Variability in the prevalence of depression among adults with chronic pain: UK Biobank analysis through clinical prediction models.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of depression among people with chronic pain remains unclear due to the heterogeneity of study samples and definitions of depression. We aimed to identify sources of variation in the prevalence of depression among people with chronic pain and generate clinical prediction models to estimate the probability of depression among individuals with chronic pain. METHODS: Participants were from the UK Biobank. The primary outcome was a "lifetime" history of depression. The model's performance was evaluated using discrimination (optimism-corrected C statistic) and calibration (calibration plot). RESULTS: Analyses included 24,405 patients with chronic pain (mean age 64.1 years). Among participants with chronic widespread pain, the prevalence of having a "lifetime" history of depression was 45.7% and varied (25.0-66.7%) depending on patient characteristics. The final clinical prediction model (optimism-corrected C statistic: 0.66; good calibration on the calibration plot) included age, BMI, smoking status, physical activity, socioeconomic status, gender, history of asthma, history of heart failure, and history of peripheral artery disease. Among participants with chronic regional pain, the prevalence of having a "lifetime" history of depression was 30.2% and varied (21.4-70.6%) depending on patient characteristics. The final clinical prediction model (optimism-corrected C statistic: 0.65; good calibration on the calibration plot) included age, gender, nature of pain, smoking status, regular opioid use, history of asthma, pain location that bothers you most, and BMI. CONCLUSIONS: There was substantial variability in the prevalence of depression among patients with chronic pain. Clinically relevant factors were selected to develop prediction models. Clinicians can use these models to assess patients' treatment needs. These predictors are convenient to collect during daily practice, making it easy for busy clinicians to use them.

Health Coaching for Low Back Pain and Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Health coaching aims to empower people to reach their goals and is increasingly used in health care settings. Whether health coaching improves pain and disability for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) or low back pain (LBP) is unknown. METHODS: Six databases were searched for randomized controlled trials assessing health coaching or motivational programs in adults with hip or knee OA or LBP, with each condition investigated independently. Meta-analyses were performed with random-effects models in the Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager 5.3 program. RESULTS: Seventeen eligible studies were found. No studies analyzing hip OA alone were found. Pooled analyses found statistically significant decreases in mid-term pain (mean difference [MD]: -7.57; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -10.08 to -5.07; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%), short-term disability (standard mean difference [SMD]: -0.22; 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.03; P = 0.02, z = 2.32, I2 = 0%), and mid-term disability (SMD: -0.42; 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.09; P = 0.01, z = 2.49, I2 = 60%), favoring the intervention for chronic LBP. There were significant improvements in knee OA long-term functional disability (MD: -3.04; 95% CI: -5.70 to -0.38; P = 0.03; z = 2.24; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: Meta-analyses provide evidence that health coaching reduces both disability and pain in people with chronic LBP and reduces disability in people with knee OA, though the clinical significance is unknown. There is currently no evidence supporting or refuting the use of health coaching for hip OA.

The smallest worthwhile change on function from a self-management intervention for non-persistent low back pain.

PURPOSE: To determine: (1) the smallest change in function patients would need to see following a self-management intervention for low back pain (LBP) to consider it worthwhile; (2) the association between patient-related factors and the magnitude of the smallest worthwhile change. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 212 participants of the TEXT4myBACK randomised trial was conducted. At baseline, participants nominated the smallest change in function (0-30 scale) following a self-management program they would need to reach to consider it worthwhile. A multivariate regression model estimated the effects of demographic, comorbidities, lifestyle and LBP-related factors on the smallest worthwhile change estimates. RESULTS: On average, people with LBP need to experience an improvement of at least 9.4 points (SD: 5.7) in function to consider a self-management intervention worthwhile. Only baseline function severity was significantly associated with the smallest worthwhile estimate (-0.60; 95%CI - 0.76, - 0.44). CONCLUSION: On average, an improvement of 9.4 points (or 31%) in function is considered by people with LBP as the smallest change that makes self-management worthwhile. Those with lower levels of function needed to experience greater improvements.

