The most impactful endometriosis symptom: An international, cross-sectional, two-round survey study.

INTRODUCTION: There is considerable variation in the types of symptoms experienced by people living with endometriosis, and it is unclear which symptoms impact people the most. This study aimed to identify the specific symptoms that are "most impactful" to people living with the condition. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two sequential online surveys were conducted. Women aged over 18 years with a diagnosis of endometriosis were eligible to participate. Participants first provided a free-text list of all the endometriosis symptoms they experienced (Survey 1, Australian only). Responses were condensed into a shorter list by grouping symptom types and selecting the top 20 most common and most impactful. Survey 2 (international) participants reviewed the list and selected all that they had experienced in the last 3 months, nominated one as their single "most impactful symptom", and rated its impact on one of five randomized scale types. RESULTS: Survey 1 and Survey 2 had 195 and 983 responses, respectively. The mean age of respondents was 30.8 ± 7.9 years. There were 275 separate symptom descriptions from Survey 1, which were condensed into 104 groups, of which 25 met criteria for inclusion in Survey 2. The most commonly experienced symptoms were abdominal pain (93% of respondents), bloating (92%), and fatigue (90%), and the symptoms nominated as causing the most impact were pelvic pain (20%), abdominal pain (15%), and cramps (7%). Nearly everyone (99.7%) in Survey 2 reported experiencing at least one pain symptom. The symptoms that generated the highest impact scores were infertility (99.8/100), irregular menstrual cycles (95.3/100), and constipation (92/100). The average impact score was 87.5/100. CONCLUSIONS: There was substantial variation in the symptom selected as causing the most impact, and the level of impact was high. A focus on measuring the "most impactful symptom" in future research may enable us to better capture and measure the true symptom experience.

The "most bothersome symptom" construct: A qualitative study of Australians living with endometriosis.

INTRODUCTION: "Improvement in the most bothersome symptom" was recently selected as a core outcome for endometriosis intervention trials. This study aimed to explore the applicability of the construct of "symptom bother" in representing the lived experiences of people with endometriosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted to understand the meaning of "symptom bother" and related constructs. Eighteen interviews were conducted: 14 among people with a surgical diagnosis of endometriosis who were recruited from the community, and four with people who were recruited from a private gynecology clinic who had either a confirmed diagnosis or a high suspicion of the disease. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Three primary themes were identified: (1) endometriosis symptoms and priorities vary with time and context, (2) endometriosis symptoms impair normal daily functioning, (3) endometriosis symptoms are more than just a "bother." The concept of "bother" to describe endometriosis symptoms did not resonate with most participants. Whilst "bother" was familiar language, it did not encompass the broader implications of living with endometriosis. Participants felt "bother" implied emotional distress, lacking a full understanding of the consequences of the disease. Instead, "symptom impact" was endorsed, allowing participants to quantify and objectively assess their symptoms, free from negative connotations. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first qualitative study to explore "symptom bother" among people living with endometriosis. Instead of "bother," "impact" was widely endorsed as a suitable construct. This term more appropriately captured the broad ways in which endometriosis symptoms impair daily functioning.

