Development of a patient decision aid for children and adolescents following anterior cruciate ligament rupture: an international mixed-methods study

AIM

To develop and user test an evidence-based patient decision aid for children and adolescents who are considering anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods study describing the development of a patient decision aid.

SETTING

A draft decision aid was developed by a multidisciplinary steering group (including various types of health professionals and researchers, and consumers) informed by the best available evidence and existing patient decision aids.

PARTICIPANTS

People who ruptured their ACL when they were under 18 years old (ie, adolescents), their parents, and health professionals who manage these patients. Participants were recruited through social media and the network outreach of the steering group.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Semistructured interviews and questionnaires were used to gather feedback on the decision aid. The feedback was used to refine the decision aid and assess acceptability. An iterative cycle of interviews, refining the aid according to feedback and further interviews, was used. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We conducted 32 interviews; 16 health professionals (12 physiotherapists, 4 orthopaedic surgeons) and 16 people who ruptured their ACL when they were under 18 years old (7 were adolescents and 9 were adults at the time of the interview). Parents participated in 8 interviews. Most health professionals, patients and parents rated the aid's acceptability as good-to-excellent. Health professionals and patients agreed on most aspects of the decision aid, but some health professionals had differing views on non-surgical management, risk of harms, treatment protocols and evidence on benefits and harms.

CONCLUSION

Our patient decision aid is an acceptable tool to help children and adolescents choose an appropriate management option following ACL rupture with their parents and health professionals. A clinical trial evaluating the potential benefit of this tool for children and adolescents considering ACL reconstruction is warranted.

Education can reassure people with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain: a 3-arm, randomised, online experiment

ABSTRACT

We aimed to investigate the immediate effect of best practice education (with and without pain science messages) and structure-focused education on reassurance among people with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain. We conducted a 3-arm, parallel-group, randomised experiment. People with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain were randomised (1:1:1) to (1) best practice education (highlights that most shoulder pain is not serious or a good indicator of tissue damage and recommends simple self-management strategies); (2) best practice education plus pain science messages (which attempt to improve understanding of pain); and (3) structure-focused education (highlighting that structural changes are responsible for pain and should be targeted with treatment). Coprimary outcomes were self-reported reassurance that no serious condition is causing their pain and continuing with daily activities is safe. Secondary outcomes measured management intentions, credibility and relevance of the education, and similarity to previous education. Two thousand two hundred thirty-seven participants were randomised and provided primary outcome data. Best practice education increased reassurance that no serious condition is causing their pain (estimated mean effect 0.5 on a 0-10 scale, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2-0.7) and continuing with daily activities is safe (0.6, 95% CI 0.3-0.8) compared with structure-focused education . Adding pain science messages to best practice education slightly increased both measures of reassurance (0.2, 95% CI 0.0-0.4). Clinicians treating patients with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain should highlight that most shoulder pain is not serious or a good indicator of tissue damage and recommend simple self-management strategies. The benefit of adding pain science messages is small.

Perceptions and experiences of paramedics managing people with non-traumatic low back pain: a qualitative study of Australian paramedics

BACKGROUND

Paramedics are often first providers of care to patients experiencing non-traumatic low back pain (LBP), though their perspectives and experiences with managing these cases remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This study explored paramedic views of the management of non-traumatic LBP including their role and experience with LBP management, barriers to referral and awareness of ambulance service guidelines.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semistructured interviews conducted between January and April 2023.

SETTING

New South Wales Ambulance service.

PARTICIPANTS

A purposive sample of 30 paramedics of different specialities employed by New South Wales Ambulance were recruited.

RESULTS

Paramedic accounts demonstrated the complexity, challenge, frustration and reward associated with managing non-traumatic LBP. Paramedics perceived that their primary role focused on the assessment of LBP, and that calls to ambulance services were often driven by misconceptions surrounding the management of LBP, and a person's pain severity. Access to health services, patient factors, defensive medicine, paramedic training and education and knowledge of guidelines influenced paramedic management of LBP.

CONCLUSION

Paramedics often provide care to non-traumatic LBP cases yet depending on the type of paramedic speciality find these cases to be frustrating, challenging or rewarding to manage due to barriers to referral including access to health services, location, patient factors and uncertainty relating to litigation. Future research should explore patient perspectives towards ambulance service use for the management of their LBP.

