Opioid analgesics for nociceptive cancer pain: A comprehensive review.

Pain is one of the most burdensome symptoms in people with cancer, and opioid analgesics are considered the mainstay of cancer pain management. For this review, the authors evaluated the efficacy and toxicities of opioid analgesics compared with placebo, other opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and nonpharmacologic treatments for background cancer pain (continuous and relatively constant pain present at rest), and breakthrough cancer pain (transient exacerbation of pain despite stable and adequately controlled background pain). They found a paucity of placebo-controlled trials for background cancer pain, although tapentadol or codeine may be more efficacious than placebo (moderate-certainty to low-certainty evidence). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs including aspirin, piroxicam, diclofenac, ketorolac, and the antidepressant medicine imipramine, may be at least as efficacious as opioids for moderate-to-severe background cancer pain. For breakthrough cancer pain, oral transmucosal, buccal, sublingual, or intranasal fentanyl preparations were identified as more efficacious than placebo but were more commonly associated with toxicities, including constipation and nausea. Despite being recommended worldwide for the treatment of cancer pain, morphine was generally not superior to other opioids, nor did it have a more favorable toxicity profile. The interpretation of study results, however, was complicated by the heterogeneity in the study populations evaluated. Given the limited quality and quantity of research, there is a need to reappraise the clinical utility of opioids in people with cancer pain, particularly those who are not at the end of life, and to further explore the effects of opioids on immune system function and quality of life in these individuals.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention for the prevention of low back pain recurrence in Australia (WalkBack): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence of low back pain is common and a substantial contributor to the disease and economic burden of low back pain. Exercise is recommended to prevent recurrence, but the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an accessible and low-cost intervention, such as walking, is yet to be established. We aimed to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention to prevent the recurrence of low back pain. METHODS: WalkBack was a two-armed, randomised controlled trial, which recruited adults (aged 18 years or older) from across Australia who had recently recovered from an episode of non-specific low back pain that was not attributed to a specific diagnosis, and which lasted for at least 24 h. Participants were randomly assigned to an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention facilitated by six sessions with a physiotherapist across 6 months or to a no treatment control group (1:1). The randomisation schedule comprised randomly permuted blocks of 4, 6, and 8 and was stratified by history of more than two previous episodes of low back pain and referral method. Physiotherapists and participants were not masked to allocation. Participants were followed for a minimum of 12 months and a maximum of 36 months, depending on the date of enrolment. The primary outcome was days to the first recurrence of an activity-limiting episode of low back pain, collected in the intention-to-treat population via monthly self-report. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the societal perspective and expressed as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The trial was prospectively registered (ACTRN12619001134112). FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2019, and June 10, 2022, 3206 potential participants were screened for eligibility, 2505 (78%) were excluded, and 701 were randomly assigned (351 to the intervention group and 350 to the no treatment control group). Most participants were female (565 [81%] of 701) and the mean age of participants was 54 years (SD 12). The intervention was effective in preventing an episode of activity-limiting low back pain (hazard ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·60-0·85], p=0·0002). The median days to a recurrence was 208 days (95% CI 149-295) in the intervention group and 112 days (89-140) in the control group. The incremental cost per QALY gained was AU$7802, giving a 94% probability that the intervention was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $28 000. Although the total number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event over 12 months was similar between the intervention and control groups (183 [52%] of 351 and 190 [54%] of 350, respectively, p=0·60), there was a greater number of adverse events related to the lower extremities in the intervention group than in the control group (100 in the intervention group and 54 in the control group). INTERPRETATION: An individualised, progressive walking and education intervention significantly reduced low back pain recurrence. This accessible, scalable, and safe intervention could affect how low back pain is managed. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia.

Secular trends in gabapentinoid dispensing by compensated workers with low back pain: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The increase in gabapentinoid prescribing is paralleling the increase in serious harms. To describe the low back pain workers compensation population whose management included a gabapentinoid between 2010 and 2017, and determine secular trends in, and factors associated with gabapentinoid use. METHODS: We analysed claim-level and service-level data from the Victorian workers' compensation programme between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2017 for workers with an accepted claim for a low back pain injury and who had programme-funded gabapentinoid dispensing. Secular trends were calculated as a proportion of gabapentinoid dispensings per year. Poisson, negative binomial and Cox hazards models were used to examine changes over time in incidence and time to first dispensing. RESULTS: Of the 17 689 low back pain claimants, one in seven (14.7%) were dispensed at least one gabapentinoid during the first 2 years (n=2608). The proportion of workers who were dispensed a gabapentinoid significantly increased over time (7.9% in 2010 to 18.7% in 2017), despite a reduction in the number of claimants dispensed pain-related medicines. Gabapentinoid dispensing was significantly associated with an opioid analgesic or anti-depressant dispensing claim, but not claimant-level characteristics. The time to first gabapentinoid dispensing significantly decreased over time from 311.9 days (SD 200.7) in 2010 to 148.2 days (SD 183.1) in 2017. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of claimants dispensed a gabapentinoid more than doubled in the period 2010-2017; and the time to first dispensing halved during this period.