Physical activity and education about physical activity for chronic musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a major health and socioeconomic burden, which is prevalent in children and adolescents. Among the most widely used interventions in children and adolescents are physical activity (including exercises) and education about physical activity. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of physical activity, education about physical activity, or both, compared with usual care (including waiting-list, and minimal interventions, such as advice, relaxation classes, or social group meetings) or active medical care in children and adolescents with chronic musculoskeletal pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, and LILACS from the date of their inception to October 2022. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared physical activity or education about physical activity, or both, with usual care (including waiting-list and minimal interventions) or active medical care, in children and adolescents with chronic musculoskeletal pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently determined the eligibility of the included studies. Our primary outcomes were pain intensity, disability, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were depression, anxiety, fear avoidance, quality of life, physical activity level, and caregiver distress. We extracted data at postintervention assessment, and long-term follow-up. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for each study, using the RoB 1. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We reported continuous outcomes as mean differences, and determined clinically important differences from the literature, or 10% of the scale. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies (243 participants with juvenile idiopathic arthritis). We judged all included studies to be at unclear risk of selection bias, performance bias, and detection bias, and at high risk of attrition bias. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for each outcome to very low due to serious or very serious study limitations, inconsistency, and imprecision. Physical activity compared with usual care Physical activity may slightly reduce pain intensity (0 to 100 scale; 0 = no pain) compared with usual care at postintervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.82 to -0.08; 2 studies, 118 participants; recalculated as a mean difference (MD) -12.19, 95% CI -21.99 to -2.38; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). Physical activity may slightly improve disability (0 to 3 scale; 0 = no disability) compared with usual care at postintervention assessment (MD -0.37, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.19; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 170 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found no clear evidence of a difference in quality of life (QoL; 0 to 100 scale; lower scores = better QoL) between physical activity and usual care at postintervention assessment (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.27 to 0.35; 4 studies, 201 participants; very low-certainty evidence; recalculated as MD -6.30, 95% CI -18.23 to 5.64; I² = 91%). None of the included studies measured adverse events, depression, or anxiety for this comparison. Physical activity compared with active medical care We found no studies that could be analysed in this comparison. Education about physical activity compared with usual care or active medical care We found no studies that could be analysed in this comparison. Physical activity and education about physical activity compared with usual care or active medical care We found no studies that could be analysed in this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are unable to confidently state whether interventions based on physical activity and education about physical activity are more effective than usual care for children and adolescents with chronic musculoskeletal pain. We found very low-certainty evidence that physical activity may reduce pain intensity and improve disability postintervention compared with usual care, for children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. We did not find any studies reporting educational interventions; it remains unknown how these interventions influence the outcomes in children and adolescents with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Treatment decisions should consider the current best evidence, the professional's experience, and the young person's preferences. Further randomised controlled trials in other common chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions, with high methodological quality, large sample size, and long-term follow-up are urgently needed.

Meaningful coproduction with clinicians: establishing a practice-based research network with physiotherapists in regional Australia.

BACKGROUND: The disconnect between research and clinical practice leads to research evidence that is often not useful for clinical practice. Practice-based research networks are collaborations between researchers and clinicians aimed at coproducing more useful research. Such networks are rare in the physiotherapy field. We aimed to describe (i) clinicians' motivations behind, and enablers to, participating in a network, (ii) the process of network establishment and (iii) research priorities for a practice-based network of physiotherapists in the Hunter Region of New South Wales (NSW), Australia that supports research coproduction. METHODS: We describe the methods and outcomes of the three steps we used to establish the network. Step 1 involved consultation with local opinion leaders and a formative evaluation to understand clinicians' motivations behind, and enablers to, participating in a network. Step 2 involved establishment activities to generate a founding membership group and codesign a governance model. Step 3 involved mapping clinical problems through a workshop guided by systems thinking theory with local stakeholders and prioritizing research areas. RESULTS: Through formative evaluation focus groups, we generated five key motivating themes and three key enablers for physiotherapists' involvement in the network. Establishment activities led to a founding membership group (n = 29, 67% from private practice clinics), a network vision and mission statement, and a joint governance group (9/13 [70%] are private practice clinicians). Our problem-mapping and prioritization process led to three clinically relevant priority research areas with the potential for significant change in practice and patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians are motivated to break down traditional siloed research generation and collaborate with researchers to solve a wide array of issues with the delivery of care. Practice-based research networks have promise for both researchers and clinicians in the common goal of improving patient outcomes.

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

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

Exceeding 2-h sedentary time per day is not associated with moderate to severe spinal pain in 11- to 13-year-olds: a cross-sectional analysis.

Neck, mid-back and low back pain, collectively known as spinal pain, become more common with increasing age across childhood and adolescence. A common belief among the general community is that sedentary time, including screen time, in adolescents is associated with spinal pain. We aimed to investigate whether exceeding 2-h of sedentary time per day is associated with moderate to severe spinal pain in a sample of Danish adolescents aged 11-13 years. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the SPACE study baseline data (2010). Adolescents self-reported their spinal pain (outcome) via the Young Spine Questionnaire and duration of engagement in sedentary behaviours (exposure). We provide estimates of associations as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, stratified by age and sex. The sample comprised 1,303 adolescents (48.7% female, mean age 12.5 years, range 10.9-14.3 years). Approximately 9 out of 10 adolescents exceeded 2-h sedentary time on weekdays outside of school (88.9%) and weekend days (89.9%). Close to one-quarter, 23.3% (95%CI: 21.0-25.6), of participants experienced moderate to severe spinal pain. We found no association between exceeding 2-h sedentary time per day and experiencing moderate to severe spinal pain; odds ratios ranged from 0.34 (95%CI: 0.04-3.20) to 4.65 (95%CI: 0.26-82.44).Conclusion: We found no association between exceeding 2- or 5-h of sedentary time per day and moderate to severe spinal pain in this sample of 11-13-year-old Danish adolescents. Our cross-sectional analysis does not consider the longitudinal or complex sequences of events necessary to address predictive or causal questions. What is Known: • Up to a third of adolescents experience moderate to severe spinal pain, predisposing them to chronic spinal pain in adulthood. • Frequent and excessive sedentary time is associated with poor overall health in adolescents; there is conflicting evidence to suggest whether it is also related to spinal pain. What is New: • We found no association between sedentary time and moderate to severe spinal pain in 11- to 13-year-old Danes.