Use of Online Information in Musculoskeletal Conditions: An Analysis of Google Trends Data.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the yearly online public interest for gout, low back pain, neck pain, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis, the most popular topics searched for these conditions, and the association between the change in their interest over time and the sociodemographic index of the search location. METHODS: We conducted online searches in Google Trends for the aforementioned conditions between 2004 and 2020. The search volumes for each condition (relative to all searches conducted in the period) and the top and rising related queries and topics were downloaded and summarized. RESULTS: There was a rise in the online interest for musculoskeletal conditions between 2008 and 2020, with low back pain (annual percent change, 7.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.1-7.7) and neck pain (annual percent change, 7.2; 95% CI, 6.9-7.5) presenting the highest increases. There was a negative, statistically significant, but small association between change in online interest and the country's sociodemographic index for low back pain (-0.007; 95% CI, -0.011 to-0.003), neck pain (-0.005; 95% CI, 0.009 to -0.001), and rheumatoid arthritis (-0.009; 95% CI, -0.017 to -0.001) between 2013 and 2020. The interest for the cause and symptoms of the selected conditions increased over time, except for gout. The proportion of queries and topics related to treatment of all conditions decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: The worldwide interest in musculoskeletal conditions increased between 2008 and 2020. The public seems more interested in understanding what musculoskeletal conditions are and less interested in which treatment options are available. The results can guide the development of educational campaigns for musculoskeletal conditions.

Considerations and methods for placebo controls in surgical trials (ASPIRE guidelines).

Placebo comparisons are increasingly being considered for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions. The aim of this Review is to provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials. A placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. This Review outlines what a placebo control entails and present understanding of this tool in the context of surgery. We consider when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable) in terms of ethical arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be done and interpreted. Use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided there is a strong scientific and ethical rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. This Review forms an outline for best practice and provides guidance, in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (known as ASPIRE) checklist, for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial.

Distribution and prevalence of musculoskeletal pain co-occurring with persistent low back pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Co-occurring musculoskeletal pain is common among people with persistent low back pain (LBP) and associated with more negative consequences than LBP alone. The distribution and prevalence of musculoskeletal pain co-occurring with persistent LBP has not been systematically described, which hence was the aim of this review. METHODS: Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus. We considered observational studies from clinical settings or based on cohorts of the general or working populations involving adults 18 years or older with persistent LBP (≥4 wks) and co-occurring musculoskeletal pain for eligibility. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out by independent reviewers. Results are presented according to study population, distribution and location(s) of co-occurring pain. RESULTS: Nineteen studies out of 5744 unique records met the inclusion criteria. Studies were from high-income countries in Europe, USA and Japan. A total of 34,492 people with persistent LBP were included in our evidence synthesis. Methods for assessing and categorizing co-occurring pain varied considerably between studies, but based on the available data from observational studies, we identified three main categories of co-occurring pain - these were axial pain (18 to 58%), extremity pain (6 to 50%), and multi-site musculoskeletal pain (10 to 89%). Persistent LBP with co-occurring pain was reported more often by females than males, and co-occurring pain was reported more often in patients with more disability. CONCLUSIONS: People with persistent LBP often report co-occurring neck pain, extremity pain or multi-site pain. Assessment of co-occurring pain alongside persistent LBP vary considerable between studies and there is a need for harmonisation of measurement methods to advance our understanding of how pain in different body regions occur alongside persistent LBP. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017068807 .

Are leisure-time and work-related activities associated with low back pain during pregnancy?

BACKGROUND: Although working activities are associated with several pregnancy outcomes, there is scarce information regarding the association between working activities and low back pain (LBP) during pregnancy. This study aimed to investigate whether leisure-time and work-related physical activities during pregnancy are associated with LBP. METHODS: Data from the 2015 Pelotas Birth Cohort study were used. Demographic, socioeconomic, gestational, leisure-time (prior to and during pregnancy) and work-related (days of work, hours of work, standing and heavy lifting) physical activity data were collected at birth. LPB was assessed in the 12-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Leisure-time physical activity either prior to and during pregnancy was not associated with LBP. Working during pregnancy, days of work and standing position at work were not associated with self-reported LBP during pregnancy. However, working more than 8 h per day and always lifting heavy objects at work increased the odds ratio for LBP (OR 1.30 95%CI: 1.04; 1.63; and OR: 1.39 95%CI 1.08; 1.81, respectively). In addition, women who had lifted heavy objects often/always, reported an increase in pain intensity. CONCLUSION: Working during pregnancy and days worked per week were not related to experiencing LBP. However, women who worked more than 8 h per day, as well as women who lifted heavy objects at work on a regular basis, were more likely to experience pregnancy-related LBP.