RECITAL: a non-inferiority randomised control trial evaluating a virtual fracture clinic compared with in-person care for people with simple fractures (study protocol)

INTRODUCTION

Most simple undisplaced fractures can be managed without surgery by immobilising the limb with a splint, prescribing medication for pain, and providing advice and early rehabilitation. Recent systematic reviews based on retrospective observational studies have reported that virtual fracture clinics can deliver follow-up care that is safe and cost-effective. However, no randomised controlled trial has investigated if a virtual fracture clinic can provide non-inferior physical function outcomes compared with an in-person clinic for patients with simple fractures.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

312 participants will be recruited from 2 metropolitan hospitals located in Sydney, Australia. Adult patients will be eligible if they have an acute simple fracture that can be managed with a removable splint and is deemed appropriate for follow-up at either the virtual or in-person fracture clinic by an orthopaedic doctor. Patients will not be eligible if they have a complex fracture that requires a cast or surgery. Eligible participants will be randomised to receive their follow-up care either at the virtual or the in-person fracture clinic. Participants at the virtual fracture clinic will be reviewed within 5 days of receiving a referral through video calls with a physiotherapist. Participants at the in-person fracture clinic will be reviewed by an orthopaedic doctor within 7-10 days of receiving a referral. The primary outcome will be the patient's function measured using the Patient-Specific Functional Scale at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include health-related quality of life, patient-reported experiences, pain, health cost, healthcare utilisation, medication use, adverse events, emergency department representations and surgery.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the Sydney Local Health District Ethics Review Committee (RPAH Zone) (X23-0200 and 2023/ETH01038). The trial results will be submitted for publication in a reputable international journal and will be presented at professional conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12623000934640.

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.

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.

Adding Brief Pain Science or Ergonomics Messages to Guideline Advice Did Not Increase Feelings of Reassurance in People With Acute Low Back Pain: A Randomized Experiment

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of adding pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice on feelings of reassurance and management intentions among people with acute low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Three-arm parallel-group randomized experiment. METHODS: We recruited people with acute LBP (pain for ≤6 weeks) to participate in an online experiment. Participants were randomized at a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three groups: guideline advice alone or guideline advice with the addition of brief pain science or ergonomics messages. The intervention was delivered via prerecorded videos in all 3 groups. Coprimary outcomes were reassurance that (1) no serious condition is causing LBP and (2) continuing with daily activities is safe. Secondary outcomes were perceived risk of developing chronic pain, management intentions (bed rest, see a health professional, see a specialist, and imaging), credibility, and relevance of the advice in addressing the participant's concerns. RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred ninety-seven responses (99.3% of 2,313 randomized) were analyzed. Adding brief pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice did not change reassurance that LBP was not caused by serious disease. The addition of ergonomics advice provided worse reassurance that it is safe to continue with daily activities compared to guideline advice (mean difference [MD], -0.33; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.53). There was no difference between groups on management intentions. CONCLUSION: Adding pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice did not increase reassurance or change management intentions in people with acute LBP. Ergonomics messages may lead to reduced feelings of reassurance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(12)1-11. Epub 26 September 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12090.

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.

Awareness and use of five imaging decision rules for musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Several validated decision rules are available for clinicians to guide the appropriate use of imaging for patients with musculoskeletal injuries, including the Canadian CT Head Rule, Canadian C-Spine Rule, National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) guideline, Ottawa Ankle Rules and Ottawa Knee Rules. However, it is unclear to what extent clinicians are aware of the rules and are using these five rules in practice.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the proportion of clinicians that are aware of five imaging decision rules and the proportion that use them in practice.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

This was a systematic review conducted in accordance with the 'Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses' (PRISMA) statement. We performed searches in MEDLINE (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and Scopus databases to identify observational and experimental studies with data on the following outcomes among clinicians related to five validated imaging decision rules: awareness, use, attitudes, knowledge, and barriers and facilitators to implementation. Where possible, we pooled data using medians to summarise these outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 39 studies. Studies were conducted in 15 countries (e.g. the USA, Canada, the UK, Australasia, New Zealand) and included various clinician types (e.g. emergency physicians, emergency nurses and nurse practitioners). Among the five decision rules, clinicians' awareness was highest for the Canadian C-Spine Rule (84%, n = 3 studies) and lowest for the Ottawa Knee Rules (18%, n = 2). Clinicians' use was highest for NEXUS (median percentage ranging from 7 to 77%, n = 4) followed by Canadian C-Spine Rule (56-71%, n = 7 studies) and lowest for the Ottawa Knee Rules which ranged from 18 to 58% (n = 4).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that awareness of the five imaging decision rules is low. Changing clinicians' attitudes and knowledge towards these decision rules and addressing barriers to their implementation could increase use.

Do national health priorities align with Global Burden of Disease estimates on disease burden? An analysis of national health plans and official governmental websites

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the alignment of national health priorities with a country's burden of disease as measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).

METHODS

We identified priorities in national health plans and the 20 most burdensome conditions measured by DALYs from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease Study. We computed point-biserial correlations (rpb) between DALYs and being nominated as a health priority and the pooled proportion (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of the 20 most burdensome conditions nominated as a priority across countries.

