were searched for studies published in the last 20 years. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed AC in people with diabetes and implemented 1 or a combination of physiotherapeutic interventions, corticosteroids, and manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) were eligible for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: The Cochrane Risk of Bias was used by 2 independent raters who met to achieve consensus. The quality of trials was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. Data extracted from the eligible studies included study design, participant characteristics and duration of symptoms, type of intervention, outcome measures, follow-up intervals, and research findings. DATA SYNTHESIS: Because of the lack of similar interventions, a narrative synthesis was conducted, and meta-analyses were not performed. The effect sizes or between-group differences of the interventions were reported. A total of 8 RCTs met the inclusion criteria: 4 addressed physiotherapeutic interventions, 3 corticosteroid injections, and 1 MUA. The effect sizes for physiotherapeutic interventions were 0.8-2.0, 0.9-2.0, and 1.0 for ROM, function, and pain, respectively, with the largest effect size (2.0) being reported for joint mobilization plus exercises. The effect sizes for corticosteroids were 0.2-0.5 and 0.1 for ROM and pain. The between-group improvement for MUA was 5.6 points on Constant Shoulder Score. CONCLUSION: Low-quality evidence suggests large effects of joint mobilization plus exercises on AC in people with diabetes, although confidence in this conclusion is limited due to the high risk of bias. Even weaker support was available for corticosteroid and MUA. Future high-quality RCTs are needed to determine the best intervention for managing AC in patients with diabetes.

The effectiveness of joint-protection programs on pain, hand function, and grip strength levels in patients with hand arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. INTRODUCTION: Joint protection (JP) has been developed as a self-management intervention to assist people with hand arthritis to improve occupational performance and minimize joint deterioration over time. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: We examined the effectiveness between JP and usual care/control on pain, hand function, and grip strength levels for people with hand osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: A search was performed in 5 databases from January 1990 to February 2017. Two independent assessors applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and a Grading of Recommendations Assessement, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was adopted. RESULTS: For pain levels at short term, we found similar effects between JP and control standardized mean difference (SMD; -0.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.42 to 0.42, I2 = 49%), and at midterm and long-term follow-up, JP was favored over usual care SMD (-0.32, 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.11, I2 = 0) and SMD (-0.27, 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.12, I2 = 9%), respectively. For function levels at midterm and long-term follow-up, JP was favored over usual care SMD (-0.49, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.22, I2 = 34%) and SMD (-0.31, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.11, I2 = 56%), respectively. For grip strength levels, at long term, JP was inferior over usual care mean difference (0.93, 95% CI: -0.74 to 2.61, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of very low to low quality indicates that the effects of JP programs compared with usual care/control on pain and hand function are too small to be clinically important at short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-ups for people with hand arthritis.

Recovery, age, and gender effects on hand dexterity after a distal radius fracture. A 1-year prospective cohort study.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. INTRODUCTION: Physical factors that predict hand dexterity and the recovery of hand dexterity after a distal radius fracture (DRF) have not yet been examined. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The first objective was to evaluate the recovery of hand dexterity comparing the injured and uninjured hands during the year after a DRF. The second objective was to determine the effect of age and sex on hand dexterity of the injured hand. METHODS: Hand dexterity was examined bilaterally for the manipulation of 3 different sized objects (small, medium, and large) using the NK hand dexterity test. The measurements took place at 3, 6, and 12 months after DRF. Generalized linear modeling was performed, with age and sex as covariates, to assess changes over time, and between sides. RESULTS: Overall, 242 patients with DRF (45 males and 197 females) with a mean age of 60.2 years with SD of 11.26, participated in the study. Statistical differences in hand dexterity were found between the injured and uninjured hands across all time intervals (P < .001). The effect size for the deficit between the injured and uninjured hands decreased across the time intervals and ranged from 0.19 to 0.38 for large objects, from 0.17 to 0.25 for medium objects, and from 0.11 to 0.32 for small objects. For each 1-year increase in age, hand dexterity scores were 0.3-0.4 seconds slower. Sex had much less effect, with annual increases of 0.1 seconds in hand dexterity scores. CONCLUSIONS: Scores on the NK dexterity test improved between 3 and 6 months and then worsened between 6 and 12 months; at no point did dexterity equal the uninjured side. Greater attention to measuring and treating dexterity may be needed to provide a complete recovery after DRF. Scores will be affected by age and sex. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis, 2a.