EHealth to empower patients with musculoskeletal pain in rural Australia (EMPoweR) a randomised clinical trial: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are major contributors to disability worldwide. These conditions result in a significant burden at both individual and societal levels. Engagement in regular physical activity and exercise programs are known to improve physical function in both chronic LBP and knee OA populations. For people residing in rural areas, musculoskeletal conditions are often more frequent and disabling compared to urban populations, which could be the result of reduced access to appropriate health services and resources in rural settings. EHealth is an innovative solution to help provide equitable access to treatment for people with musculoskeletal pain living in rural settings. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a randomised clinical trial investigating the effects of an eHealth intervention compared to usual care, for people with chronic non-specific LBP or knee OA in rural Australia. We will recruit 156 participants with non-specific chronic LBP or knee OA. Following the completion of baseline questionnaires, participants will be randomly allocated to either the eHealth intervention group, involving a tailored physical activity and progressive resistance exercise program remotely delivered by a physiotherapist (n = 78), or usual care (n = 78) involving referral to a range of care practices in the community. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months post-randomisation. The primary outcome will be physical function assessed by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, physical activity levels, activity limitations, quality of life, pain coping. We will also collect process evaluation data such as recruitment rate, attendance and adherence, follow-up rate, participants' opinions and any barriers encountered throughout the trial. DISCUSSION: The findings from this trial will establish the effectiveness of eHealth-delivered interventions that are known to be beneficial for people with LBP and knee OA when delivered in person. As a result, this trial will help to inform health care policy and clinical practice in Australia and beyond for those living in non-urban areas. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12618001494224 ) registered 09.05.2018.

Effectiveness of a coordinated support system linking public hospitals to a health coaching service compared with usual care at discharge for patients with chronic low back pain: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although many people with chronic low back pain (LBP) improve following conservative treatment, one in five will experience worsening symptoms after discharge from treatment and seek health care again. The current LBP clinical care pathway in many health services lacks a well-integrated, systematic approach to support patients to remain physically active and self-manage their symptoms following discharge from treatment. Health coaching can support people to improve physical activity levels and may potentially reduce health care utilisation for LBP. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of introducing a coordinated support system (linking hospital outpatient physiotherapy services to a public health coaching service) at discharge from LBP treatment, on the future use of hospital, medical, and health services for LBP, compared with usual care provided at discharge. METHODS: Three hundred and seventy-four adults with chronic non-specific LBP will be recruited from the outpatient physiotherapy departments of public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Participants will be individually randomised to a support system (n = 187) or usual care group (n = 187). All participants will receive usual care provided at discharge from treatment. Participants allocated to the support system will also receive up to 10 telephone-based health coaching sessions, delivered by the Get Healthy Service®, over a 6-month period. Health coaches will monitor and support participants to improve physical activity levels and achieve personal health-related goals. The primary outcome is the total number of encounters with hospital, medical, and health services for LBP, at 12 months from baseline. A within-trial economic evaluation will quantify the incremental costs and benefits of the support system from a health system perspective, to support reimbursement decision making. DISCUSSION: This study will establish the effect of a coordinated support system, introduced at discharge from treatment, on the future use of hospital, medical, and health services for LBP and various health outcomes. CONCLUSION: Innovative community-driven solutions to support people with chronic LBP after discharge from treatment are urgently needed. Study findings will help inform health care policy and clinical practice in Australia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12620000889954 ) on 10/09/2020.