RESULTS

We identified national health plans and official governmental websites in 145 countries. There was little to no correlation (rpb = 0.06, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.09) between national DALY data and whether a condition was nominated as a health priority. The pooled proportion of the 20 most burdensome conditions nominated as priorities across countries was 46%. HIV/AIDS had the greatest number of nominations as a national health priority (62 countries) as well as the greatest match with the burden of disease (among the top 20 most burdensome conditions in 51 [82%] countries). Low back pain, headache disorders and congenital birth defects had the lowest proportion of nominations as health priorities in countries where they were in the top 20 most burdensome conditions (6%, 6% and 11%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Globally, there were low correlations between national health priorities and GBD estimates on disease burden. Failing to prioritise health priorities according to burden may mean that insufficient resources have been directed to improve health outcomes for people with those health conditions.

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.

Physiotherapists should apply health coaching techniques and incorporate accountability to foster adherence to a walking program for low back pain: a qualitative study

QUESTIONS

What motivates individuals to start a walking program for the prevention of low back pain? What strategies optimise short-term and long-term adherence to a walking program? What strategies can physiotherapists incorporate into clinical practice to facilitate commencement of and adherence to a walking program?

DESIGN

Qualitative study.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-two adults recently recovered from an episode of non-specific low back pain who participated in a 6-month, progressive and individualised walking program that was prescribed by a physiotherapist trained in health coaching.

METHODS

Semi-structured focus groups conducted online following completion of the walking program. Interview questions explored: primary motivations for starting a walking program, identification of which elements were useful in optimising adherence to the program, and identification of the barriers to and facilitators of engagement with the program. Audio recordings were transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Three major themes were identified. Theme one identified that strong motivators to start a walking program were anticipated improvements in low back pain management and the added general health benefits of a more active lifestyle. Theme two identified that fear of high-impact exercises led to avoidance; however, walking was considered a safe exercise option. Theme three identified accountability, enjoyment of exercise and health benefits were critical to adherence.

CONCLUSION

Participants recently recovered from low back pain reflected positively on a physiotherapist-prescribed walking program. Participants described what elements of the program were crucial to starting exercise and optimising adherence. These findings have informed a list of practical recommendations for physiotherapists to improve patient commencement and adherence to exercise.

Can language enhance physical therapists' willingness to follow Choosing Wisely recommendations? A best-worst scaling study

BACKGROUND

Choosing Wisely recommendations could reduce physical therapists' use of low-value care.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether language influences physical therapists' willingness to follow the Australian Physiotherapy Association's (APA) Choosing Wisely recommendations.

DESIGN

Best-worst Scaling survey METHODS: The six original APA Choosing Wisely recommendations were modified based on four language characteristics (level of detail, strength- qualified/unqualified, framing, and alternatives to low-value care) to create 60 recommendations. Physical therapists were randomised to a block of seven choice tasks, which included four recommendations. Participants indicated which recommendation they were most and least willing to follow. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to create normalised (0=least preferred; 10=most preferred) and marginal preference scores.

RESULTS

215 physical therapists (48.5% of 443 who started the survey) completed the survey. Participants' mean age (SD) was 38.7 (10.6) and 47.9% were female. Physical therapists were more willing to follow recommendations with more detail (marginal preference score of 1.1) or that provided alternatives to low-value care (1.3) and less willing to follow recommendations with negative framing (-1.3). The use of qualified ('don't routinely') language (vs. unqualified - 'don't') did not affect willingness. Physical therapists were more willing to follow recommendations to avoid imaging for non-specific low back pain (3.9) and electrotherapy for low back pain (3.8) vs. recommendation to avoid incentive spirometry after upper abdominal and cardiac surgery.

CONCLUSION

Physical therapists were more willing to follow recommendations that provided more detail, alternatives to low-value care, and were positively framed. These findings can inform the development of future Choosing Wisely recommendations and could help reduce low-value physical therapy.

Developing a patient decision aid for Achilles tendon rupture management: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVE

To develop and user-test a patient decision aid portraying the benefits and harms of non-surgical management and surgery for Achilles tendon ruptures.

DESIGN

Mixed methods.

SETTING

A draft decision aid was developed using guidance from a multidisciplinary steering group and existing patient decision aids. Participants were recruited through social media.

