Search

OBJECTIVE: To investigate what concerns people with acute low back pain (LBP) and explore whether demographic and clinical factors were associated with having concerns about LBP. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study. METHODS: We included participants aged ≥18 years with acute LBP (LBP≤6 weeks). We collected demographic and clinical characteristics via an online survey and asked one open-ended question to elicit participants' concerns about their LBP. We investigated concerns about LBP using inductive content analysis. Using multivariable logistic regression, we explored associations between demographic and clinical characteristics and having concerns about LBP. RESULTS: We included 2025 participants, a majority of whom (n = 1200, 59.3%) reported having at least 1 concern about their LBP. There were 34 unique concerns, which mapped to 5 themes: causes of LBP (n = 393, 19.4%), future consequences of LBP (n = 390, 19.3%), psychosocial consequences of LBP (n = 287, 14.2%), physical consequences of LBP (n = 210, 10.4%), and health consequences of LBP (n = 84, 4.2%). Demographic and clinical characteristics were associated with having concerns about LBP: participants with university education, having previously received advice for LBP, with higher LBP intensity, interference, and higher anxiety symptoms were more likely to have concerns about their LBP. CONCLUSION: Most people with acute LBP had at least 1 concern about their LBP, more commonly centered around the causes of and the future consequences of LBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Although paracetamol (acetaminophen) combined with other analgesics can reduce pain intensity in some pain conditions, its effectiveness in managing low back pain and osteoarthritis is unclear. This systematic review investigated whether paracetamol combination therapy is more effective and safer than monotherapy or placebo in low back pain and osteoarthritis. Methods: Online database searches were conducted for randomised trials that evaluated paracetamol combined with another analgesic compared to a placebo or the non-paracetamol ingredient in the combination (monotherapy) in low back pain and osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was a change in pain. Secondary outcomes were (serious) adverse events, changes in disability and quality of life. Follow-up was immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate (> 3 months but < 12 months) or long term (≥ 12 months). A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the original Cochrane tool, and quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: Twenty-two studies were included. Pain was reduced with oral paracetamol plus a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at immediate term in low back pain (paracetamol plus ibuprofen vs ibuprofen [mean difference (MD) − 6.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) −10.4 to −2.0, moderate evidence]) and in osteoarthritis (paracetamol plus aceclofenac vs aceclofenac [MD − 4.7, 95% CI − 8.3 to − 1.2, moderate certainty evidence] and paracetamol plus etodolac vs etodolac [MD − 15.1, 95% CI − 18.5 to − 11.8; moderate certainty evidence]). Paracetamol plus oral tramadol reduced pain compared with placebo at intermediate term for low back pain (MD − 11.7, 95% CI − 19.2 to − 4.3; very low certainty evidence) and osteoarthritis (MD − 6.8, 95% CI − 12.7 to −0.9; moderate certainty evidence). Disability scores improved in half the comparisons. Quality of life was infrequently measured. All paracetamol plus NSAID combinations did not increase the risk of adverse events compared to NSAID monotherapy. Conclusions: Low-to-moderate quality evidence supports the oral use of some paracetamol plus NSAID combinations for short-term pain relief with no increased risk of harm for low back pain and osteoarthritis compared to its non-paracetamol monotherapy comparator. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

* 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conclusion The Low Back Pain Clinical Care Standard meets an urgent need to provide a resource to ensure curricula relevant to low back pain are up to date, and a clear roadmap for existing clinicians to deliver best care for people with low back pain. The Low Back Pain Clinical Care Standard provides an excellent guide for how each of the professions can contribute to better care of low back pain. In September 2022, the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care released its Low Back Pain Clinical Care Standard.[1] The Standard covers the early clinical management of people who present with a new acute episode of low back pain. [Extracted from the article]

A new clinical care standard provides evidence-based guidance to help clinicians deliver best care for people with low back pain In September 2022, the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care released its Low Back Pain Clinical Care Standard.[1] The Standard covers the early clinical management of people who present with a new acute episode of low back pain. The Low Back Pain Clinical Care Standard provides an excellent guide for how each of the professions can contribute to better care of low back pain. Conclusion The Low Back Pain Clinical Care Standard meets an urgent need to provide a resource to ensure curricula relevant to low back pain are up to date, and a clear roadmap for existing clinicians to deliver best care for people with low back pain. [Extracted from the article]

The article presents the discussion on feedback and the final version being endorsed by 19 professional associations. Topics include focusing on key areas of care where the need for quality improvement being greatest rather than providing an exhaustive coverage of all aspects of management; and finding of research investigating usual care delivered for low back pain.