A Decision Aid for Patients Considering Surgery for Sciatica: Codesign and User-Testing With Patients and Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Surgery can help patients with leg pain caused by sciatica recover faster, but by 12 months outcomes are similar to nonsurgical management. For many the decision to have surgery may require reflection, and patient decision aids are an evidence-based clinical tool that can help guide patients through this decision. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and refine a decision aid for patients with sciatica who are deciding whether to have surgery or 'wait and see' (i.e., try nonsurgical management first). DESIGN: Semistructured interviews with think-aloud user-testing protocol. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty clinicians and 20 patients with lived experience of low back pain or sciatica. OUTCOME MEASURES: Items from Technology Acceptance Model, Preparation for Decision Making Scale and Decision Quality Instrument for Herniated Disc 2.0 (knowledge instrument). METHODS: The prototype integrated relevant research with working group perspectives, decision aid standards and health literacy guidelines. The research team refined the prototype through seven rounds of user-testing, which involved discussing user-testing feedback and implementing changes before progressing to the next round. RESULTS: As a result of working group feedback, the decision aid was divided into sections: before, during and after a visit to the surgeon. Across all rounds of user-testing, clinicians rated the resource 5.9/7 (SD = 1.0) for perceived usefulness, and 6.0/7 for perceived ease of use (SD = 0.8). Patients reported the decision aid was easy to understand, on average correctly answering 3.4/5 knowledge questions (SD = 1.2) about surgery for sciatica. The grade reading score for the website was 9.0. Patients scored highly on preparation for decision-making (4.4/5, SD = 0.7), suggesting strong potential to empower patients. Interview feedback showed that patients and clinicians felt the decision aid would encourage question-asking and help patients reflect on personal values. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians found the decision aid acceptable, patients found it was easy to understand and both groups felt it would empower patients to actively engage in their care and come to an informed decision that aligned with personal values. Input from the working group and user-testing was crucial for ensuring that the decision aid met patient and clinician needs. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and clinicians contributed to prototype development via the working group.

Effectiveness of implementation strategies for increasing clinicians' use of five validated imaging decision rules for musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to enhance clinicians' adherence to validated imaging decision rules and increase the appropriateness of imaging remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of various implementation strategies for increasing clinicians' use of five validated imaging decision rules (Ottawa Ankle Rules, Ottawa Knee Rule, Canadian C-Spine Rule, National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study and Canadian Computed Tomography Head Rule). DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: The inclusion criteria were experimental, quasi-experimental study designs comprising randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials, and single-arm trials (i.e. prospective observational studies) of implementation interventions in any care setting. The search encompassed electronic databases up to March 11, 2024, including MEDLINE (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias of studies independently using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC) risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was clinicians' use of decision rules. Secondary outcomes included imaging use (indicated, non-indicated and overall) and knowledge of the rules. RESULTS: We included 22 studies (5-RCTs, 1-non-RCT and 16-single-arm trials), conducted in emergency care settings in six countries (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, Ireland and France). One RCT suggested that reminders may be effective at increasing clinicians' use of Ottawa Ankle Rules but may also increase the use of ankle radiography. Two RCTs that combined multiple intervention strategies showed mixed results for ankle imaging and head CT use. One combining educational meetings and materials on Ottawa Ankle Rules reduced ankle injury imaging among ED physicians, while another, with similar efforts plus clinical practice guidelines and reminders for the Canadian CT Head Rule, increased CT imaging for head injuries. For knowledge, one RCT suggested that distributing guidelines had a limited short-term impact but improved clinicians' long-term knowledge of the Ottawa Ankle Rules. CONCLUSION: Interventions such as pop-up reminders, educational meetings, and posters may improve adherence to the Ottawa Ankle Rules, Ottawa Knee Rule, and Canadian CT Head Rule. Reminders may reduce non-indicated imaging for knee and ankle injuries. The uncertain quality of evidence indicates the need for well-conducted RCTs to establish effectiveness of implementation strategies.