PARTICIPANTS

People who have previously sustained an Achilles tendon rupture and health professionals who manage these patients.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Semi-structured interviews and questionnaires were used to gather feedback on the decision aid from health professionals and patients who had previously suffered an Achilles tendon rupture. The feedback was used to redraft the decision aid and assess acceptability. An iterative cycle of interviews, redrafting according to feedback and further interviews was used. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Questionnaire data were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

We interviewed 18 health professionals (13 physiotherapists, 3 orthopaedic surgeons, 1 chiropractor, 1 sports medicine physician) and 15 patients who had suffered an Achilles tendon rupture (median time since rupture was 12 months). Most health professionals and patients rated the aid's acceptability as good-excellent. Interviews showcased agreement among health professionals and patients on most aspects of the decision aid: introduction, treatment options, comparing benefits and harms, questions to ask health professionals and formatting. However, health professionals had differing views on details about Achilles tendon retraction distance, factors that modify the risk of harms, treatment protocols and evidence on benefits and harms.

CONCLUSION

Our patient decision aid is an acceptable tool to both patients and health professionals, and our study highlights the views of key stakeholders on important information to consider when developing a patient decision aid for Achilles tendon rupture management. A randomised controlled trial evaluating the impact of this tool on the decision-making of people considering Achilles tendon surgery is warranted.

How do people perceive different advice for rotator cuff disease? A content analysis of qualitative data collected in a randomised experiment

OBJECTIVES

To explore how people perceive different advice for rotator cuff disease in terms of words/feelings evoked by the advice and treatment needs.

SETTING

We performed a content analysis of qualitative data collected in a randomised experiment.

PARTICIPANTS

2028 people with shoulder pain read a vignette describing someone with rotator cuff disease and were randomised to: bursitis label plus guideline-based advice, bursitis label plus treatment recommendation, rotator cuff tear label plus guideline-based advice and rotator cuff tear label plus treatment recommendation. Guideline-based advice included encouragement to stay active and positive prognostic information. Treatment recommendation emphasised that treatment is needed for recovery.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Participants answered questions about: (1) words/feelings evoked by the advice; (2) treatments they feel are needed. Two researchers developed coding frameworks to analyse responses.

RESULTS

1981 (97% of 2039 randomised) responses for each question were analysed. Guideline-based advice (vs treatment recommendation) more often elicited words/feelings of reassurance, having a minor issue, trust in expertise and feeling dismissed, and treatment needs of rest, activity modification, medication, wait and see, exercise and normal movements. Treatment recommendation (vs guideline-based advice) more often elicited words/feelings of needing treatment/investigation, psychological distress and having a serious issue, and treatment needs of injections, surgery, investigations, and to see a doctor.

CONCLUSIONS

Words/feelings evoked by advice for rotator cuff disease and perceived treatment needs may explain why guideline-based advice reduces perceived need for unnecessary care compared to a treatment recommendation.

Prognosis of a new episode of low-back pain in a community inception cohort

BACKGROUND

Most studies investigating the prognosis of low back pain (LBP) enrol people presenting for care, rather than all people who have an episode of LBP. We aimed to describe the prognosis of an acute episode of LBP in a community inception cohort.

METHODS

We used data from two previous studies investigating recurrence of LBP. Participants without current LBP were contacted monthly to assess if they had experienced a new episode of LBP. 366 participants reporting a new episode of LBP were included in the current study. The primary outcome was duration of the new episode of LBP. Secondary outcomes were average and worst pain during the episode and the proportion of participants seeking care.

RESULTS

The median duration of the episode was 5 days (95% CI 3.99 to 6.02). The cumulative probability of recovery was 70.0% (95% CI 65.3 to 74.7) before 1 week, 86.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 89.6) before 3 weeks, 90.9% (95% CI 88.0 to 93.8) before 6 weeks, and 93.5% (95% CI 90.8 to 96.0) before 12 weeks. The mean average pain intensity was 3.7 (SD ± 1.5), and the mean worst pain intensity was 5.6 (SD ± 1.9). The proportion of patients who sought care was 39.5% (95% CI 33.9 to 46.4).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found most episodes of LBP recover rapidly and more quickly than typically reported for clinical populations. The worst pain during the episode was typically moderate despite the rapid recovery for most people. Approximately 40% of the participants who experienced an episode of LBP sought care.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study describes the prognosis of an acute episode of LBP in a community inception cohort. This study found the majority of episodes of LBP, in community-dwelling adults, recover rapidly (median of 5 days) and more quickly than typically reported for clinical populations. The community should be reassured about the favourable prognosis of acute LBP.

Global prevalence of hospital admissions for low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine the proportion of low back pain presentations that are admitted to hospital from the emergency department (ED), the proportion of hospital admissions due to a primary diagnosis of low back pain and the mean hospital length of stay (LOS), globally.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO and LILACS from inception to July 2022. Secondary data were retrieved from publicly available government agency publications and international databases. Studies investigating admitted patients aged >18 years with a primary diagnosis of musculoskeletal low back pain and/or lumbosacral radicular pain were included.