Physiotherapists' opinions, barriers, and enablers to providing evidence-based care: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Physiotherapists deliver evidence-based guideline recommended treatments only half of the time to patients with musculoskeletal conditions. Physiotherapists' behaviour in clinical practice are influenced by many cognitive, social, and environmental factors including time and financial pressures. Many initiatives aimed at improving physiotherapists' uptake of evidence-based care have failed to appreciate the context involved in clinical decisions and clinical practice. Therefore, we aimed to describe: i) opinions toward evidence; ii) how evidence is accessed; iii) factors influencing evidence access; iv) factors influencing evidence application, for physiotherapists working in regional areas. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods study with online survey and focus groups. We included registered physiotherapists in the survey and physiotherapists practising in regional New South Wales in the focus groups. Quantitative and qualitative data were used to inform all research objectives. We used eight domains of the Transtheoretical Domains Framework to design survey questions. We analysed quantitative and qualitative data in parallel, then integrated both sources through by developing a matrix while considering the Transtheoretical Domains Framework domains to generate themes. RESULTS: Fifty-seven physiotherapists participated in the study (survey only n = 41; focus group only n = 8; both survey and focus group n = 8). Participants reported that evidence was important, but they also considered patient expectations, colleagues' treatment choices, and business demands in clinical decision making. Physiotherapists reported they access evidence on average 30 minutes or less per week. Competing demands like business administration tasks are barriers to accessing evidence. Participants reported that patient expectations were a major barrier to applying evidence in practice. Environmental and systemic factors, like funding structures or incentives for evidence-based care, and social factors, like lacking or having a culture of accountability and mentorship, were reported as both barriers and enablers to evidence application. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides context to physiotherapists' opinion, access, and application of evidence in clinical practice. Physiotherapists' provision of evidence-based care may be improved by enhancing structural support from workplaces to access and apply evidence and exploring discrepancies between physiotherapists' perceptions of patient expectations and actual patient expectations.

Low back pain presentations to rural, regional, and metropolitan emergency departments.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the context of low back pain (LBP) presentations to emergency departments (EDs) by remoteness areas, hospital delineation level and staffing portfolios. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study using routinely captured ED and admission data over a 5-year period (July 2014-June 2019). SETTINGS: Thirty seven EDs across a large health district in NSW, Australia, covering major cities, inner regional areas and outer regional areas. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency department (ED) presentations with a principal or secondary diagnosis of LBP based on ICD-10 code (M54.5). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ED presentation and associated admission measures, including presentation rate, referral source, time in ED, re-presentation rate, admission details and cost to the health system. RESULTS: There were 26 509 ED presentations for LBP across the 5 years. Time spent in ED was 206 min for EDs in major cities, 146 min for inner regional EDs and 89 min for outer regional EDs. Re-presentation rates were 6% in major cities, 8.8% in inner regional EDs and 11.8% in outer regional EDs. Admission rates were 20.4%, 15.8% and 18.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes LBP presentations across 37 EDs, highlighting the potential burden these presentations place on hospitals. LBP presentations appear to follow different pathways depending on the ED remoteness area, delineation level and staff portfolio.

Low-value care in musculoskeletal health care: Is there a way forward?

BACKGROUND: Low-value care that wastes resources and harms patients is prevalent in health systems everywhere. METHODS: As part of an invited keynote presentation at the Pain in Motion IV conference held in Maastricht, Holland, in May 2022, we reviewed evidence for low-value care in musculoskeletal conditions and discussed possible solutions. RESULTS: Drivers of low-value care are diverse and affect patients, clinicians, and health systems everywhere. We show that low-value care for back pian, neck pain, and osteoarthritis is prevalent in all professional groups involved in caring for people who seek care for these conditions. Implementation efforts that aim to reverse low-value care seem to work better if designed using established conceptual and theoretical frameworks. CONCLUSION: Low-value care is prevalent in the care of people with musculoskeletal conditions. Reducing low-value care requires behaviour change among patients and clinicians as well as in health systems. There is evidence that behaviour change can be facilitated through good conceptual and theoretical frameworks but not convincing evidence that it changes patient outcomes.