What Triggers an LBP Flare? A Content Analysis of Individuals' Perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: For many, low back pain (LBP) is a lifelong condition with symptoms varying over time. Previous studies have investigated long-term risk factors and triggers for onset of LBP. No study has examined causes for less distinct fluctuations of symptoms, such as "flares," which individuals with LBP identify as a significant and worrisome part of LBP. As little is known about what triggers this type of fluctuation, we aimed to investigate individuals' perspectives on LBP flare triggers. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 130 people with LBP, asking what they think triggers their flares. Data were qualitatively examined using content analysis. RESULTS: Most participants identified biomedical (84.8%) triggers, endorsing physical/biological factors to explain the flare occurrence. Themes included active movements (35% of participants), static postures (28.1%), overdoing a task (5.3%), biomechanical dysfunction (4.4%), comorbidities (4%), lack of exercise (3.3%), work (1.8%), and medications (1.5%). Nonbiomedical triggers were reported by 15.2% and included psychosocial and contextual factors, including psychological state (6%), weather (5%), sleep (2%), diet (1.2%), and fatigue (1%). These results indicate that individuals consider biomedical factors to be the main triggers of LBP flares, but some acknowledge nonbiomedical triggers. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings contrast with current pain theories, which suggest that there is a need for a reduced emphasis on biomedical causes of LBP pain, especially when persistent. Recognition of patients' views on causes of LBP flares is crucial to better guide clinical practice and inform further research. The validity of triggers identified by LBP patients requires further investigation.

Epidural corticosteroid injections for lumbosacral radicular pain.

BACKGROUND: Lumbosacral radicular pain (commonly called sciatica) is a syndrome involving patients who report radiating leg pain. Epidural corticosteroid injections deliver a corticosteroid dose into the epidural space, with the aim of reducing the local inflammatory process and, consequently, relieving the symptoms of lumbosacral radicular pain. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review published in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2012. Some placebo-controlled trials have been published recently, which highlights the importance of updating the previous review. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo injection on pain and disability in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases without language limitations up to 25 September 2019: Cochrane Back and Neck group trial register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and two trial registers. We also performed citation tracking of included studies and relevant systematic reviews in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that compared epidural corticosteroid injections of any corticosteroid drug to placebo injections in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. We accepted all three anatomical approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) to delivering corticosteroids into the epidural space. We considered trials that included a placebo treatment as delivery of an inert substance (i.e. one with no pharmacologic activity), an innocuous substance (e.g. normal saline solution), or a pharmacologically active substance but not one considered to provide sustained benefit (e.g. local anaesthetic), either into the epidural space (i.e. to mimic epidural corticosteroid injection) or adjacent spinal tissue (i.e. subcutaneous, intramuscular, or interspinous tissue). We also included trials in which a local anaesthetic with a short duration of action was used as a placebo and injected together with corticosteroid in the intervention group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed the screening, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessments. In case of insufficient information, we contacted the authors of the original studies or estimated the data. We grouped the outcome data into four time points of assessment: immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short term (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate term (> 3 months but < 12 months), and long term (≥ 12 months). We assessed the overall quality of evidence for each outcome and time point using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 clinical trials (from 29 publications) investigating the effects of epidural corticosteroid injections compared to placebo in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. The included studies provided data for a total of 2470 participants with a mean age ranging from 37.3 to 52.8 years. Seventeen studies included participants with lumbosacral radicular pain with a diagnosis based on clinical assessment and 15 studies included participants with mixed duration of symptoms. The included studies were conducted mainly in North America and Europe. Fifteen studies did not report funding sources, five studies reported not receiving funding, and five reported receiving funding from a non-profit or government source. Eight trials reported data on pain intensity, 12 reported data on disability, and eight studies reported data on adverse events. The duration of the follow-up assessments ranged from 12 hours to 1 year. We considered eight trials to be of high quality because we judged them as having low risk of bias in four out of the five bias domains. We identified one ongoing trial in a trial registry. Epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing leg pain at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -4.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.77 to -1.09 on a 0 to 100 scale; 8 trials, n = 949; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). For disability, epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing disability at short-term follow-up (MD -4.18, 95% CI -6.04 to -2.17, on a 0 to 100 scale; 12 trials, n = 1367; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). The treatment effects are small, however, and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. MD lower than 10%). Most trials provided insufficient information on how or when adverse events were assessed (immediate or short-term follow-up) and only reported adverse drug reactions - that is, adverse events that the trialists attributed to the study treatment. We are very uncertain that epidural corticosteroid injections make no difference compared to placebo injection in the frequency of minor adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.42; 8 trials, n = 877; very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision)). Minor adverse events included increased pain during or after the injection, non-specific headache, post-dural puncture headache, irregular periods, accidental dural puncture, thoracic pain, non-local rash, sinusitis, vasovagal response, hypotension, nausea, and tinnitus. One study reported a major drug reaction for one patient on anticoagulant therapy who had a retroperitoneal haematoma as a complication of the corticosteroid injection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This study found that epidural corticosteroid injections probably slightly reduced leg pain and disability at short-term follow-up in people with lumbosacral radicular pain. In addition, no minor or major adverse events were reported at short-term follow-up after epidural corticosteroid injections or placebo injection. Although the current review identified additional clinical trials, the available evidence still provides only limited support for the use of epidural corticosteroid injections in people with lumbosacral radicular pain as the treatment effects are small, mainly evident at short-term follow-up and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. mean difference lower than 10%). According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate, suggesting that further studies are likely to play an important role in clarifying the efficacy and tolerability of this treatment. We recommend that further trials should attend to methodological features such as appropriate allocation concealment and blinding of care providers to minimise the potential for biased estimates of treatment and harmful effects.