RESULTS

There was high heterogeneity in admission rates for low back pain from the ED, with a median of 9.6% (IQR 3.3-25.2; 9 countries). The median percentage of all hospital admissions that were due to low back pain was 0.9% (IQR 0.6-1.5; 30 countries). The median hospital LOS across 39 countries was 6.2 days for 'dorsalgia' (IQR 4.4-8.6) and 5.4 days for 'intervertebral disc disorders' (IQR 4.1-8.4). Low back pain admissions per 100 000 population had a median of 159.1 (IQR 82.6-313.8). The overall quality of the evidence was moderate.

CONCLUSION

This is the first systematic review with meta-analysis summarising the global prevalence of hospital admissions and hospital LOS for low back pain. There was relatively sparse data from rural and regional regions and low-income countries, as well as high heterogeneity in the results.

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.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for adults with acute non-specific low back pain: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method.

RESULTS

98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference -26.1 (95% confidence intervals -34.0 to -18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (-26.1 (-38.5 to -13.6)), pregabalin (-24.7 (-34.6 to -14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019145257.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive, individualised walking and education program for prevention of low back pain recurrence in adults: statistical analysis plan for the WalkBack randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Exercise for the prevention of low back pain recurrences is recommended, but under-researched. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a walking program for preventing low back pain recurrence remains unknown. This a priori statistical analysis plan describes the methods of analysis for the WalkBack trial.

METHODS

WalkBack is a prospectively registered, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. The aim is to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 6-month progressive and individualised walking and education program (intervention) for the prevention of low back pain recurrences, compared to a no-treatment control group. The primary outcome is days to the first recurrence of an episode of activity-limiting low back pain. Key secondary outcomes include days to any recurrence of low back pain, days to a care-seeking recurrence of low back pain, disability level, health-related quality of life, costs associated with low back pain and adverse events. All participants will be followed for a minimum of 12 months. Analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Cox regression is planned to assess the effects for the outcomes of time to activity-limiting, minimal and care-seeking recurrence. Hazard ratios and median survival times with 95% confidence intervals will be calculated. The effect of the intervention on continuous outcomes will be estimated with repeated-measure linear mixed models. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal perspective for recurrence prevented (yes/no) and quality-adjusted life years. The proportion of adverse events between groups will be compared using Fisher's exact test.

DISCUSSION

The WalkBack trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a walking intervention to prevent low back pain recurrences. This statistical analysis plan provides transparency on the analysis of the trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

WalkBack - Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive individualised walking and education program for the prevention of a recurrence of low back pain. ACTRN12619001134112 . Date Registered: 14/08/2019.

Some magnetic resonance imaging findings may predict future low back pain and disability: a systematic review

QUESTIONS

Do magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings predict future low back pain (LBP), associated disability and global recovery in people with current LBP? Do MRI findings predict these outcomes in people with no current LBP? Do MRI findings predict these outcomes in a mixed sample of people with and without current LBP?

DESIGN

This review is an update of a previous systematic review investigating the relationship between lumbar spine MRI findings and future LBP.

PARTICIPANTS

People with or without LBP with lumbar MRI scans.

OUTCOME MEASURES

MRI findings, pain and disability.

RESULTS

Of the included studies, 28 reported on participants with current LBP, eight reported on participants with no LBP and four reported on a mixed sample. Most results were based on single studies and did not demonstrate clear relationships between MRI findings and future LBP. In populations with current LBP, pooling demonstrated that the presence of Modic type 1 changes alone or Modic type 1 and 2 changes were associated with slightly worse pain or disability outcomes in the short term, and the presence of disc degeneration was associated with worse pain and disability outcomes in the long term. In populations with current LBP, pooling demonstrated no evidence of an association between the presence of nerve root compression and disability outcomes in the short term, and no evidence of an association between the presence of disc height reduction, disc herniation, spinal stenosis, high-intensity zone and clinical outcomes in the long term. In populations with no LBP, pooling demonstrated that the presence of disc degeneration may increase the likelihood of experiencing pain in the long term. In mixed populations, no pooling was possible; however, single studies demonstrated that Modic type 1, 2 or 3 changes and disc herniation were each associated with worse pain in the long term.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that some MRI findings may have weak associations with future LBP; however, larger high-quality studies are needed to resolve uncertainty.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021252919.

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.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of antidepressants for pain in adults: overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive overview of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of antidepressants for pain according to condition.