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).

What do the general public believe about the causes, prognosis and best management strategies for low back pain? A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for seeking health care and is costly to the health care system. Recent evidence has shown that LBP care provided by many providers is divergent from guidelines and one reason may be patient's beliefs and expectations about treatment. Thus, examining the nature of patient beliefs and expectations regarding low back pain treatment will help coordinate efforts to improve consistency and quality of care. METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional population-based survey of adults living in Newfoundland, Canada. The survey included demographic information (e.g. age, gender, back pain status and care seeking behaviors) and assessed outcomes related to beliefs about the inevitable consequences of back pain with the validated back beliefs questionnaire as well as six additional questions relating beliefs about imaging, physical activity and medication. Surveys were mailed to 3000 households in July-August 2018 and responses collected until September 30th, 2018. RESULTS: Fout hundred twenty-eight surveys were returned (mean age 55 years (SD 14.6), 66% female, 90% had experienced an episode of LBP). The mean Back Beliefs Questionnaire score was 27.3 (SD 7.2), suggesting that people perceive back pain to have inevitable negative consequences. Large proportions of respondents held the following beliefs that are contrary to best available evidence: (i) having back pain means you will always have weakness in your back (49.3%), (ii) it will get progressively worse (48.0%), (iii) resting is good (41.4%) and (iv) x-rays or scans are necessary to get the best medical care for LBP (54.2%). CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of the public believe LBP to have inevitable negative consequences and hold incorrect beliefs about diagnosis and management options, which is similar to findings from other countries. This presents challenges for clinicians and suggests that considering how to influence beliefs about LBP in the broader community could have value. Given the high prevalence of LBP and that many will consult a range of healthcare professionals, future efforts could consider using broad reaching public health campaigns that target patients, policy makers and all relevant health providers with specific content to change commonly held unhelpful beliefs.

A Guideline for Reporting Mediation Analyses of Randomized Trials and Observational Studies: The AGReMA Statement.

Importance: Mediation analyses of randomized trials and observational studies can generate evidence about the mechanisms by which interventions and exposures may influence health outcomes. Publications of mediation analyses are increasing, but the quality of their reporting is suboptimal. Objective: To develop international, consensus-based guidance for the reporting of mediation analyses of randomized trials and observational studies (A Guideline for Reporting Mediation Analyses; AGReMA). Design, Setting, and Participants: The AGReMA statement was developed using the Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework for developing reporting guidelines. The guideline development process included (1) an overview of systematic reviews to assess the need for a reporting guideline; (2) review of systematic reviews of relevant evidence on reporting mediation analyses; (3) conducting a Delphi survey with panel members that included methodologists, statisticians, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, psychologists, applied clinical researchers, clinicians, implementation scientists, evidence synthesis experts, representatives from the EQUATOR Network, and journal editors (n = 19; June-November 2019); (4) having a consensus meeting (n = 15; April 28-29, 2020); and (5) conducting a 4-week external review and pilot test that included methodologists and potential users of AGReMA (n = 21; November 2020). Results: A previously reported overview of 54 systematic reviews of mediation studies demonstrated the need for a reporting guideline. Thirty-three potential reporting items were identified from 3 systematic reviews of mediation studies. Over 3 rounds, the Delphi panelists ranked the importance of these items, provided 60 qualitative comments for item refinement and prioritization, and suggested new items for consideration. All items were reviewed during a 2-day consensus meeting and participants agreed on a 25-item AGReMA statement for studies in which mediation analyses are the primary focus and a 9-item short-form AGReMA statement for studies in which mediation analyses are a secondary focus. These checklists were externally reviewed and pilot tested by 21 expert methodologists and potential users, which led to minor adjustments and consolidation of the checklists. Conclusions and Relevance: The AGReMA statement provides recommendations for reporting primary and secondary mediation analyses of randomized trials and observational studies. Improved reporting of studies that use mediation analyses could facilitate peer review and help produce publications that are complete, accurate, transparent, and reproducible.

Development of A Guideline for Reporting Mediation Analyses (AGReMA).