Early development of the Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network.

The Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network was formed to build capacity and infrastructure for high-quality musculoskeletal clinical trials in our region. The purpose of this paper is to describe the steps taken in its formation to help others interested in establishing similar networks. In particular, we describe the steps taken to form the collaboration and our progress in achieving our vision and mission. Our aim is to focus on trials of highest importance and quality to provide definitive answers to the most pressing questions in our field.

Exercise treatment effect modifiers in persistent low back pain: an individual participant data meta-analysis of 3514 participants from 27 randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Exercise therapy is widely recommended to treat persistent non-specific low back pain. While evidence suggests exercise is, on average, moderately effective, there remains uncertainty about which individuals might benefit the most from exercise. METHODS: In parallel with a Cochrane review update, we requested individual participant data (IPD) from high-quality randomised clinical trials of adults with our two primary outcomes of interest, pain and functional limitations, and calculated global recovery. We compiled a master data set including baseline participant characteristics, exercise and comparison characteristics, and outcomes at short-term, moderate-term and long-term follow-up. We conducted descriptive analyses and one-stage IPD meta-analysis using multilevel mixed-effects regression of the overall treatment effect and prespecified potential treatment effect modifiers. RESULTS: We received IPD for 27 trials (3514 participants). For studies included in this analysis, compared with no treatment/usual care, exercise therapy on average reduced pain (mean effect/100 (95% CI) -10.7 (-14.1 to -7.4)), a result compatible with a clinically important 20% smallest worthwhile effect. Exercise therapy reduced functional limitations with a clinically important 23% improvement (mean effect/100 (95% CI) -10.2 (-13.2 to -7.3)) at short-term follow-up. Not having heavy physical demands at work and medication use for low back pain were potential treatment effect modifiers-these were associated with superior exercise outcomes relative to non-exercise comparisons. Lower body mass index was also associated with better outcomes in exercise compared with no treatment/usual care. This study was limited by inconsistent availability and measurement of participant characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides potentially useful information to help treat patients and design future studies of exercise interventions that are better matched to specific subgroups. PROTOCOL PUBLICATION: https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-64.

