The management of lower back pain using pilates method: assessment of content exercise reporting in RCTs

The Best Exercise Modality and Dose for Reducing Pain in Adults With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Model-Based Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the dose-response relationship between overall and specific exercise modalities and pain, in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Systematic review with Bayesian network meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases from inception to June 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials of exercise interventions in adults with nonspecific chronic LBP and at least 1 pain outcome reported at the main trial end point. DATA SYNTHESIS: A random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0, and used the GRADE approach to judge the certainty of evidence for each outcome. RESULTS: Eighty-two trials were included (n = 5033 participants). We found a nonlinear dose-response relationship between total exercise and pain in patients with nonspecific chronic LBP. The maximum significant response was observed at 920 MET minutes (standardized mean difference = -1.74; 95% credible intervals: -2.43, -1.04). The minimal clinically important difference for achieving meaningful pain improvement was 520 MET minutes per week. The dose to achieve minimal clinically important difference varied by type of exercise; Pilates was the most effective. The certainty of the evidence was very low to moderate for all outcomes. CONCLUSION: The dose-response relationship of different exercise modalities to improve pain in patients with nonspecific chronic LBP had a U-shaped trajectory and low- to moderate-certainty evidence. The clinical effect was most pronounced with Pilates exercise. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(5):1-13. Epub 8 March 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12153.

Digital self-care in the management of spine musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

to analyze the effectiveness of digital self-care in the management of pain and functional disability among people with spine musculoskeletal disorders. a systematic literature review, developed with the PRISMA checklist, of randomized clinical trials of people with spine musculoskeletal disorders and digital interventions accessed by means of computers, smartphones or other portable devices. Databases researched: National Library of Medicine, Excerpta Médica dataBASE, SciVerse Scopus, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde, Science Citation Indexes, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Physiotherapy Evidence Database. The descriptive synthesis of the results and by means of meta-analyses (fixed-effects model) was performed with the Review Manager software. The methodological quality was evaluated with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. a total of 25 trials were selected (5,142 participants), which showed statistically significant improvements (p <0.05) in 54% (12/22) in the pain levels and 47% (10/21) in functional disability in the Intervention Group. The meta-analyses showed moderate effects on pain intensity and small effects on functional disability. There was a predominance of medium quality studies. the digital care interventions showed a beneficial result in pain intensity and in functional disability, mainly for chronic low back pain. Digital care emerges as promising to support self-management of the spine musculoskeletal conditions. PROSPERO registry number CRD42021282102.

Reproducibility of resistance exercise therapy interventions in trials for chronic low back pain is challenging: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Determine reproducibility of resistance exercise regimens in trials for CLBP and determine if recently available checklists are effective.

METHODS

Four databases (Medline, PubMed, Cochrane and CINAHL) were searched for keywords related to back pain and resistance exercise. Reproducibility was assessed using two checklists, the 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) and the 19-item Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT). The proportion reporting was analysed, with additional comparison of trials pre- and post-availability of each checklist. A generalised linear regression was conducted with checklist items as the dependent variable and year of publication as the independent (PROSPERO ID = #CRD42020186036).

RESULTS

Overall, details that facilitate reproducibility were under-reported. No trials reported all checklist items, while only 18 trials (35.5%) and 5 trials (9.8%) reported 75%+ of checklist items for the TIDieR and CERT, respectively. A median of 8 (IQR 2) of 12 TIDieR criteria were reported and a median of 9 (IQR 7) of 19 criteria were reported for the CERT. There was no difference pre/post checklist publication (TIDieR median before = 8 (IQR 2), after = 8 (IQR 2.25); CERT mean before = 9 (IQR 5.25), after = 9 (IQR 7)). Regression failed to support improved reporting over time. The majority of studies (86.3%) were scored as having an elevated risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Reproducibility of resistance exercise in CLBP trials appears questionable due to low levels of reporting. The publication reporting checklists have not resulted in improvement. Real-world reproducibility is questionable. There is a need to improve reporting to maximise reproducibility.

IMPACT STATEMENT

The present results reveal a demand in improved reporting to ensure both enhanced clinical translation in the real-world and replicability to enhance knowledge of best-practice for resistance exercise in the CLBP population.