BACKGROUND: There are a growing number of studies using mediation analysis to understand the mechanisms of health interventions and exposures. Recent work has shown that the reporting of these studies is heterogenous and incomplete. This problem stifles clinical application, reproducibility, and evidence synthesis. This paper describes the processes and methods that will be used to develop a guideline for reporting studies of mediation analyses (AGReMA). METHODS/DESIGN: AGReMA will be developed over five overlapping stages. Stage one will comprise a systematic review to examine relevant evidence on the quality of reporting in published studies that use mediation analysis. In the second stage we will consult a group of methodologists and applied researchers by using a Delphi process to identify items that should be considered for inclusion in AGReMA. The third stage will involve a consensus meeting to consolidate and prioritise key items to be included in AGReMA. The fourth stage will involve the production of AGReMA and an accompanying explanation and elaboration document. In the final stage we will disseminate the AGReMA statement via journals, conferences, and professional meetings across multiple disciplines. DISCUSSION: The development and implementation of AGReMA will improve the standardization, transparency, and completeness in the reporting of studies that use mediation analysis to understand the mechanisms of health interventions and exposures.

Interventions Targeting Smoking Cessation for Patients With Chronic Pain: An Evidence Synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking is a risk factor for chronic pain conditions. Epidemiological evidence suggests that smoking cessation may be an important treatment target in people with chronic pain. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in people with chronic pain. METHODS: We systematically searched for clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for people with chronic pain, compared with any control comparator. Primary outcomes were pain and physical function. Secondary outcomes were smoking status, quality of life, psychological and cognitive function, and adverse events. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias criteria and the quality of evidence with GRADE. RESULTS: Searches retrieved 3845 records and identified two trials for inclusion (total n = 99 participants). There was low-quality evidence of no effect of smoking cessation programs on pain and very low-quality evidence of no effect on function at short-term follow-up. There was conflicting evidence on the effect of smoking cessation interventions for changing the smoking status and number of cigarettes consumed per day. There was no effect on depression and anxiety. CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not indicate clinically important effects of smoking cessation interventions in people with chronic pain. There is a need for high-quality trials in this area. IMPLICATIONS: Our review highlights an important evidence gap. We found only two studies investigating smoking cessation programs for chronic pain conditions providing very low- to low-quality evidence.

Co-occurrence of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain and Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the magnitude of the association between cardiovascular disease and chronic musculoskeletal pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in five electronic databases. Population-based studies reporting the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases in adults stratified by chronic musculoskeletal pain status were considered eligible. Two independent reviewers performed the screening of the records following the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias of the included studies using an assessment tool of risk of bias for observational studies. In addition, we assessed the overall quality of evidence using an adaptation of the GRADE approach for prognosis. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included in this review. There was high-quality evidence that people with chronic musculoskeletal pain are 1.91 times more likely to report having a cardiovascular disease compared with those without chronic musculoskeletal pain (risk ratio = 1.91, 95% confidence interval = 1.64-2.21). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrated associations between chronic musculoskeletal pain and any cardiovascular diseases. Future studies are still warranted to better understand the association between chronic musculoskeletal pain and the specific types of cardiovascular diseases.

Causal mechanisms of a healthy lifestyle intervention for patients with musculoskeletal pain who are overweight or obese.

PURPOSE: To assess the causal mechanisms of a healthy lifestyle intervention for patients with chronic low back pain and knee osteoarthritis, who are overweight or obese. METHODS: We conducted causal mediation analyses of aggregated data from two randomized controlled trials (RCTs); which included 160 patients with chronic low back pain, and 120 patients with knee osteoarthritis. The intervention consisted of brief advice and referral to a six-month telephone-based healthy lifestyle coaching service. We used causal mediation to estimate the indirect, direct and path-specific effects of hypothesized mediators including: self-reported weight, diet, physical activity, and pain beliefs. Outcomes were pain intensity, disability, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: The intervention did not reduce weight, improve diet or physical activity or change pain beliefs, and these mediators were not associated with the outcomes. Sensitivity analyses showed that our estimates were robust to the possible effects of unknown and unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that the intervention did not cause a meaningful change in the hypothesized mediators, and these mediators were not associated with patient-reported outcomes.