Association of Exposures to Seated Postures With Immediate Increases in Back Pain: A Systematic Review of Studies With Objectively Measured Sitting Time.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of studies to determine whether sitting time measured objectively (by laboratory controlled time trial, direct observation, or wearable sensor) is associated with the immediate increase in low back pain (LBP) (determined by pain scale rating) in people >18 years of age. METHODS: Four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) were searched from inception to September 1, 2018. Randomized controlled trials and cohort and cross-sectional studies, where objectively measured sitting time was temporally matched with a measure of LBP in adults, were included. Studies without a control session conducted on a separate day were excluded. Screening, full-text review, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (Quality In Prognosis Studies) of included papers were performed independently by 2 reviewers, with a third available to resolve disagreements. RESULTS: In total, 609 articles were identified, 361 titles/abstracts were screened,75 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 10 met the inclusion criteria. All but 1 reported sitting time to be associated with an immediate increase in LBP. Six of these reported clinically relevant pain levels (n = 330). Half of the included studies were rated as having a low risk of bias and the remaining were rated as having a moderate risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Prolonged sitting increases immediate reporting of LBP in adults; however, no conclusion between sitting and clinical episodes of LBP can be made. Based upon these findings, we recommend that future prospective studies should match objectively measured sitting with temporally related pain measurements to determine whether prolonged sitting can trigger a clinical episode of LBP.

What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention.

Low back pain is a very common symptom. It occurs in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries and all age groups from children to the elderly population. Globally, years lived with disability caused by low back pain increased by 54% between 1990 and 2015, mainly because of population increase and ageing, with the biggest increase seen in low-income and middle-income countries. Low back pain is now the leading cause of disability worldwide. For nearly all people with low back pain, it is not possible to identify a specific nociceptive cause. Only a small proportion of people have a well understood pathological cause-eg, a vertebral fracture, malignancy, or infection. People with physically demanding jobs, physical and mental comorbidities, smokers, and obese individuals are at greatest risk of reporting low back pain. Disabling low back pain is over-represented among people with low socioeconomic status. Most people with new episodes of low back pain recover quickly; however, recurrence is common and in a small proportion of people, low back pain becomes persistent and disabling. Initial high pain intensity, psychological distress, and accompanying pain at multiple body sites increases the risk of persistent disabling low back pain. Increasing evidence shows that central pain-modulating mechanisms and pain cognitions have important roles in the development of persistent disabling low back pain. Cost, health-care use, and disability from low back pain vary substantially between countries and are influenced by local culture and social systems, as well as by beliefs about cause and effect. Disability and costs attributed to low back pain are projected to increase in coming decades, in particular in low-income and middle-income countries, where health and other systems are often fragile and not equipped to cope with this growing burden. Intensified research efforts and global initiatives are clearly needed to address the burden of low back pain as a public health problem.