Effets du climat et des interventions de santé publique sur la pandémie de COVID-19 : une étude de cohorte prospective.

CONTEXTE: On ignore si les variations climatiques saisonnières, la fermeture des établissements scolaires ou d'autres interventions de santé publique entraîneront un ralentissement de la pandémie actuelle de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Nous avons voulu déterminer si de façon globale la progression de l'épidémie est associée au climat ou aux interventions de santé publique visant à réduire la transmission du coronavirus du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère 2 (SRAS-CoV-2). MÉTHODES: Nous avons procédé à une étude de cohorte prospective des 144 régions géopolitiques de la planète (375 609 cas) présentant au moins 10 cas de COVID-19, avec transmission locale, en date du 20 mars 2020, à l'exclusion de la Chine, de la Corée du Sud, de l'Iran et de l'Italie. Par analyse de régression à effets aléatoires pondérée, nous avons évalué le lien entre la progression de l'épidémie (exprimée sous forme de rapports de taux d'incidence [RTI] comparant les nombres cumulatifs de cas de COVID-19 du 27 mars 2020 à ceux du 20 mars 2020) avec les facteurs de latitude, température, humidité, fermeture des établissements scolaires, interdiction des grands rassemblements et mesures d'éloignement social qui étaient en place les 7 et 13 mars 2020 (période de 14 jours antérieure à l'évaluation). RÉSULTATS: Les analyses univariées ont révélé aucuns lien entre la progression de l'épidémie et les facteurs de latitude et de température, mais des liens négatifs faibles avec l'humidité relative (RTI par 10 %, 0,91, intervalle de confiance [IC] de 95 % 0,85­0,96) et l'humidité absolue (RTI par 5 g/m3 0,92, IC à 95 % 0,85­0,99). Des liens étroits ont été observés avec l'interdiction des grands rassemblements (RTI 0,65, IC à 95 % 0,53­0,79), la fermeture des établissements scolaires (RTI 0,63, IC à 95 % 0,52­0,78) et les mesures d'éloignement social (RTI 0,62, IC à 95 % 0,45­0,85). Dans un modèle multivarié, on a noté un lien étroit avec le nombre de mesures déployées par la santé publique (p pour tendance = 0,001), tandis que le lien avec l'humidité absolue s'atténuait. INTERPRÉTATION: La progression de l'épidémie de COVID-19 ne s'est pas révélée en lien avec la latitude ni avec la température, mais faiblement en lien avec l'humidité relative ou absolue. À l'inverse, les interventions de santé publique ont été étroitement associées à un ralentissement de la progression de l'épidémie.

Latent Profile Analysis of Canadian Military Veterans With Chronic Pain Identifies 5 Meaningful Classes Through Self-Report Measures.

The purpose of this study was to identify meaningful response patterns in self-report survey data collected from Canadian military veterans with chronic pain and to create an algorithm intended to facilitate triage and prioritization of veterans to the most appropriate interventions. An online survey was presented to former members of the Canadian military who self-identified as having chronic pain. Variables collected were related to pain, physical and mental interference, prior traumatic experiences, and indicators from each of the 7 potential drivers of the pain experience. Maximum likelihood estimation-based latent profile analysis was used to identify clinically and statistically meaningful profiles using the 7-axis variables, and classification and regression tree (CRT) analysis was then conducted to identify the most parsimonious set of indicators that could be used to accurately classify respondents into the most relevant profile group. Data from N = 322 veterans were available for analysis. The results of maximum likelihood estimation-based latent profile analysis indicated a 5-profile structure was optimal for explaining the patterns of responses within the data. These were: Mood-Dominant (13%), Localized Physical (24%), Neurosensory-Dominant (33%), Central-Dominant with complex mood and neurosensory symptoms (16%), and Trauma- and mood-dominant (14%). From CRT analysis, an algorithm requiring only 3 self-report tools (central symptoms, mood screening, bodily coherence) achieved 83% classification accuracy across the 5 profiles. The new classification algorithm requiring 16 total items may be helpful for clinicians and veterans in pain to identify the most dominant drivers of their pain experience that may be useful for prioritizing intervention strategies, targets, and relevant health care disciplines. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the results of latent profile (cluster) analysis of responses to standardized self-report questionnaires by Canadian military veterans with chronic pain. It identified 5 clusters that appear to represent different drivers of the pain experience. The results could be useful for triaging veterans to the most appropriate pain care providers.