Resistance Training Interventions for Lower Limb Tendinopathies: A Scoping Review of Resistance Training Reporting Content, Quality, and Scientific Implementation

The objectives of this scoping review were as follows: (1) to describe what exercises and intervention variables are used in resistance training interventions for lower limb tendinopathy,  (2) to assess the completeness of reporting as assessed by the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) and the Toigo and Boutellier framework, and (3) to assess the implementation of scientific resistance training principles. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Library databases. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case series, case reports, and observational studies that reported using resistance exercises for lower limb tendinopathies were considered for inclusion, with 194 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Completeness of the reporting of exercise descriptors and programme variables was assessed by the CERT and the Toigo and Boutellier framework. Reporting of exercise descriptor items from the Toigo and Boutellier framework ranged from 0 to 13, with an average score of 9/13, with only 9 studies achieving a full 13/13. Reporting of items from the CERT ranged from 0 to 18, with an average score of 13/19. No study achieved a full 19/19; however, 8 achieved 18/19. Scoring for resistance training principles ranged from 1 to 10, with only 14 studies achieving 10/10. Eccentric heel-drops were the most common exercise (75 studies), followed by isotonic heel raises (38), and single-leg eccentric decline squats (27). The reporting of exercise descriptors and intervention content was high across studies, with most allowing exercise replication, particularly for Achilles and patellar tendinopathy. However, reporting for some tendinopathies and content items such as adherence was poor, limiting optimal translation to clinical practice.

If exercise is medicine, why don't we know the dose? An overview of systematic reviews assessing reporting quality of exercise interventions in health and disease

OBJECTIVE

To determine how well exercise interventions are reported in trials in health and disease.

DESIGN

Overview of systematic reviews.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and PsycINFO from inception until June 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Reviews of any health condition were included if they primarily assessed quality of exercise intervention reporting using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) or the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). We assessed review quality using a modified version of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews.

RESULTS

We identified 7804 studies and included 28 systematic reviews. The median (IQR) percentage of CERT and TIDieR items appropriately reported was 24% (19%) and 49% (33%), respectively. TIDieR items 1, Brief name (median=100%, IQR 4) and 2, Why (median=98%, IQR 6), as well as CERT item 4, Supervision and delivery (median=68%, IQR 89), were the best reported. For replication of exercise interventions, TIDieR item 8, When and how much, was moderately well reported (median=62%, IQR 68) although CERT item 8, Description of each exercise to enable replication (median=23%, IQR 44) and item 13, Detailed description of the exercise intervention (median=24%, IQR 66) were poorly reported. Quality of systematic reviews ranged from moderate to critically low quality.

CONCLUSION

Exercise interventions are poorly reported across a range of health conditions. If exercise is medicine, then how it is prescribed and delivered is unclear, potentially limiting its translation from research to practice.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021261285; Open Science Framework: osf.io/my3ec/.

Application of the Templates TIDieR and CERT Reveal Incomplete Reporting and Poor Replicability of Exercise Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Exercise is strongly recommended for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, incomplete intervention reporting in clinical trials limits the replication of exercise protocols. As previously demonstrated by us for exercise and hypertension, the reporting quality might also be insufficient in studies with respect to T2DM and exercise.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess the completeness of exercise intervention reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for T2DM.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers applied the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) and the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) to 23 exercise trials obtained from the most recent and frequently cited meta-analysis in current guidelines. The completeness of reporting was evaluated, focusing on the F.I.T.T. components (frequency, intensity, time, type). Interrater agreement and associations with publication year and journal impact factor were examined.

RESULTS

Mean CERT score was 11/19 (range 5-17), and 8/12 (range 4-12) for TIDieR. F.I.T.T. components were almost completely described, whereas overall completeness of exercise reporting was 60% and 68% (CERT and TIDieR). Replication of each exercise of the respective program was not possible in 52% of interventions. The majority of items had shown excellent agreement. No associations with publication year or impact factor were found.

CONCLUSION

Exercise interventions were not found to be sufficiently reported in RCTs that currently guide clinical practice in T2DM. Replication in further studies or clinical practice is limited due to poor exercise description. We suggest the use of more specific CERT for reporting results of exercise interventions. Further refinement for internal diseases is needed to better describe exercise interventions.