Paracetamol versus placebo for knee and hip osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is vastly recommended as the first-line analgesic for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. However, there has been controversy about this recommendation given recent studies have revealed small effects of paracetamol when compared with placebo. Nonetheless, past studies have not systematically reviewed and appraised the literature to investigate the effects of this drug on specific osteoarthritis sites, that is, hip or knee, or on the dose used. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of paracetamol compared with placebo in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts to 3 October 2017, and ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal on 20 October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing paracetamol with placebo in adults with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Major outcomes were pain, function, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and abnormal liver function tests. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors used standard Cochrane methods to collect data, and assess risk of bias and quality of the evidence. For pooling purposes, we converted pain and physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function) scores to a common 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst possible pain or disability) scale. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 randomised placebo-controlled trials involving 3541 participants with hip or knee osteoarthritis. The paracetamol dose varied from 1.95 g/day to 4 g/day, and the majority of trials followed participants for three months only. Most trials did not clearly report randomisation and concealment methods and were at unclear risk of selection bias. Trials were at low risk of performance, detection, and reporting bias.At 3 weeks' to 3 months' follow-up, there was high-quality evidence that paracetamol provided no clinically important improvements in pain and physical function. Mean reduction in pain was 23 points (0 to 100 scale, lower scores indicated less pain) with placebo and 3.23 points better (5.43 better to 1.02 better) with paracetamol, an absolute reduction of 3% (1% better to 5% better, minimal clinical important difference 9%) and relative reduction of 5% (2% better to 8% better) (seven trials, 2355 participants). Physical function improved by 12 points on a 0 to 100 scale (lower scores indicated better function) with placebo and was 2.9 points better (0.95 better to 4.89 better) with paracetamol, an absolute improvement of 3% (1% better to 5% better, minimal clinical important difference 10%) and relative improvement of 5% (2% better to 9% better) (7 trials, 2354 participants).High-quality evidence from eight trials indicated that the incidence of adverse events was similar between groups: 515/1586 (325 per 1000) in the placebo group versus 537/1666 (328 per 1000, range 299 to 360) in the paracetamol group (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.11). There was less certainty (moderate-quality evidence) around the risk of serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and the rate of abnormal liver function tests, due to wide CIs or small event rates, indicating imprecision. Seventeen of 1480 (11 per 1000) people treated with placebo and 28/1729 (16 per 1000, range 8 to 29) people treated with paracetamol experienced serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.53; 6 trials). The incidence of withdrawals due to adverse events was 65/1000 participants in with placebo and 77/1000 (range 59 to 100) participants with paracetamol (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.55; 7 trials). Abnormal liver function occurred in 18/1000 participants treated with placebo and 70/1000 participants treated with paracetamol (RR 3.79, 95% CI 1.94 to 7.39), but the clinical importance of this effect was uncertain. None of the trials reported quality of life.Subgroup analyses indicated that the effects of paracetamol on pain and function did not differ according to the dose of paracetamol (3.0 g/day or less versus 3.9 g/day or greater). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on high-quality evidence this review confirms that paracetamol provides only minimal improvements in pain and function for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis, with no increased risk of adverse events overall. Subgroup analysis indicates that the effects on pain and function do not differ according to the dose of paracetamol. Due to the small number of events, we are less certain if paracetamol use increases the risk of serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and rate of abnormal liver function tests.Current clinical guidelines consistently recommend paracetamol as the first-line analgesic medication for hip or knee osteoarthritis, given its low absolute frequency of substantive harm. However, our results call for reconsideration of these recommendations.

Contributions of birthweight, annualised weight gain and BMI to back pain in adults: a population-based co-twin control study of 2754 Australian twins.

PURPOSE: To investigate associations between anthropometric measures (birthweight, weight gain and current BMI) and back pain; and to determine whether these associations differ between those born with low or full birthweight. METHODS: The cross-sectional associations between the lifetime prevalence of back pain and anthropometric measures (birthweight, weight gain and current BMI) among 2754 adult twins were investigated in three stages: total sample; within-pair case-control for monozygotic and dizygotic twins together; and within-pair case-control analysis separated by dizygotic and monozygotic. Results were expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Birthweight was not associated with back pain (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.99-1.00), but a weak association was found between weight gain (OR 1.01; CI 1.00-1.01) or current BMI (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.05) and back pain in the total sample analysis. These associations did not remain significant after adjusting for genetics. The associations did not differ between those whose were born with low or full birthweight. CONCLUSION: Birthweight was not associated with prevalence of back pain in adulthood. Weight gain and current BMI were weakly associated with back pain prevalence in the total sample analysis but did not differ between those born with low or full birthweight. However, the small-magnitude association only just achieved significance and appeared to be confounded by genetics and the early shared environment. Our results suggest that a direct link between these predictors and back pain in adults is unlikely. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Technology-assisted rehabilitation following total knee or hip replacement for people with osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of technology-assisted rehabilitation following total hip/knee replacement (THR/TKR). METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched without language or time restrictions for relevant studies: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro); from inception to November 7th, 2018. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion criteria to select eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effectiveness of technology-based interventions, compared with usual care or no intervention for people undergoing THR/TKR. Two reviewers independently extracted trial details (e.g. patients' profile, intervention, outcomes, attrition and adverse events). Study methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. Quality of evidence was critically appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: We identified 21 eligible studies assessing telerehabilitation, game- or web-based therapy. There were 17 studies (N = 2188) in post-TKR rehabilitation and 4 studies (N = 783) in post-THR rehabilitation. Compared to usual care, technology-based intervention was more effective in reducing pain (mean difference (MD): - 0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI): - 0.48, - 0.02; moderate evidence) and improving function measured with the timed up-and-go test (MD: -7.03; 95% CI: - 11.18, - 2.88) in people undergoing TKR. No between-group differences were observed in rates of hospital readmissions or treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in those studies. CONCLUSION: There is moderate-quality of evidence showed technology-assisted rehabilitation, in particular, telerehabilitation, results in a statistically significant improvement in pain; and low-quality of evidence for the improvement in functional mobility in people undergoing TKR. The effects were however too small to be clinically significant. For THR, there is very limited low-quality evidence shows no significant effects.