Which Remote Rehabilitation Interventions Work Best for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain and Depression? A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of remote rehabilitation interventions for people living with chronic musculoskeletal pain and depression. DESIGN: A systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials. LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, EMBASE, LILACS MEDLINE, PSYNDEX, and PsycINFO databases from inception to May 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of remote rehabilitation interventions in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain and depression. DATA SYNTHESIS: We used Bayesian random-effects models for the NMA. Effect estimates were comparisons between rehabilitation interventions and waitlist. We performed a sensitivity analysis based on bias in the randomization process, large trials (>100 patients per arm) and musculoskeletal condition. RESULTS: Fifty-eight randomized controlled trials involving 10 278 participants (median sample size: 137; interquartile range [IQR]: 77-236) were included. Interactive voice response cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT; standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.66, 95% credible interval [CrI] -1.17 to -0.16), CBT in person (SMD -0.50, 95% CrI -0.97 to -0.04), and mobile app CBT plus exercise (SMD -0.37, 95% CrI -0.69 to -0.02) were superior to waitlist at 12-week follow-up for reducing pain (> 98% probability of superiority). For depression outcomes, Internet-delivered CBT and telecare were superior to waitlist at 12-week follow-up (SMD -0.51, 95% CrI -0.87 to -0.13) (> 99% probability of superiority). For pain outcomes, the certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate. For depression outcomes, the certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The proportion of dropouts attributed to adverse events was unclear. No intervention was associated with higher odds of dropout. CONCLUSION: Interactive voice response CBT and mobile app CBT plus exercise showed similar treatment effects with in-person CBT on pain reduction among people living with chronic musculoskeletal pain and depression had over 98% probability of superiority than waitlist control at 12-week follow-up. Internet-delivered CBT and telecare had over 99% probability of superiority than waitlist control for improving depression outcomes at 12-week follow-up. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(6):1-16. Epub 26 February 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12216.

Effectiveness and safety of manual therapy when compared with oral pain medications in patients with neck pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis seeks to investigate the effectiveness and safety of manual therapy (MT) interventions compared to oral pain medication in the management of neck pain. METHODS: We searched from inception to March 2023, in Cochrane Central Register of Controller Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCO) for randomized controlled trials that examined the effect of manual therapy interventions for neck pain when compared to medication in adults with self-reported neck pain, irrespective of radicular findings, specific cause, and associated cervicogenic headaches. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool to assess the potential risk of bias in the included studies, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to grade the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Nine trials (779 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. We found low certainty of evidence that MT interventions may be more effective than oral pain medication in pain reduction in the short-term (Standardized Mean Difference: -0.39; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.11; 8 trials, 676 participants), and moderate certainty of evidence that MT interventions may be more effective than oral pain medication in pain reduction in the long-term (Standardized Mean Difference: - 0.36; 95% CI - 0.55 to - 0.17; 6 trials, 567 participants). We found low certainty evidence that the risk of adverse events may be lower for patients that received MT compared to the ones that received oral pain medication (Risk Ratio: 0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.79; 5 trials, 426 participants). CONCLUSIONS: MT may be more effective for people with neck pain in both short and long-term with a better safety profile regarding adverse events when compared to patients receiving oral pain medications. However, we advise caution when interpreting our safety results due to the different level of reporting strategies in place for MT and medication-induced adverse events. Future MT trials should create and adhere to strict reporting strategies with regards to adverse events to help gain a better understanding on the nature of potential MT-induced adverse events and to ensure patient safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023421147.

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the new region-generic version of Fremantle Body Awareness-General Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: As the field of pain evaluation grows, newer and more targeted tools are being published for patient-centric evaluation of specific aspects of the pain experience. The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) is intended to capture alterations in bodily awareness or perception. To date only region-specific (back, neck, shoulder, knee) versions have been published. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study was to report on the properties of a new region-generic version of the FreBAQ, the FreBAQ-general. Structural validity, internal consistency, and convergent validity against external criteria were evaluated in a sample of Canadian military veterans with chronic pain, with results compared against those published for the region-specific FreBAQ versions. METHODS: Eligible participants were those that had prior military service, were at least 18 years of age and self-identified as having chronic pain. We used a split-sample approach to Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on independent random samples. Factor structure, internal consistency, and associations with external criteria were used to compare against prior versions. RESULTS: 328 respondents (74% of consented) completed at least 7 of the 9 FreBAQ-general questions. EFA and CFA on two independent samples offered support for both 6- and 7-item versions. Comparisons against the external criteria (pain severity, interference, catastrophizing) indicated no statistical superiority of one over the other, so in the interest of parsimony the 6-item FreBAQ-general was endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: The Fremantle Body Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ-general) showed psychometric properties very much in alignment with those previously reported for the region-specific versions, and sound factorial validity accomplished with fewer items (6 vs. 9). We believe this version can be implemented in practice for those seeking a shorter scale without the need to have multiple region-specific versions on hand, though suggest that those seeking direct comparability with previously published work will still wish to use the original versions.