The effectiveness of allied health and nurse practitioner models-of-care in managing musculoskeletal conditions in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal conditions are the most common health condition seen in emergency departments. Hence, the most effective approaches to managing these conditions is of interest. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of allied health and nursing models of care for the management of musculoskeletal pain in ED. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and LILACS databases were searched from inception to March 2023 for published randomised trials that compared the effectiveness of allied health and nursing models of care for musculoskeletal conditions in ED to usual ED care. Trials were eligible if they enrolled participants presenting to ED with a musculoskeletal condition including low back pain, neck pain, upper or lower limb pain and any soft tissue injury. Trials that included patients with serious pathology (e.g. malignancy, infection or cauda equina syndrome) were excluded. The primary outcome was patient-flow; other outcomes included pain intensity, disability, hospital admission and re-presentation rates, patient satisfaction, medication prescription and adverse events. Two reviewers performed search screening, data extraction, quality and certainty of evidence assessments. RESULTS: We identified 1746 records and included 5 randomised trials (n = 1512 patients). Only one trial (n = 260) reported on patient-flow. The study provides very-low certainty evidence that a greater proportion of patients were seen within 20 min when seen by a physician (98%) than when seen by a nurse (86%) or physiotherapist (77%). There was no difference in pain intensity and disability between patients managed by ED physicians and those managed by physiotherapists. Evidence was limited regarding patient satisfaction, inpatient admission and ED re-presentation rates, medication prescription and adverse events. The certainty of evidence for secondary outcomes ranged from very-low to low, but generally did not suggest a benefit of one model over another. CONCLUSION: There is limited research to judge the effectiveness of allied health and nursing models of care for the management of musculoskeletal conditions in ED. Currently, it is unclear as to whether allied health and nurse practitioners are more effective than ED physicians at managing musculoskeletal conditions in ED. Further high-quality trials investigating the impact of models of care on service and health outcomes are needed.

Spinal cord stimulation for low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a surgical intervention used to treat persistent low back pain. SCS is thought to modulate pain by sending electrical signals via implanted electrodes into the spinal cord. The long term benefits and harms of SCS for people with low back pain are uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects, including benefits and harms, of SCS for people with low back pain. SEARCH METHODS: On 10 June 2022, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and one other database for published trials. We also searched three clinical trials registers for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials and cross-over trials comparing SCS with placebo or no treatment for low back pain. The primary comparison was SCS versus placebo, at the longest time point measured in the trials. Major outcomes were mean low back pain intensity, function, health-related quality of life, global assessment of efficacy, withdrawals due to adverse events, adverse events, and serious adverse events. Our primary time point was long-term follow-up (≥ 12 months). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies with 699 participants: 55% of participants were female; mean age ranged from 47 to 59 years; and all participants had chronic low back pain with mean duration of symptoms ranging from five to 12 years. Ten cross-over trials compared SCS with placebo. Three parallel-group trials assessed the addition of SCS to medical management. Most studies were at risk of performance and detection bias from inadequate blinding and selective reporting bias. The placebo-controlled trials had other important biases, including lack of accounting for period and carryover effects. Two of the three parallel trials assessing SCS as an addition to medical management were at risk of attrition bias, and all three had substantial cross-over to the SCS group for time points beyond six months. In the parallel-group trials, we considered the lack of placebo control to be an important source of bias. None of our included studies evaluated the impact of SCS on mean low back pain intensity in the long term (≥ 12 months). The studies most often assessed outcomes in the immediate term (less than one month). At six months, the only available evidence was from a single cross-over trial (50 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that SCS probably does not improve back or leg pain, function, or quality of life compared with placebo. Pain was 61 points (on a 0- to 100-point scale, 0 = no pain) at six months with placebo, and 4 points better (8.2 points better to 0.2 points worse) with SCS. Function was 35.4 points (on a 0- to 100-point scale, 0 = no disability or best function) at six months with placebo, and 1.3 points better (3.9 points better to 1.3 points worse) with SCS. Health-related quality of life was 0.44 points out of 1 (0 to 1 index, 0 = worst quality of life) at six months with placebo, and 0.04 points better (0.16 points better to 0.08 points worse) with SCS. In that same study, nine participants (18%) experienced adverse events and four (8%) required revision surgery. Serious adverse events with SCS included infections, neurological damage, and lead migration requiring repeated surgery. We could not provide effect estimates of the relative risks as events were not reported for the placebo period. In parallel trials assessing SCS as an addition to medical management, it is uncertain whether, in the medium or long term, SCS can reduce low back pain, leg pain, or health-related quality of life, or if it increases the number of people reporting a 50% improvement or better, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Low-certainty evidence suggests that adding SCS to medical management may slightly improve function and slightly reduce opioid use. In the medium term, mean function (0- to 100-point scale; lower is better) was 16.2 points better with the addition of SCS to medical management compared with medical management alone (95% confidence interval (CI) 19.4 points better to 13.0 points better; I2 = 95%; 3 studies, 430 participants; low-certainty evidence). The number of participants reporting opioid medicine use was 15% lower with the addition of SCS to medical management (95% CI 27% lower to 0% lower; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 290 participants; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events with SCS were poorly reported but included infection and lead migration. One study found that, at 24 months, 13 of 42 people (31%) receiving SCS required revision surgery. It is uncertain to what extent the addition of SCS to medical management increases the risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, adverse events, or serious adverse events, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Data in this review do not support the use of SCS to manage low back pain outside a clinical trial. Current evidence suggests SCS probably does not have sustained clinical benefits that would outweigh the costs and risks of this surgical intervention.

Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting with low-back pain.

EDITORIAL NOTE: See https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD014461.pub2/full for a more recent review that covers this topic and has superseded this review. BACKGROUND: Low-back pain (LBP) is a common condition seen in primary care. A principal aim during a clinical examination is to identify patients with a higher likelihood of underlying serious pathology, such as vertebral fracture, who may require additional investigation and specific treatment. All 'evidence-based' clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of red flags to screen for serious causes of back pain. However, it remains unclear if the diagnostic accuracy of red flags is sufficient to support this recommendation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags obtained in a clinical history or physical examination to screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting with LBP. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for primary studies between the earliest date and 7 March 2012. Forward and backward citation searching of eligible studies was also conducted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were considered if they compared the results of any aspect of the history or test conducted in the physical examination of patients presenting for LBP or examination of the lumbar spine, with a reference standard (diagnostic imaging). The selection criteria were independently applied by two review authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently conducted 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed using the 11-item QUADAS tool. Characteristics of studies, patients, index tests and reference standards were extracted. Where available, raw data were used to calculate sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Due to the heterogeneity of studies and tests, statistical pooling was not appropriate and the analysis for the review was descriptive only. Likelihood ratios for each test were calculated and used as an indication of clinical usefulness. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies set in primary (four), secondary (one) and tertiary care (accident and emergency = three) were included in the review. Overall, the risk of bias of studies was moderate with high risk of selection and verification bias the predominant flaws. Reporting of index and reference tests was poor. The prevalence of vertebral fracture in accident and emergency settings ranged from 6.5% to 11% and in primary care from 0.7% to 4.5%. There were 29 groups of index tests investigated however, only two featured in more than two studies. Descriptive analyses revealed that three red flags in primary care were potentially useful with meaningful positive likelihood ratios (LR+) but mostly imprecise estimates (significant trauma, older age, corticosteroid use; LR+ point estimate ranging 3.42 to 12.85, 3.69 to 9.39, 3.97 to 48.50 respectively). One red flag in tertiary care appeared informative (contusion/abrasion; LR+ 31.09, 95% CI 18.25 to 52.96). The results of combined tests appeared more informative than individual red flags with LR+ estimates generally greater in magnitude and precision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence does not support the use of many red flags to specifically screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting for LBP. Based on evidence from single studies, few individual red flags appear informative as most have poor diagnostic accuracy as indicated by imprecise estimates of likelihood ratios. When combinations of red flags were used the performance appeared to improve. From the limited evidence, the findings give rise to a weak recommendation that a combination of a small subset of red flags may be useful to screen for vertebral fracture. It should also be noted that many red flags have high false positive rates; and if acted upon uncritically there would be consequences for the cost of management and outcomes of patients with LBP. Further research should focus on appropriate sets of red flags and adequate reporting of both index and reference tests.

Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common presentation across different healthcare settings. Clinicians need to confidently be able to screen and identify people presenting with low back pain with a high suspicion of serious or specific pathology (e.g. vertebral fracture). Patients identified with an increased likelihood of having a serious pathology will likely require additional investigations and specific treatment. Guidelines recommend a thorough history and clinical assessment to screen for serious pathology as a cause of low back pain. However, the diagnostic accuracy of recommended red flags (e.g. older age, trauma, corticosteroid use) remains unclear, particularly those used to screen for vertebral fracture. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags used to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. Where possible, we reported results of red flags separately for different types of vertebral fracture (i.e. acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, vertebral traumatic fracture, vertebral stress fracture, unspecified vertebral fracture). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 July 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered primary diagnostic studies if they compared results of history taking or physical examination (or both) findings (index test) with a reference standard test (e.g. X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), single-photon emission computerised tomography (SPECT)) for the identification of vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. We included index tests that were presented individually or as part of a combination of tests. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data for diagnostic two-by-two tables from the publications or reconstructed them using information from relevant parameters to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive (+LR) and negative (-LR) likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We extracted aspects of study design, characteristics of the population, index test, reference standard, and type of vertebral fracture. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of studies and index tests, therefore the analysis was descriptive. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and LRs for each test and used these as an indication of clinical usefulness. Two review authors independently conducted risk of bias and applicability assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. MAIN RESULTS: This review is an update of a previous Cochrane Review of red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. We included 14 studies in this review, six based in primary care, five in secondary care, and three in tertiary care. Four studies reported on 'osteoporotic vertebral fractures', two studies reported on 'vertebral compression fracture', one study reported on 'osteoporotic and traumatic vertebral fracture', two studies reported on 'vertebral stress fracture', and five studies reported on 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. Risk of bias was only rated as low in one study for the domains reference standard and flow and timing. The domain patient selection had three studies and the domain index test had six studies rated at low risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of the data. Results from single studies suggest only a small number of the red flags investigated may be informative. In the primary healthcare setting, results from single studies suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs (range: 1.93 to 12.85) for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 6.42, 95% CI 2.94 to 14.02). Results from single studies suggest 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for studies in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 70 years: 11.19, 95% CI 5.33 to 23.51). Results from single studies suggest 'corticosteroid use' may be an informative red flag in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR range: 3.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 79.15 to 48.50, 95% CI 11.48 to 204.98) and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.46, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.34); however, diagnostic values varied and CIs were imprecise. Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and female gender' in primary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (16.17, 95% CI 4.47 to 58.43). In the secondary healthcare setting, results from a single study suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.18, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.54) and 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 75 years: 2.51, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.27). Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and trauma' in secondary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 4.35, 95% CI 2.92 to 6.48). Results from a single study suggest when '4 of 5 tests' were positive in secondary care, they demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 9.62, 95% CI 5.88 to 15.73). In the tertiary care setting, results from a single study suggest 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture' (+LR: 31.09, 95% CI 18.25 to 52.96). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that only a few red flags are potentially useful in guiding clinical decisions to further investigate people suspected to have a vertebral fracture. Most red flags were not useful as screening tools to identify vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. In primary care, 'older age' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture', and 'trauma' and 'corticosteroid use' were both informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture'. In secondary care, 'older age' was informative for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' and 'trauma' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. In tertiary care, 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture'. Combinations of red flags were also informative and may be more useful than individual tests alone. Unfortunately, the challenge to provide clear guidance on which red flags should be used routinely in clinical practice remains. Further research with primary studies is needed to improve and consolidate our current recommendations for screening for vertebral fractures to guide clinical care.

Pharmacological treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. METHODS: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety. MAIN RESULTS: Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and ≤ 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.

Effectiveness of Opioid Analgesic Medicines Prescribed in or at Discharge From Emergency Departments for Musculoskeletal Pain : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The comparative benefits and harms of opioids for musculoskeletal pain in the emergency department (ED) are uncertain. PURPOSE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and harms of opioids for musculoskeletal pain in the ED setting. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and registries from inception to 7 February 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of any opioid analgesic compared with placebo or a nonopioid analgesic administered or prescribed to adults in or on discharge from the ED. DATA EXTRACTION: Pain and disability were rated on a scale of 0 to 100 and pooled using a random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. DATA SYNTHESIS: Forty-two articles were included (n = 6128). In the ED, opioids were statistically but not clinically more effective in reducing pain in the short term (about 2 hours) than placebo and paracetamol (acetaminophen) but were not clinically or statistically more effective than nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or local or systemic anesthetics. Opioids may carry higher risk for harms than placebo, paracetamol, or NSAIDs, although evidence is very uncertain. There was no evidence of difference in harms associated with local or systemic anesthetics. LIMITATIONS: Low or very low GRADE ratings for some outcomes, unexplained heterogeneity, and little information on long-term outcomes. CONCLUSION: The risk-benefit balance of opioids versus placebo, paracetamol, NSAIDs, and local or systemic anesthetics is uncertain. Opioids may have equivalent pain outcomes compared with NSAIDs, but evidence on comparisons of harms is very uncertain and heterogeneous. Although factors such as route of administration or dosage may explain some heterogeneity, more work is needed to identify which subgroups will have a more favorable benefit-risk balance for one analgesic over another. Longer-term pain management once dose thresholds are reached is also uncertain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42021275293).