An editorial is presented which discusses the release of the Low Back Pain Clinical Care Standard by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. It discusses evidence-based guidance for clinicians on the early clinical management of acute low back pain, aiming to improve the quality of care. It emphasizes the need for changes in clinician behavior, adaptation of health services, and collaborative approaches to deliver best practice care for low back pain.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We aimed to determine, in those who present to the ED with low back pain (LBP): (i) the prevalence of four key diagnostic categories, (ii) trends in lumbar imaging from 2015 to 2019 and (iii) the effect of a new model of care on lumbar imaging in the ED. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of routinely collected medical data of four tertiary hospitals in Sydney, Australia. We analysed ED presentations for LBP between January 2012 and October 2019. Outcomes were the prevalence of four key diagnostic categories of LBP and use of lumbar imaging. We examined trends in lumbar imaging over time and used interrupted time series analysis to determine the impact of model of care implementation on imaging use. Results: There were 31 168 presentations for LBP of which 64.5% were non‐specific LBP, 27.2% were problems beyond the spine, 5.3% were LBP with neurological signs and 2.3% were serious spinal conditions. 28.9% received lumbar imaging; use did not change substantially between 2012 and 2019. Patients diagnosed with serious spinal conditions were more likely to receive imaging (59%) than those diagnosed with non‐specific LBP (29%). Implementation of a state‐wide model of care in November 2016 did not appear to influence imaging use. Conclusion: Most presentations to the ED for LBP are for non‐specific LBP. Around 2% will have specific spinal pathology. Use of imaging in those diagnosed with non‐specific LBP remains high and was unaffected by implementation of a state‐wide model of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Low Back Pain Clinical Care Standard provides an excellent guide for how each of the professions can contribute to better care of low back pain. Conclusion The Low Back Pain Clinical Care Standard meets an urgent need to provide a resource to ensure curricula relevant to low back pain are up to date, and a clear roadmap for existing clinicians to deliver best care for people with low back pain. Keywords: Back pain; Guidelines as topic EN Back pain Guidelines as topic 354 356 3 05/03/23 20230501 NES 230501 A new clinical care standard provides evidence-based guidance to help clinicians deliver best care for people with low back pain In September 2022, the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care released its Low Back Pain Clinical Care Standard.[1] The Standard covers the early clinical management of people who present with a new acute episode of low back pain. [Extracted from the article]

Background Understanding barriers and enablers to monitoring and deprescribing opioids will enable the development of tailored interventions to improve both practices. Objective To perform a qualitative evidence synthesis of the barriers and enablers to monitoring ongoing appropriateness and deprescribing of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and to map the findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Methods We included English-language qualitative studies that explored healthcare professional (HCP), patient, carer and the general public's perceptions regarding monitoring and deprescribing opioids for CNCP. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and PsycINFO from inception to August 2020. Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data, assessed the methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, and assessed the confidence in the findings using GRADE CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research). We used an inductive approach to synthesis of qualitative data and mapped identified themes to TDF domains. Results From 6948 records identified we included 21 studies, involving 209 HCPs and 330 patients. No studies involved carers or the general public. Five barrier themes were identified: limited alternatives to opioids, management of pain is top priority, patient understanding, expectations and experiences, prescriber pressures, and reluctance to change. Four enabler themes were identified: negative effects of opioids and benefits of deprescribing, clear communication and expectations for deprescribing, support for patients, and support for prescribers. 16 barrier and 12 enabler subthemes were identified; most were graded as high (n=15) or moderate (n=9) confidence. The TDF domains 'beliefs about consequences', 'environmental context and resources', 'social influences' and 'emotion' were salient for patients and HCPs. The domains 'skills' and 'beliefs about capabilities' were more salient for HCPs. Conclusion Future implementation interventions aimed at monitoring and deprescribing opioids should target the patient and HCP barriers and enablers identified in this synthesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

Keywords: Adverse events; Adverse drug reactions; Clinical trials as topic EN Adverse events Adverse drug reactions Clinical trials as topic 502 504 3 11/14/22 20221115 NES 221115 Better reporting of harms is needed in clinical trials to support better decision making Harms in clinical trials may be characterised by adverse events (AEs) and adverse reactions. Benefits and harms of spinal manipulative therapy for the treatment of chronic low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. For drug trials, researchers should clearly distinguish between AEs occurring during and after treatment (ie, report them separately); and for surgical trials, AEs should be reported separately for the intra- and postoperative period. [Extracted from the article]