Rehabilitation Interventions for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

OBJECTIVES: An increasing number of systematic reviews have been conducted on various conservative management of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) targeting different rehabilitation interventions and objectives. The intent of this article was to summarize and critically appraise the body of evidence on conservative management of the CRPS and to provide an overall picture of the current state of the literature. METHODS: This study was an overview of systematic reviews on conservative treatments for CRPS. We conducted a literature search from inception to January 2023 in the following databases: Embase, Medline, CINAHL, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Two independent reviewers conducted study screening, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment (using AMSTAR-2). Qualitative synthesis was the preferred method for reporting the findings of our review. We calculated the corrected covered area index to account for the proportion of overlapping primary studies that were included in multiple reviews. RESULT: We identified 214 articles, and a total of 9 systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. Pain and disability were the most common outcomes evaluated in the reviews. There were 6 (6/9; 66%) high-quality, 2 (2/9; 22%) moderate-quality, and 1 critically low-quality systematic review (1/9;11%), with the quality of the included trials ranging from very low to high. There was a large overlap across primary studies that were included in the systematic reviews (corrected covered area=23%). The findings of high-quality reviews support the effectiveness of mirror therapy (MT) and graded motor imagery (GMI) programs on pain and disability improvement in CRPS patients. The large effect size was reported for the effectiveness of MT on pain and disability (SMD:1.88 (95% CI: 0.73-3.02) and 1.30 (95% CI: 0.11-2.49), respectively) and the effectiveness of GMI program (GMIP) on pain and disability improvement (SMD: 1.36 (95% CI: 0.75-1.96) and 1.64 (95% CI: 0.53-2.74), respectively). DISCUSSION: The evidence is in favor of adopting movement representation techniques, such as MT and GMI programs, for the treatment of pain and disability in patients with CRPS. However, this is based on a small body of primary evidence, and more research is required to generate conclusions. Overall, the evidence is not comprehensive or of sufficient quality to make definitive recommendations about the effectiveness of other rehabilitation interventions in improving pain and disability.

Effectiveness of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization for the management of upper body, lower body, and spinal conditions. An updated systematic review with meta-analyses.

PURPOSE: To critically appraise randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilisation (IASTM) and quantify the effects of IASTM compared with other treatment in individuals with or without pathologies on function, pain, and range of motion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We search four electronic databases from January 1999 to January 2022 and included RCTs of healthy participants/athletes and people with upper, lower, or spinal conditions, who received IASTM versus other active treatment for clinical outcomes (function, pain, and range of motion). RESULTS: Forty-six RCTs were considered eligible for data analysis. Effects of IASTM plus other treatment versus other treatment on function and pain intensity were not statistically significant or clinically meaningful (very low quality, SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.09) and (very low quality, SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.43) at up to one-year follow-up respectively. No clinically meaningful improvements were found on range of motion outcomes. Out of the 46 included RCTs, only 10 assessed and reported IASTM-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: Evidence of very low-quality certainty does not support the efficacy of IASTM in individuals with or without various pathologies on function, pain, and range of motion in the management of upper body, lower body, or spinal conditions. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe included RCTs had a high risk of bias and were assessed as very-low quality evidence for all the included outcomes.IASTM does not lead to clinically meaningful improvements in function, pain, or range of motion in individuals with upper body, lower body, and spinal conditions.The publication of IASTM trials in suspected predatory journals is increasing.The available evidence on IASTM does not support its use to improve function, pain, or range of motion in individuals with upper body, lower body, and spinal conditions.Health care practitioners should consider other evidence-based management strategies (physical activity and exercise) to improve function, pain, or range of motion in individuals with musculoskeletal injuries and disorders.Given the rise of publications on IASTM in suspected predatory journals, health care practitioners should be judicious to examine the legitimacy of a journal when searching for evidence on IASTM treatment technique.