DESIGN

Overview of systematic reviews.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 20 June 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Systematic reviews comparing any antidepressant with placebo for any pain condition in adults.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data. The main outcome measure was pain; for headache disorders it was frequency of headaches. Continuous pain outcomes were converted into a scale of 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain) and were presented as mean differences (95% confidence intervals). Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk ratios (95% confidence intervals). Data were extracted from the time point closest to the end of treatment. When end of treatment was too variable across trials in a review, data were extracted from the outcome or time point with the largest number of trials and participants. Secondary outcomes were safety and tolerability (withdrawals because of adverse events). Findings were classified from each comparison as efficacious, not efficacious, or inconclusive. Certainty of evidence was assessed with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation framework.

RESULTS

26 reviews (156 unique trials and >25 000 participants) were included. These reviews reported on the efficacy of eight antidepressant classes covering 22 pain conditions (42 distinct comparisons). No review provided high certainty evidence on the efficacy of antidepressants for pain for any condition. 11 comparisons (nine conditions) were found where antidepressants were efficacious, four with moderate certainty evidence: serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for back pain (mean difference -5.3, 95% confidence interval -7.3 to -3.3), postoperative pain (-7.3, -12.9 to -1.7), neuropathic pain (-6.8, -8.7 to -4.8), and fibromyalgia (risk ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 1.6). For the other 31 comparisons, antidepressants were either not efficacious (five comparisons) or the evidence was inconclusive (26 comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of efficacy of antidepressants was found in 11 of the 42 comparisons included in this overview of systematic reviews-seven of the 11 comparisons investigated the efficacy of SNRIs. For the other 31 comparisons, antidepressants were either inefficacious or evidence on efficacy was inconclusive. The findings suggest that a more nuanced approach is needed when prescribing antidepressants for pain conditions.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022311073.

Physiotherapists have some hesitations and unmet needs regarding delivery of exercise programs for low back pain prevention in adults: A qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Although there is some qualitative research on physiotherapists' experiences of delivering low back pain treatment, we do not know the extent that these findings apply to low back pain prevention.

OBJECTIVE

To explore physiotherapists' understanding, attitudes and experiences related to delivering low back pain prevention programs.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study.

METHOD

Interviews from 25 Australian physiotherapists (56% female; 44% male) were analysed using framework thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Theme 1 explored physiotherapists' hesitancy about 'low back pain prevention,' raising concerns this term might inadvertently entrench unhelpful beliefs. They preferred language about minimising the risk and impact of recurrences, and promoting an active lifestyle. Theme 2 emphasised that as pain receded, engaging patients could be challenging. Some discussed that person-centred care and individualised programs helped overcome this challenge. Several wanted more training in counselling skills, and more consistent external messaging about low back pain prevention. Theme 3 highlighted uncertainty about delivering high-value prevention care. Some perceived the programs as potentially placing unnecessary financial burden on some patients. Many physiotherapists were uncertain about how to support patients when they weren't in pain (i.e., remission) and wanted training in tailored exercise prescription.

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the physiotherapists had some hesitations and unmet needs regarding delivery of exercise programs for secondary prevention of low back pain. Clinicians may find it useful to ask patients directly about their interest in prevention programs and work with interested patients to develop tailored, progressive programs that continue to be motivating, even during periods when there is no pain.

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).

Physiotherapists' attitudes, views, and beliefs about Choosing Wisely recommendations: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Explore physiotherapists' attitudes, views, and beliefs towards the Australian Physiotherapy Association's (APA) Choosing Wisely recommendations.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with physiotherapists who were registered to practise in Australia. We purposively recruited participants with different demographics, clinical backgrounds, and years of experience to achieve diversity in views and opinions. Interviews explored barriers and facilitators to adopting the APA's Choosing Wisely recommendations, and strategies to increase adoption. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

We interviewed 19 participants (79.2% of 26 who expressed interest to be interviewed). Mean (SD) age of participants was 33.4 (11.6), mean (SD) years of experience was 10 (11.4), 90% were male (n = 17) and 53% worked in private practice (n = 10). Most participants were slightly (42.1%, n = 8) or at least moderately familiar (42.1%, n = 8) with the recommendations. Barriers to adopting the recommendations included 1) clinicians' beliefs, experience, and knowledge, 2) patients' clinical presentation, their beliefs, and expectations, 3) workplace demands and culture, and 4) vague and restrictive language, and lack of awareness. Facilitators to adopting the recommendations included 1) physiotherapists' beliefs and practise patterns, 2) organisational support, and 3) clear and appropriate recommendations. Suggested strategies to increase adoption of the recommendations were 1) interventions targeting clinicians, 2) amendments to the recommendations and 3) increased awareness and access to the recommendations.

CONCLUSION

These findings will inform the development and dissemination of future Choosing Wisely recommendations, and development of strategies to replace low-value physiotherapy with high-value physiotherapy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Diagnostic labels and advice for rotator cuff disease influence perceived need for shoulder surgery: an online randomised experiment

QUESTION

What are the effects of diagnostic labels and advice, and interactions between labels and advice, on perceived need for shoulder surgery for rotator cuff disease?