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

Background Overuse of lumbar imaging is common in the emergency department (ED). Few trials have examined interventions to address this. We evaluated the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to implement guideline recommendations for low back pain in the emergency department. Methods We conducted a stepped-wedge, cluster- randomised trial in four EDs in New South Wales, Australia. After a 13-month control phase of usual care, the EDs received a multifaceted intervention to support guideline- endorsed care in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, every 4 weeks over a 4- month period. All sites were followed up for at least 3 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of low back pain presentations receiving lumbar imaging. Secondary healthcare utilisation outcomes included prescriptions of opioid and non- opioid pain medicines, inpatient admissions, length of ED stay, specialist referrals and re- presentations. Clinician beliefs and knowledge about low back pain care were measured before and after the intervention. Patient-reported pain, disability, quality of life and satisfaction were measured at 1, 2 and 4 weeks post ED presentation. Results A total of 269 ED clinicians and 4625 episodes of care for low back pain (4491 patients) were included. The data did not provide clear evidence that the intervention reduced lumbar imaging (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.26; p=0.29). It did reduce opioid use (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.85; p=0.006) and improved clinicians' beliefs (mean difference (MD), 2.85; 95% CI 1.85 to 3.85; p<0.001; on a scale from 9 to 45) and knowledge about low back pain care (MD, 0.48; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.83; p<0.01; on a scale from 0 to 11). There was no difference in pain scores at 1-week follow-up (MD, 0.04; 95% CI -1.00 to 1.08; p=0.94; on a scale from 0 to 10). A similar trend was observed for all other patient- reported outcomes and time points. This study found no effect on the other secondary healthcare utilisation outcomes. Conclusion It is uncertain if a multifaceted intervention to implement guideline recommendations for low back pain care decreased lumbar imaging in the ED; however, it did reduce opioid prescriptions without adversely affecting patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether different labels for rotator cuff disease influence people's perceived need for surgery. DESIGN: Randomized controlled experiment. METHODS: Participants with and without shoulder pain read a vignette describing a patient with rotator cuff disease and were randomized to 1 of 6 terms describing rotator cuff disease: subacromial impingement syndrome, rotator cuff tear, bursitis, rotator cuff-related shoulder pain, shoulder sprain, and episode of shoulder pain. Perceived need for shoulder surgery was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included perceived need for imaging, an injection, a second opinion, and to see a specialist; perceived seriousness of the condition; recovery expectations; and perceived impact on work attendance. Using a Bonferroni correction (significance, P<.003), adjusted between-group mean differences and 99.67% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using a 1-way analysis of covariance. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred eight (80% of 1626) responses were analyzed. Participants' mean ± SD age was 40.3 ± 16.0 years, and 59% were women. Mean perceived need for surgery (0-10 scale) was low and slightly higher among those assigned to the rotator cuff tear label compared to the bursitis label (2.6 versus 2.1; adjusted mean difference, 0.7; 99.67% CI: 0.0, 1.4). Mean perceived need for imaging (0-10) was moderate and slightly higher among those assigned to the rotator cuff tear (4.7 versus 3.7; adjusted mean difference, 1.0; 99.67% CI: 0.2, 1.9) and subacromial impingement syndrome labels (4.7 versus 3.7; adjusted mean difference, 1.0; 99.7% CI: 0.1, 1.9) compared to the bursitis label. CONCLUSION: There were small differences in the perceived need for surgery and imaging between some labels, which could be important at the population level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