Integrating Mobile-health, health coaching, and physical activity to reduce the burden of chronic low back pain trial (IMPACT): a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is one of the most prevalent musculoskeletal conditions and the highest contributor to disability in the world. It is characterized by frequent relapses leading to additional care-seeking. Engagement in leisure physical activity is associated with lower recurrences and better prognosis and potentially reduced care-seeking. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a patient-centred physical activity intervention, supported by health coaching and mobile health, to reduce care-seeking, pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain after treatment discharge. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment. Sixty-eight participants were recruited from four public outpatient physiotherapy departments and the general community in Sydney. The intervention group received a physical activity information booklet, plus one face-to-face and 12 telephone-based health coaching sessions. The intervention was supported by an internet-based application and an activity tracker (Fitbit). Control group (standard care) received the physical activity information booklet and advice to stay active. Feasibility measures included recruitment rate, intervention compliance, data completeness, and participant satisfaction. Primary outcomes were care-seeking, pain levels and activity limitation. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 6-month follow-up and weekly for 6 months. RESULTS: Ninety potential participants were invited over 15 months, with 68 agreeing to take part (75%). Overall, 903 weekly questionnaires were answered by participants from a total of 1107 sent (89%). Participants were largely satisfied with the intervention (mean = 8.7 out of 10 on satisfaction scale). Intervention group participants had a 38% reduced rate of care-seeking (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR): 0.62, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.18, p = 0.14, using multilevel mixed-effects Poisson regression analysis) compared to standard care, although none of the estimates was statistically significant. No between groups differences were found for pain levels or activity limitation. CONCLUSION: The health coaching physical activity approach trialed here is feasible and well accepted by participants and may reduce care-seeking in patients with low back pain after treatment discharge, although further evaluation with an adequately powered trial is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Trial Registry ACTRN12615000189527 . Registered prospectively on 26-02-2015.

Evaluation of guideline-endorsed red flags to screen for fracture in patients presenting with low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: (1) Describe the evolution of guideline-endorsed red flags for fracture in patients presenting with low back pain; (2) evaluate agreement between guidelines; and (3) evaluate the extent to which recommendations are accompanied by information on diagnostic accuracy of endorsed red flags. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and PubMed, PEDro, CINAHL and EMBASE electronic databases. We also searched in guideline databases, including the National Guideline Clearinghouse and Canadian Medical Association Infobase. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. DATA EXTRACTION: Two review authors independently extracted the following data: health professional association or society producing guideline, year of publication, the precise wording of endorsed red flag for vertebral fracture, recommendations for diagnostic workup if fracture is suspected, if the guidelines substantiate the recommendation with citation to a primary diagnostic study or diagnostic review, if the guideline provides any diagnostic accuracy data. RESULTS: 78 guidelines from 28 countries were included. A total of 12 discrete red flags were reported. The most commonly recommended red flags were older age, use of steroids, trauma and osteoporosis. Regarding the evolution of red flags, older age, trauma and osteoporosis were the first red flags endorsed (in 1994); and previous fracture was the last red flag endorsed (in 2003). Agreement between guidelines in endorsing red flags was only fair; kappa=0.32. Only 9 of the 78 guidelines substantiated their red flag recommendations by research and only nine provided information on diagnostic accuracy. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION: The number of red flags endorsed in guidelines to screen for fracture has risen over time; most guidelines do not endorse the same set of red flags and most recommendations are not supported by research or accompanied by diagnostic accuracy data.