DESIGN

2×2 factorial online randomised experiment.

PARTICIPANTS

People with shoulder pain.

INTERVENTION

Participants read a scenario describing a patient with rotator cuff disease and were randomised to bursitis label plus guideline-based advice, bursitis label plus treatment recommendation, rotator cuff tear label plus guideline-based advice, and rotator cuff tear label plus treatment recommendation. Guideline-based advice included encouragement to stay active and positive prognostic information. Treatment recommendation stressed that treatment is needed for recovery.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Perceived need for surgery (primary outcome), imaging, an injection, a second opinion and to see a specialist; and perceived seriousness of the condition, recovery expectations, impact on work performance and need to avoid work.

RESULTS

A total of 2,024 responses (99.8% of 2,028 randomised) were analysed. Labelling as bursitis (versus rotator cuff tear) decreased perceived need for surgery (mean effect -0.5 on a 0-to-10 scale, 98.3% CI -0.7 to -0.2), imaging and to see a specialist, and perceived seriousness of the condition and need to avoid work. Guideline-based advice (versus treatment recommendation) decreased perceived need for surgery (mean effect -1.0, 98.3% CI -1.3 to -0.7), imaging, an injection, a second opinion and to see a specialist, and perceived seriousness of the condition and recovery expectations. There was little to no evidence of an advice label interaction for any outcome.

CONCLUSION

Labels and advice influenced perceived need for surgery and other secondary outcomes in people with rotator cuff disease, with larger effects for advice. There was evidence of little or no interaction between labels and advice for any outcome, but the additive effect of labels and advice appeared large for some outcomes (eg, perceived need for imaging and perceived seriousness of the condition).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12621001370897.

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.

The impact of a patient decision aid on intention to undergo surgery for subacromial pain syndrome: An online randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of a patient decision aid for people considering shoulder surgery.

METHODS

Participants with shoulder pain considering shoulder surgery (n = 425) were recruited online and randomised to (i) a decision aid outlining the benefits and harms of shoulder surgery and non-surgical options (then randomised to a side-by-side vs. top-and-bottom display of options); and (ii) general information about shoulder pain from the NHS. Outcomes included treatment intention (primary), knowledge, attitudes, informed choice, and decisional conflict. Linear and logistic regression models were used to evaluate between-groups differences in outcomes.

RESULTS

409 participants (96%) had post-intervention data. Mean age was 41.3 years, 44.2% were female. There was no between-group difference in post-intervention treatment intention (MD -0.2, 95% CI: -3.3 to 2.8) and likelihood of intending to have shoulder surgery (OR 0.7, 95% CI: 0.3-1.5). The decision aid slightly improved knowledge (MD 4.4, 95% CI: 0.2-8.6), but not any other secondary outcomes. The display of options did not influence any outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In this online trial, a co-designed patient decision aid had no effect on treatment intention, attitudes, informed choice, and decisional conflict, but a small effect on improving knowledge.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Research is needed to understand reasons for the lack of anticipated effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621000992808).

Feasibility, Usability, and Implementation Context of an Internet-Based Pain Education and Exercise Program for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Pilot Trial of the ReabilitaDOR Program

Background

Internet-based self-management programs and telerehabilitation initiatives have increased and have been extensively used for delivering health care in many areas. These programs overcome common barriers that patients face with traditional face-to-face health care, such as travel expenditures, lack of time, and high demand on the public health system. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this mode of web-based health care delivery had become more popular. However, there is still a lack of studies testing this mode of delivery in low- and middle-income countries. To gain a better understanding of the context, feasibility, and factors involved in the implementation of a web-based program, pilot and implementation studies are necessary. These studies can better inform whether a strategy is feasible, acceptable, and adequate for its purposes and for optimizing resource allocation.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the feasibility, usability, and implementation context of a self-management internet-based program based on exercises and pain education (ReabilitaDOR) in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain and to compare this program with a program using only a web-based self-management booklet.

Methods

The study design was a parallel pilot study of a prospectively registered, assessor-blinded, 2-arm randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation. This study was performed using waiting lists of physiotherapy and rehabilitation centers and advertisements on social media networks. The participants were 65 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain aged between 18 and 60 years. The effects of an 8-week telerehabilitation program based on exercises and pain education (intervention group) were compared with those of a program based only on a web-based self-management booklet (control group). The main outcome measures were implementation outcomes of patients’ perceptions of acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and usability of the program and the societal costs and feasibility of the main trial at 8-week posttreatment follow-up. Adverse events were also analyzed.