Musculoskeletal conditions may increase the risk of chronic disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases and musculoskeletal conditions have a significant global burden and frequently co-occur. Musculoskeletal conditions may contribute to the development of chronic disease; however, this has not been systematically synthesised. We aimed to investigate whether the most common musculoskeletal conditions, namely neck or back pain or osteoarthritis of the knee or hip, contribute to the development of chronic disease. METHODS: We searched CINAHL, Embase, Medline, Medline in Process, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science to February 8, 2018, for cohort studies reporting adjusted estimates of the association between baseline musculoskeletal conditions (neck or back pain or osteoarthritis of the knee or hip) and subsequent diagnosis of a chronic disease (cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease or obesity). Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and assessed study quality. Adjusted hazard ratios were pooled using the generic inverse variance method in random effect models, regardless of the type of musculoskeletal condition or chronic disease. PROSPERO: CRD42016039519. RESULTS: There were 13 cohort studies following 3,086,612 people. In the primary meta-analysis of adjusted estimates, osteoarthritis (n = 8 studies) and back pain (n = 2) were the exposures and cardiovascular disease (n = 8), cancer (n = 1) and diabetes (n = 1) were the outcomes. Pooled adjusted estimates from these 10 studies showed that people with a musculoskeletal condition have a 17% increase in the rate of developing a chronic disease compared to people without (hazard ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 1.13-1.22; I2 52%, total n = 2,686,113 people). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis found that musculoskeletal conditions may increase the risk of chronic disease. In particular, osteoarthritis appears to increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Prevention and early treatment of musculoskeletal conditions and targeting associated chronic disease risk factors in people with long standing musculoskeletal conditions may play a role in preventing other chronic diseases. However, a greater understanding about why musculoskeletal conditions may increase the risk of chronic disease is needed.

Economic evaluation of telephone-based weight loss support for patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of knee osteoarthritis is increasing worldwide. Obesity is an important modifiable risk factor for both the incidence and progression of knee osteoarthritis. Consequently, international guidelines recommend all patients with knee osteoarthritis who are overweight receive support to lose weight. However, few overweight patients with this condition receive care to support weight loss. Telephone-based interventions are one potential solution to provide scalable care to the many patients with knee osteoarthritis. The objective of this study is to evaluate, from a societal perspective, the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of a telephone-based weight management and healthy lifestyle service for patients with knee osteoarthritis, who are overweight or obese. METHODS: An economic evaluation was undertaken alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Between May 19 and June 30, 2015, 120 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to an intervention or usual care control group in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in the intervention group received a referral to an existing non-disease specific 6-month telephone-based weight management and healthy lifestyle service. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was the utility measure and knee pain intensity, disability, weight, and body mass index (BMI) were the clinical measures of effect. Costs included intervention costs, healthcare utilisation costs (healthcare services and medication use) and absenteeism costs due to knee pain. Data was collected at baseline, 6 weeks and 26 weeks. The primary cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective. RESULTS: Mean cost differences between groups (intervention minus control) were $493 (95%CI: -3513 to 5363) for healthcare costs, $-32 (95%CI: -73 to 13) for medication costs, and $125 (95%CI: -151 to 486) for absenteeism costs. The total mean difference in societal costs was $1197 (95%CI: -2887 to 6106). For QALYs and all clinical measures of effect, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective compared with usual care was less than 0.36 at all willingness-to-pay values. CONCLUSIONS: From a societal perspective, telephone-based weight loss support, provided using an existing non-disease specific 6-month weight management and healthy lifestyle service was not cost-effective in comparison with usual care for overweight and obese patients with knee osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615000490572 , registered 18th May 2015.

An international consensus on the appropriate evaluation and treatment for adults with spinal deformity.

PURPOSE: Evaluation and surgical management for adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients varies between health care providers. The purpose of this study is to identify appropriateness of specific approaches and management strategies for the treatment of ASD. METHODS: From January to July 2015, the AOSpine Knowledge Deformity Forum performed a modified Delphi survey where 53 experienced deformity surgeons from 24 countries, rated the appropriateness of management strategies for multiple ASD clinical scenarios. Four rounds were performed: three surveys and a face-to-face meeting. Consensus was achieved with ≥70% agreement. RESULTS: Appropriate surgical goals are improvement of function, pain, and neural symptoms. Appropriate preoperative patient evaluation includes recording information on history and comorbidities, and radiographic workup, including long standing films and MRI for all patients. Preoperative pulmonary and cardiac testing and DEXA scan is appropriate for at-risk patients. Intraoperatively, appropriate surgical strategies include long fusions with deformity correction for patients with large deformity and sagittal imbalance, and pelvic fixation for multilevel fusions with large curves, sagittal imbalance, and osteoporosis. Decompression alone is inappropriate in patients with large curves, sagittal imbalance, and progressive deformity. It is inappropriate to fuse to L5 in patients with symptomatic disk degeneration at L5-S1. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide guidance for informed decision-making in the evaluation and management of ASD. Appropriate care for ASD, a very diverse spectrum of disease, must be responsive to patient preference and values, and considerations of the care provider, and the healthcare system. A monolithic approach to care should be avoided.