Efficacy, safety, and dose-dependence of the analgesic effects of opioid therapy for people with osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of opioids for analgesic therapy for people with osteoarthritis. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, placebo-controlled trials of opioid therapies for treating the pain of osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was medium term pain relief (six weeks to less than 12 months). Quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE criteria. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry; trials published to 31 October 2020. DATA SYNTHESIS: We extracted pain, disability, health-related quality of life, and adverse events data for 36 eligible trials (overall dose range: 10-210 oral morphine milligram equivalents [MME] per day). Continuous pain and disability outcomes were converted to common 0-100-point scales; changes of less than ten points were deemed to be very small effects. Differences in dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios. Data were pooled for meta-analysis in random effects models. The evidence from 19 trials (8965 participants; dose range, 10-126 MME/day) for very small medium term pain relief (mean difference [MD], -4.59 points; 95% CI, -7.17 to -2.02 points) was low quality, as was that from 16 trials (6882 participants; dose range, 10-126 MME/day) for a very small effect on disability (MD, -4.15 points; 95% CI, -6.94 to -1.35 points). Opioid dose was not statistically significantly associated with either degree of pain relief or incidence of adverse events in a meta-regression analysis. Evidence that opioid therapy increased the risk of adverse events (risk ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.29-1.59) was of very low quality. CONCLUSIONS: Opioid medications may provide very small pain and disability benefits for people with osteoarthritis, but may also increase the risk of adverse events. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42019142813 (prospective).

Effectiveness of brief patient information materials for promoting correct beliefs about imaging and inevitable consequences of low back pain: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate what format for providing patient information (i.e. written summary, infographic or video animation) is most effective for promoting correct beliefs about imaging and inevitable consequences of low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING/PATIENTS: One hundred and fifty-nine patients with non-specific LBP were recruited from outpatient physiotherapy clinics. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to receive patient information in one of three formats: video animation, infographic or written summary. Patients were allowed to read or watch the materials for up to 20 min. MEASUREMENTS: Outcome were assessed before and immediately after the intervention. The primary outcome was the Back Beliefs Questionnaire. The secondary outcome was beliefs about imaging for LBP assessed by two questions. RESULTS: All 159 patients completed the study. Our findings revealed no difference between groups for the Back Beliefs Questionnaire. Correct beliefs about imaging were more likely with the infographic than the video animation (Question 1- Odds Ratio [OR] = 3.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7, 8.7; Question 2- OR = 6.8, 95%CI: 2.7, 17.2) and more likely with the written summary than the video animation (Question 1- OR = 3.3, 95%CI: 1.5, 7.4; Question 2- OR = 3.7, 95%CI: 1.6, 8.5). No difference between infographic and written summary formats were reported for the questions assessing LBP imaging beliefs. CONCLUSION: The three materials were equally effective in improving patient's general beliefs about LBP care. However, the traditional written summary or infographic formats were more effective than the video animation format for improving beliefs about imaging for LBP.

How do people use and view infographics that summarise health and medical research? A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how people use infographics and their opinion on them has important implications for the design of infographics but has not been investigated. The aim of this study was to describe people's use of and opinions about infographics summarising health and medical research, preferences for information to include in infographics, and barriers to reading full-text articles. METHODS: We conducted an online cross-sectional survey of consumers of infographics that summarise health or medical research. Demographic and outcome data were collected and summarised using descriptive statistics. A sensitivity analysis explored whether being a researcher/academic influenced the findings. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-four participants completed the survey (88% completion rate). Participants included health professionals (66%), researchers (34%), academics (24%), and patients/the public (13%). Most used Twitter (67%) and smartphones (89%) to access and view infographics, and thought infographics were useful tools to communicate research (92%) and increase the attention research receives (95%). Although most participants were somewhat/extremely likely (76%) to read the full-text article after viewing an infographic, some used infographics as a substitute for the full text at least half of the time (41%), thought infographics should be detailed enough so they do not have to read the full text (55%), and viewed infographics as tools to reduce the time burden of reading the full text (64%). Researchers/academics were less likely to report behaviours/beliefs suggesting infographics can reduce the need to read the full-text article. CONCLUSIONS: Given many people use infographics as a substitute for reading the full-text article and want infographics to be detailed enough so they don't have to read the full text, a checklist to facilitate clear, transparent, and sufficiently detailed infographics summarising some types of health and medical research may be useful.