Results

In total, 56 participants were analyzed at the 8-week follow-up. The intervention group showed responses with a mean of 4.5 (SD 0.6) points for acceptability, 4.5 (SD 0.5) points for appropriateness, and 4.5 (SD 0.6) points for feasibility measured on a 1 to 5 scale. All patients in the intervention group showed satisfactory responses to the system usability outcome. There is satisfactory evidence for the feasibility of the main trial. For costs related to the interventions, health care, patients, and loss of productivity at 8 weeks, we found a total expenditure of US $278.30 per patient in the intervention group and US $141.52 per patient in the control group. No adverse events were reported during the intervention period.

Conclusions

We found that the ReabilitaDOR program is feasible, appropriate, and acceptable from the users’ implementation perspective. This system was considered usable by all the participants, and the main trial seemed feasible. Cost data were viable to be collected, and the program is likely to be safe.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04274439; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04274439

Overview of the Drivers of Low-Value Care Comment on "Key Factors that Promote Low-Value Care: Views of Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands"

Verkerk and colleagues explored the key drivers of low-value care from the perspective of 18 policy-makers and researchers who had led and evaluated at least one initiative to reduce low-value care or had been responsible for reducing low-value care in an organisation. They identified several drivers of low-value care presented in the 2017 Lancet Right Care Series (eg, fee for service payment systems, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry, fear of malpractice litigation, issues with research conduct and reporting, a culture of 'more is better' and 'new technology is better') but did not discuss some other important ones. In this commentary, we aim to extend the work of Verkerk and colleagues and provide some additional perspectives on the drivers of low-value care within the following categories: Economic incentives; Money, finance, and organisation; Knowledge beliefs, assumptions, bias and uncertainty; and Power and human relationships.

Unique considerations for exercise programs to prevent future low back pain: the patient perspective

ABSTRACT

There is moderate quality evidence that exercise can help to prevent future low back pain (LBP). This study aimed to explore patient needs and preferences for exercise programs to prevent LBP and the outcomes of these programs that would be most important to a patient. Researchers conducted 26 semistructured interviews with people with LBP. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using framework thematic analysis. Three themes were developed. Theme 1 emphasised that everyone's LBP was different, translating to preferences for tailored prevention programs with a high level of initial supervision and individualised biomedical explanations for the program. Theme 2 highlighted important outcomes. Pain was considered not only for intensity but also for the duration, frequency, and severity of flare-ups or episodes. Other important outcomes were general fitness and capacity to engage in everyday activities, social interactions, and work. Theme 3 outlined aspects of exercise programs that were considered important for people with fluctuating pain, including how to foster a sense of "progress," set realistic expectations, and support patients to establish exercise routines that can adapt to fluctuating pain. Theme 4 discussed participants' desire for social connection. Patients want exercise programs for LBP prevention, which are highly individualised, provide meaningful explanations of exercises, and help them maintain exercise in the long-term. Clinicians should discuss with patients the transition from a focus on treatment to the prevention of LBP. This provides greater opportunity to adjust goals and expectations and provide relevant education. Balancing the need for individualised care against affordability presents an ongoing challenge.

Protocol for a process evaluation: face-to-face physiotherapy compared with a supported home exercise programme for the management of musculoskeletal conditions: the REFORM trial

INTRODUCTION

The REFORM (REhabilitation FOR Musculoskeletal conditions) trial is a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial (n=210) designed to determine whether a supported home exercise programme is as good or better than a course of face-to-face physiotherapy for the management of some musculoskeletal conditions. The trial is currently being conducted across Sydney government hospitals in Australia. This process evaluation will run alongside the REFORM trial. It combines qualitative and quantitative data to help explain the trial results and determine the feasibility of rolling out supported home exercise programmes in settings similar to the REFORM trial.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Two theoretical frameworks underpin our process evaluation methodology: the Realist framework (context, mechanism, outcomes) considers the causal assumptions as to why a supported home exercise programme may be as good or better than face-to-face physiotherapy in terms of the context, mechanisms and outcomes of the trial. The RE-AIM framework describes the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance of the intervention. These two frameworks will be broadly used to guide this process evaluation using a mixed-methods approach. For example, qualitative data will be derived from interviews with patients, healthcare professionals and stakeholders, and quantitative data will be collected to determine the cost and feasibility of providing supported home exercise programmes. These data will be analysed iteratively before the analysis of the trial results and will be triangulated with the results of the primary and secondary outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial will be conducted in accordance with the National Health and Medical Research Council National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2018) and the Note for Good Clinical Practice (CPMP/ICH-135/95). Ethical approval was obtained on 17 March 2017 from the Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (trial number: HREC/16HAWKE/431-RESP/16/287) with an amendment for the process evaluation approved on 4 February 2020. The results of the process evaluation will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at scientific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12619000065190.