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

Background: Understanding how much physiotherapy people receive before lumbar spine surgery could give insight into what people and clinicians consider an adequate trial of non-operative management. The aim of this study was to investigate physiotherapy utilisation and costs before lumbar spine surgery under a workers' compensation claim in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.Methods: Using data from the NSW State Insurance Regulatory Authority, we audited physiotherapy billing codes used before surgery for people who received lumbar spine surgery from 2010 to 2018. We summarised, separately for fusion and decompression, the time from initiation of physiotherapy to surgery, number of physiotherapy sessions people received before surgery, total cost of physiotherapy before surgery, and time from injury date to initiation of physiotherapy. All analyses were descriptive.Results: We included 3070 people (800 had fusion, 2270 decompression). Mean age (standard deviation, SD) was similar between those who received fusion and decompression [42.9 (10.4) vs. 41.9 (11.6)]. Compared to people who had fusion, those who had decompression were more likely to not have any physiotherapy before surgery (28.4% vs. 15.4%), received physiotherapy for a shorter duration before surgery [median (interquartile range, IQR): 5 (3 to 11) vs. 15 (4-26) months], were less likely to have physiotherapy for ≥2 years before surgery (5.6% vs. 27.5%), had fewer physiotherapy sessions before surgery [mean (SD): 16 (21) vs. 28 (35) sessions], were less likely to have > 50 physiotherapy sessions before surgery (6.8% vs. 18.1%), and had lower total physiotherapy-related costs [mean (IQR): $1265 ($0-1808) vs. $2357 ($453-2947)]. Time from injury date to first physiotherapy session was similar between people who had fusion and decompression [median (IQR): 23 (9-66) vs.19 (7-53) days].Conclusions: There is variation in physiotherapy utilisation and costs before lumbar spine surgery for people funded by NSW Workers' Compensation. Some people may not be receiving an adequate trial of physiotherapy before surgery, particularly before decompression surgery. Others may be receiving an excessive amount of physiotherapy before surgery, particularly before fusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background: Deprescribing, the process of reducing or discontinuing unnecessary or harmful medicines is an essential part of clinical practice. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of interventions designed to deprescribe opioid analgesics for pain relief in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Methods: We searched electronic databases, including clinical trial registries, from database inception to 13th January 2020 without restrictions, and conducted citation tracking. Our systematic review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions reducing the prescription, or use of opioid analgesics in patients with chronic pain versus control. Inventions could be aimed at the patient, clinician, or both. We excluded trials enrolling patients with cancer or illicit drug use. Two authors independently screened and extracted data. Outcome follow-up timepoints were short (≤ 3 months), intermediate (> 3 but < 12 months) or long (≥ 12 months) term. Primary outcome was the reduction in opioid dose [morphine milligram equivalent (MME) mg/day]. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Results: We included ten patient-focused RCT interventions (n = 835; median 37 participants) and 2 testing clinician-focused interventions (n = 291 clinicians); none at low risk of bias. Patient-focused interventions did not reduce opioid dose in the intermediate term [e.g. dose reduction protocol, mean difference (MD) − 19.9 MME, 95% CI − 107.5 to 67.7], nor did they increase the number of participants who ceased their dose, or increase the risk of serious adverse events or adverse events. One clinician intervention of education plus decision tools versus decision tools alone reduced the number of opioid prescriptions (risk difference (RD) − 0.1, 95% CI − 0.2 to − 0.1), dose (MD − 5.3 MME, 95% CI − 6.2 to − 4.5) and use (RD − 0.1, 95% CI − 0.1 to − 0.0) in the long term. Limitations: Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. Conclusion: The small number of studies and heterogeneity prevented firm conclusions to recommend any one opioid-analgesic-deprescribing strategy in patients with chronic pain. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42017068422. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation strategies aimed at improving the adherence of physical therapists' treatment choices to clinical practice guidelines for a range of musculoskeletal conditions. Methods For this review, searches were performed in several databases combining terms synonymous with "practice patterns" and "physical therapy" until August 2019. The review included randomized controlled trials that investigated any intervention to improve the adherence of physical therapists' treatment choices to clinical practice guidelines or research evidence. Treatment choices assessed by surveys, audits of clinical notes, and treatment recording forms were the primary measures of adherence. Self-reported guideline adherence was the secondary measure. Three reviewers independently assessed risk of bias. Because of heterogeneity across studies, only a narrative synthesis of the results was performed. Results Nine studies were included. Four demonstrated a positive effect on at least 1 measure of treatment choices for low back pain and acute whiplash. One involved a comparison with no intervention, and 3 involved a comparison with another active intervention. The interventions that demonstrated a positive effect included dissemination of clinical practice guidelines, with additional elements including interactive educational meetings (3 studies), tailored interventions and monitoring of the performance of health care delivery (1 study), peer assessment (1 study), and local opinion leaders plus educational outreach visits (1 study). Conclusions Although this review revealed limited trials evaluating interventions to increase physical therapists' use of evidence-based treatments for musculoskeletal conditions compared with no intervention, it highlighted some interventions that may be effective. Impact Dissemination of clinical practice guidelines, interactive educational meetings, tailored interventions and monitoring the performance of health care delivery, peer assessment, and use of local opinion leaders plus educational outreach visits