Effect of an Individualized Audit and Feedback Intervention on Rates of Musculoskeletal Diagnostic Imaging Requests by Australian General Practitioners: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Audit and feedback can improve professional practice, but few trials have evaluated its effectiveness in reducing potential overuse of musculoskeletal diagnostic imaging in general practice. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of audit and feedback for reducing musculoskeletal imaging by high-requesting Australian general practitioners (GPs). Design, Setting, and Participants: This factorial cluster-randomized clinical trial included 2271 general practices with at least 1 GP who was in the top 20% of referrers for 11 imaging tests (of the lumbosacral or cervical spine, shoulder, hip, knee, and ankle/hind foot) and for at least 4 individual tests between January and December 2018. Only high-requesting GPs within participating practices were included. The trial was conducted between November 2019 and May 2021, with final follow-up on May 8, 2021. Interventions: Eligible practices were randomized in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 4 different individualized written audit and feedback interventions (n = 3055 GPs) that varied factorially by (1) frequency of feedback (once vs twice) and (2) visual display (standard vs enhanced display highlighting highly requested tests) or to a control condition of no intervention (n = 764 GPs). Participants were not masked. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the overall rate of requests for the 11 targeted imaging tests per 1000 patient consultations over 12 months, assessed using routinely collected administrative data. Primary analyses included all randomized GPs who had at least 1 patient consultation during the study period and were performed by statisticians masked to group allocation. Results: A total of 3819 high-requesting GPs from 2271 practices were randomized, and 3660 GPs (95.8%; n = 727 control, n = 2933 intervention) were included in the primary analysis. Audit and feedback led to a statistically significant reduction in the overall rate of imaging requests per 1000 consultations compared with control over 12 months (adjusted mean, 27.7 [95% CI, 27.5-28.0] vs 30.4 [95% CI, 29.8-30.9], respectively; adjusted mean difference, -2.66 [95% CI, -3.24 to -2.07]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among Australian general practitioners known to frequently request musculoskeletal diagnostic imaging, an individualized audit and feedback intervention, compared with no intervention, significantly decreased the rate of targeted musculoskeletal imaging tests ordered over 12 months. Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12619001503112.

Are musculoskeletal conditions neglected in national health surveys?

OBJECTIVE: To describe the proportion of national health surveys that contain questions on the prevalence and consequences of musculoskeletal conditions. METHODS: We used a comprehensive search strategy to obtain national health surveys from the 218 countries listed by the World Bank. Two authors independently extracted information from each national health survey. Outcomes were the proportion of surveys that contained questions on the prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions using the Global Burden of Disease categorization of RA, OA, low back pain, neck pain, gout and other and contained condition-specific questions about activity limitation, severity of pain and work absence. We also measured how frequently the prevalence of low back pain was measured using a consensus-based standard definition for low back pain prevalence studies. RESULTS: We identified national health surveys from 170 countries. Sixty-two (36.4%), the majority from high-income countries (n = 43), measured the prevalence of at least one musculoskeletal condition. OA [53 (85.4%)], low back pain [39 (62.9%)] and neck pain [37 (59.7%)] were most commonly measured, while RA and gout prevalence were only measured in 10 (5.9%) and 3 (1.8%) surveys, respectively. A minority of surveys assessed condition-specific activity limitations [6 (3.6%)], pain severity [5 (2.9%)] and work absence [1 (0.6%)]. Only one survey used the consensus-based standard definition for low back pain. CONCLUSION: Musculoskeletal conditions are neglected in the majority of national health surveys. Monitoring musculoskeletal conditions through ongoing surveys is crucial for the development and evaluation of health policies to reduce their burden.

The efficacy and safety of paracetamol for pain relief: an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol as an analgesic medication in a range of painful conditions. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of systematic reviews of the analgesic effects of paracetamol in randomised, placebo-controlled trials. Conduct of systematic reviews was assessed with AMSTAR-2; confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence) was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; systematic reviews published 1 January 2010 - 30 April 2020. DATA SYNTHESIS: We extracted pain and adverse events outcomes from 36 systematic reviews that assessed the efficacy of paracetamol in 44 painful conditions. Continuous pain outcomes were expressed as mean differences (MDs; standardised 0-10-point scale); dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios (RRs). There is high quality evidence that paracetamol provides modest pain relief for people with knee or hip osteoarthritis (MD, -0.3 points; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.1 points) and after craniotomy (MD, -0.8 points; 95% CI, -1.4 to -0.2 points); there is moderate quality evidence for its efficacy in tension-type headache (pain-free at 2 hours: RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4) and perineal pain soon after childbirth (patients experiencing 50% pain relief: RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8). There is high quality evidence that paracetamol is not effective for relieving acute low back pain (MD, 0.2 points; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.4 points). Evidence regarding efficacy in other conditions was of low or very low quality. Frequency of adverse events was generally similar for people receiving placebo or paracetamol, except that transient elevation of blood liver enzyme levels was more frequent during repeated administration of paracetamol to patients with spinal pain (RR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.9-7.4). CONCLUSIONS: For most conditions, evidence regarding the effectiveness of paracetamol is insufficient for drawing firm conclusions. Evidence for its efficacy in four conditions was moderate to strong, and there is strong evidence that paracetamol is not effective for reducing acute low back pain. Investigations that evaluate more typical dosing regimens are required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42015029282 (prospective).

The Prevalence of Opioid Analgesic Use in People with Chronic Noncancer Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

OBJECTIVE: To review studies examining the proportion of people with chronic noncancer pain who report consuming opioids and characteristics associated with their use. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We searched databases from inception to February 8, 2020, and conducted citation tracking. We included observational studies reporting the proportion of adults with chronic noncancer pain who used opioid analgesics. Opioids were categorized as weak (e.g., codeine) or strong (e.g., oxycodone). Study risk of bias was assessed, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations provided a summary of the overall quality. Results were pooled using a random-effects model. Meta-regression determined factors associated with opioid use. RESULTS: Sixty studies (N=3,961,739) reported data on opioid use in people with chronic noncancer pain from 1990 to 2017. Of these 46, 77% had moderate risk of bias. Opioid use was reported by 26.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.1-30.8; moderate-quality evidence) of people with chronic noncancer pain. The use of weak opioids (17.3%; 95% CI 11.9-24.4; moderate-quality evidence) was more common than the use of strong opioids (9.8%; 95% CI, 6.8-14.0; low-quality evidence). Meta-regression determined that opioid use was associated with geographic region (P=0.02; lower in Europe than North America), but not sampling year (P=0.77), setting (P=0.06), diagnosis (P=0.34), or disclosure of funding (P=0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Our review summarized data from over 3.9 million people with chronic noncancer pain reporting their opioid use. Between 1990 and 2017, one-quarter of people with chronic noncancer pain reported taking opioids, and this proportion did not change over time.

Online Information About the Effectiveness of Shoulder Surgery Is Not Based on the Best Available Evidence: A Content Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the proportion of consumer webpages on subacromial decompression and rotator cuff repair surgery that make an accurate portrayal of the evidence for these operations (primary outcome), mention the benefits and harms of surgery, outline alternatives to surgery, and make various surgical recommendations. DESIGN: Content analysis. SETTING: Online consumer information about subacromial decompression and rotator cuff repair surgery. Webpages were identified through (1) Google searches using terms synonymous with "shoulder pain" and "shoulder surgery" and searching "orthopedic surgeon" linked to each Australian capital city and (2) websites of relevant professional associations (eg, Australian Orthopaedic Association). Two reviewers independently identified webpages and extracted data. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether the webpage made an accurate portrayal of the evidence for subacromial decompression or rotator cuff repair surgery (primary outcome), mentioned benefits and harms of surgery, outlined alternatives to surgery, and made various surgical recommendations (eg, delay surgery). Outcome data were summarized using counts and percentages. RESULTS: A total of 155 webpages were analyzed (n=89 on subacromial decompression, n=90 on rotator cuff repair, n=24 on both). Only 18% (n=16) and 4% (n=4) of webpages made an accurate portrayal of the evidence for subacromial decompression and rotator cuff repair surgery, respectively. For subacromial decompression and rotator cuff repair, respectively, 85% (n=76) and 80% (n=72) of webpages mentioned benefits, 38% (n=34) and 47% (n=42) mentioned harms, 94% (n=84) and 92% (n=83) provided alternatives to surgery, and 63% (n=56) and 62% (n=56) recommended delayed surgery (the most common recommendation). CONCLUSIONS: Most online information about subacromial decompression and rotator cuff repair surgery does not accurately portray the best available evidence for surgery and may be inadequate to inform patient decision making.

Healthcare expenditure and its predictors in a cohort of Australians living with sciatica.

PURPOSE: To estimate the healthcare resource utilisation of an Australian cohort of people with sciatica and explore individual-level factors associated with expenditure. METHODS: Healthcare utilisation (services and medication) data from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pregabalin in patients with sciatica (n = 185) were analysed to estimate healthcare expenditure of participants over 12 months. Associations between key baseline socio-economic, pain and quality of life characteristics and healthcare expenditure were examined using generalised linear imputation models. RESULTS: On average, participants accessed AUD$1,134 of healthcare over the year, predominantly made up of $114 of medication and $914 of health services, which included $418 of physiotherapy services. Participants randomised to receive pregabalin incurred higher expenditure ($1,263 compared to $1,001 for placebo), which was largely driven by pregabalin ($158) and greater health services ($107). Healthcare expenditure was significantly higher for participants prescribed pregabalin, earning greater than $1,700 per week ($88,400 per year) and reporting poorer quality of life (physical and mental). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest inefficiency in the use of healthcare resources due to increased healthcare resource utilisation in people with sciatica treated with pregabalin, compared to placebo. Costs of treating sciatica varied based on individual quality of life and socio-economic characteristics.