should be implemented to improve physical therapists' adherence to clinical practice guidelines for a range of musculoskeletal conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The aim of this systematic review was to determine what percentages of physical therapists provide interventions that are of high value, low value, or unknown value for cardiorespiratory conditions, neurological conditions, or conditions requiring acute hospital care. Whether an intervention was considered high or low value was determined by reference to guidelines or systematic reviews. Methods Searches of numerous databases were performed by combining terms synonymous with "practice patterns" and "physical therapy" until April 2018. Studies that investigated what interventions physical therapists provide for any cardiorespiratory condition, neurological condition, or condition requiring acute hospital care through surveys and audits of clinical notes were included. Through the use of medians and interquartile ranges, the percentages of physical therapists who provided interventions that were of high value, low value, or unknown value were summarized. Results Twenty-six studies were included. The median percentages of physical therapists who provided interventions of high, low, and unknown value for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ranged from 78% to 96%, 67% to 100%, and 56% to 91%, respectively. These percentages ranged from 61% to 97%, 87% to 98%, and 83% to 98% for adults who were critically ill in intensive care units; 70% to 93%, 38% to 50%, and 8% to 95% before or after cardiac/thoracic surgery; 25% to 96%, 23% to 84%, and 96% for acute stroke; and 11% (high value) and 13% (unknown value) for Parkinson disease, respectively. Conclusions This review found patterns of physical therapist practice for cardiorespiratory conditions, neurological conditions, and conditions requiring acute hospital care that were both evidence based and not evidence based. A concern is that a substantial percentage of physical therapists provided interventions that were of low or unknown value despite the availability of high-value interventions. Impact This systematic review is the first, to our knowledge, to summarize the percentage of physical therapist treatment choices that were high versus low value for cardiorespiratory conditions, neurological conditions, and conditions requiring acute hospital care. The findings highlight areas of practice where low-value care could be replaced with high-value care—such as in the management of patients who have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or who are in intensive care—and identify an urgent need to develop and test strategies to ensure that patients with these conditions receive the interventions most likely to improve their outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the enormous financial and humanistic burden of chronic low back pain (CLBP), there is little consensus on what constitutes the best treatment options from a multitude of competing interventions. The objective of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to determine the relative efficacy and acceptability of primary care treatments for non-specific CLBP, with the overarching aim of providing a comprehensive evidence base for informing treatment decisions. Methods: We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of interventions endorsed in primary care guidelines for the treatment of non-specific CLBP in adults. Information sources searched will include major bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO and LILACS) and clinical trial registries. Our primary outcomes will be patient-reported pain ratings and treatment acceptability (all-cause discontinuation), and secondary outcomes will be functional ability, quality of life and patient/physician ratings of overall improvement. A hierarchical Bayesian class-based NMA will be performed to determine the relative effects of different classes of pharmacological (NSAIDs, opioids, paracetamol, anti-depressants, muscle relaxants) and non-pharmacological (exercise, patient education, manual therapies, psychological therapy, multidisciplinary approaches, massage, acupuncture, mindfulness) interventions and individual treatments within a class (e.g. NSAIDs: diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen). We will conduct risk of bias assessments and threshold analysis to assess the robustness of the findings to potential bias. We will compute the effect of different interventions relative to placebo/no treatment for both short- and long-term efficacy and acceptability. Discussion: While many factors are important in selecting an appropriate intervention for an individual patient, evidence for the analgesic effects and acceptability of a treatment are key factors in guiding this selection. Thus, this NMA will provide an important source of evidence to inform treatment decisions and future clinical guidelines. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registry number: CRD42019138115 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Sciatica is a lower spine condition characterised by radiating leg pain below the knee. It may be accompanied by motor and sensory loss in the distribution of a spinal nerve. There are few effective treatments for sciatica. Orally administered glucocorticoids have shown some promise, however, any beneficial effects need to be confirmed and weighed against drug safety and cost-effectiveness, in a high-quality, definitive trial. Methods and analysis The Oral Steroids In Sciatica (OASIS) trial is a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial that will evaluate a tapering regimen of oral prednisolone in 200 participants with acute sciatica. Participants will be recruited on presentation to general practice, specialist outpatient clinics or hospital emergency departments and randomised to receive orally administered prednisolone 50 mg per day, up to 3 days then tapering to cessation over 10 days, or placebo, for a maximum of 13 days, in addition to guideline advice. Participants will be followed for 1 year. The primary endpoint will be leg pain intensity at 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include back pain intensity, disability, time to recovery, quality of life and treatment success rate. Adverse events will be assessed and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been granted from the Human Research Ethics Committee, The University of Sydney. Trial results will be disseminated by publications and conference presentations and via the media. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]