Search

* OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether manipulating contextual effects (eg, interaction with patients, or beliefs about treatments) boosted the outcomes of nonpharmacological and nonsurgical treatments for chronic primary musculoskeletal pain. * DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials * DATA SOURCES: We searched for trials in 6 databases, citation tracking, and clinical trials registers. We included trials that compared treatments with enhanced contextual effects with the same treatments without enhancement in adults with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain. * DATA SYNTHESIS: The outcomes of interest were pain intensity, physical functioning, global ratings of improvement, quality of life, depression, anxiety, and sleep. We evaluated risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 and the GRADE approach, respectively. * RESULTS: Of 17 637 records, we included 10 trials with 990 participants and identified 5 ongoing trials. The treatments were acupuncture, education, exercise training, and physical therapy. The contextual effects that were improved in the enhanced treatments were patient-practitioner relationship, patient beliefs and characteristics, therapeutic setting/environment, and treatment characteristics. Our analysis showed that improving contextual effects in nonpharmacological and nonsurgical treatments may not make much difference on pain intensity (mean difference [MD], -1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.71, 5.16; k = 7 trials; N = 719 participants; Scale: 0-100; GRADE: Low) or physical functioning (MD, -0.27; 95% CI: -1.02, 0.49; 95% prediction interval [PI]: -2.04, 1.51; k = 6; N = 567; Scale: 0-10; GRADE: Low) in the short term and at later followups. Sensitivity analyses revealed similar findings. * CONCLUSION: While evidence gaps exist, per current evidence, it may not be possible to achieve meaningful benefit for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain by manipulating the context of nonpharmacological and nonsurgical treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Contextual effects (e.g. patient expectations) may play a role in treatment effectiveness. This study aimed to estimate the magnitude of contextual effects for conservative, non‐pharmacological interventions for musculoskeletal pain conditions. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared placebo conservative non‐pharmacological interventions to no treatment for musculoskeletal pain. The outcomes assessed included pain intensity, physical functioning, health‐related quality of life, global rating of change, depression, anxiety and sleep at immediate, short‐, medium‐ and/or long‐term follow‐up. Databases and Data Treatment: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, CENTRAL and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception to September 2021. Trial registry searches, backward and forward citation tracking and searches for prior systematic reviews were completed. The Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool was implemented. Results: The study included 64 RCTs (N = 4314) out of 8898 records. For pain intensity, a mean difference of (MD: −5.32, 95% confidence interval (CI): −7.20, −3.44, N = 57 studies with 74 outcomes, GRADE: very low) was estimated for placebo interventions. A small effect in favour of the placebo interventions for physical function was estimated (SMD: −0.22, 95% CI: −0.35, −0.09; N = 37 with 48 outcomes, GRADE: very low). Similar results were found for a broad range of patient‐reported outcomes. Meta‐regression analyses did not explain heterogeneity among analyses. Conclusion: The study found that the contextual effect of non‐pharmacological conservative interventions for musculoskeletal conditions is likely to be small. However, given the known effect sizes of recommended evidence‐based treatments for musculoskeletal conditions, it may still contribute an important component. Significance: Contextual effects of non‐pharmacological conservative interventions for musculoskeletal conditions are likely to be small for a broad range of patient‐reported outcomes (pain intensity, physical function, quality of life, global rating of change and depression). Contextual effects are unlikely, in isolation, to offer much clinical care. But these factors do have relevance in an overall treatment context as they provide almost 30% of the minimally clinically important difference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Musculoskeletal pain conditions are the largest contributors to disability and healthcare burden globally. Exercise interventions improve physical function and quality of life in individuals with musculoskeletal pain, yet optimal exercise prescription variables (e.g. duration, frequency, intensity) are unclear. Objective: We aimed to examine evidence gaps, methodological quality and exercise prescription recommendations in systematic reviews of exercise for musculoskeletal pain. Methods: In our prospectively registered umbrella review, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to 14 February 2023. Backward citation tracking was performed. We included peer-reviewed, English language, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared exercise with conservative treatment, placebo or other exercise interventions in adults with musculoskeletal pain. Data were extracted from the following groups of reviews based on their reporting of exercise prescription data and analysis of the relationship between prescription variables and outcomes: (1) those that did not report any exercise prescription data, (2) those that reported exercise prescription data but did not perform a quantitative analysis and (3) those that performed a quantitative analysis of the relationship between exercise prescription variables and outcomes. Outcome measures were physical function, pain, mental health, adverse effects and adherence to treatment. AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) was used to assess methodological quality. Results: From 6757 records, 274 systematic reviews were included. 6.6% of reviews did not report any exercise prescription data, and only 10.9% quantitatively analyzed the relationship between prescription variables and the outcome(s). The overall methodological quality was critically low in 85% of reviews. Conclusion: High methodological quality evidence is lacking for optimal exercise training prescription variables in individuals with musculoskeletal pain. To better inform practice and evidence gaps, future systematic reviews should (1) identify optimum exercise prescription variables, for example, via dose–response (network) meta-analysis, (2) perform high-quality reviews per AMSTAR-2 criteria and (3) include outcomes of mental health, adverse events and exercise adherence. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021287440 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021287440). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In patients presenting with low back pain (LBP), once specific causes are excluded (fracture, infection, inflammatory arthritis, cancer, cauda equina and radiculopathy) many clinicians pose a diagnosis of non-specific LBP. Accordingly, current management of non-specific LBP is generic. There is a need for a classification of non-specific LBP that is both data- and evidence-based assessing multi-dimensional pain-related factors in a large sample size. The "PRedictive Evidence Driven Intelligent Classification Tool for Low Back Pain" (PREDICT-LBP) project is a prospective cross-sectional study which will compare 300 women and men with non-specific LBP (aged 18–55 years) with 100 matched referents without a history of LBP. Participants will be recruited from the general public and local medical facilities. Data will be collected on spinal tissue (intervertebral disc composition and morphology, vertebral fat fraction and paraspinal muscle size and composition via magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]), central nervous system adaptation (pain thresholds, temporal summation of pain, brain resting state functional connectivity, structural connectivity and regional volumes via MRI), psychosocial factors (e.g. depression, anxiety) and other musculoskeletal pain symptoms. Dimensionality reduction, cluster validation and fuzzy c-means clustering methods, classification models, and relevant sensitivity analyses, will classify non-specific LBP patients into sub-groups. This project represents a first personalised diagnostic approach to non-specific LBP, with potential for widespread uptake in clinical practice. This project will provide evidence to support clinical trials assessing specific treatments approaches for potential subgroups of patients with non-specific LBP. The classification tool may lead to better patient outcomes and reduction in economic costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The classification of non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP) according to multidimensional data could guide clinical management; yet recent systematic reviews show this has not been attempted. This was a prospective cross-sectional study of participants with CLBP (n = 21) and age-, sex- and height-matched pain-free controls (n = 21). Nervous system, lumbar spinal tissue and psychosocial factors were collected. Dimensionality reduction was followed by fuzzy c-means clustering to determine sub-groups. Machine learning models (Support Vector Machine, k-Nearest Neighbour, Naïve Bayes and Random Forest) were used to determine the accuracy of classification to sub-groups. The primary analysis showed that four factors (cognitive function, depressive symptoms, general self-efficacy and anxiety symptoms) and two clusters (normal versus impaired psychosocial profiles) optimally classified participants. The error rates in classification models ranged from 4.2 to 14.2% when only CLBP patients were considered and increased to 24.2 to 37.5% when pain-free controls were added. This data-driven pilot study classified participants with CLBP into sub-groups, primarily based on psychosocial factors. This contributes to the literature as it was the first study to evaluate data-driven machine learning CLBP classification based on nervous system, lumbar spinal tissue and psychosocial factors. Future studies with larger sample sizes should validate these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this investigation was to explore the effects of dietary weight loss intervention, with and without the addition of exercise on health-related quality of life, depressive symptoms, and anxiety. As part of the EMPOWER study for women, sixty premenopausal women (BMI of 40.4 ± 6.7) were randomized to energy restriction only (ER) or to exercise plus energy restriction (EXER) for 12 months. Health-related quality of life was assessed using the SF-36, depressive symptoms were assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI), and anxiety symptoms using the Spielberger state and trait anxiety questionnaire. All measures were completed at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. At 12 months, there were significant (p < 0.05) group-by-time interactions favouring the EXER group for five of the eight domains and the mental component summary score. At 12 months, a significant group-by-time interaction favouring the EXER group is reported for both state and trait anxiety (p =.005 and p =.001, respectively). At 12 months, there was a significant group-by-time interaction for depressive symptoms favouring EXER (p < 0.05). Within-group changes for BDI scores were improved at all follow-up time points in the EXER group. Exercise training confers an additional benefit to energy restriction in the absence of additional weight loss at 12 months for health-related quality of life, depressive symptoms, and state and trait anxiety scores when compared to energy restriction only. Exercise and an energy-restricted diet improve health-related quality of life and mental health. Exercise may protect mental health without further weight loss for women with severe obesity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SYNOPSIS: Low back pain classification systems are structured assessments used to guide choices of more specific treatments. Classification systems examined in randomized controlled trials have limited effects on pain intensity and disability compared to nonclassified interventions. Potential reasons for the lack of efficacy include (1) failing to assess multidimensional factors that contribute to pain, (2) relying on clinician judgement, (3) low accessibility, and (4) poor classification reliability. Overcoming these limitations is critical to deciding whether classification systems can improve clinical practice. Only once these limitations are addressed, can we feel certain about the efficacy, or lack thereof, of classification systems. This Viewpoint guides the reader through some limitations of common classification approaches and presents a path forward to open-access, reliable, and multidimensional precision medicine for managing low back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate whether psychosocial factors were predictive for exercise-induced hypoalgesia (EIH) in pain-free adults. Methods: A sample of 38 pain-free nurses with a mean (SD) age of 26 (6) years were included in this study. Participants completed psychosocial questionnaires prior to physical tests. Pressure pain threshold (PPT) was assessed bilaterally at the calves (local), lower back (semi-local) and forearm (remote) before and immediately after a maximal graded cycling exercise test. Separate linear mixed effects models were used to determine change in PPT before and after cycling exercise (EIH). Multiple linear regression for all psychosocial variables and best subset regression was used to identify predictors of EIH at all locations. Results: The relative mean increase in PPT at the forearm, lumbar, calf, and globally (all sites pooled) was 6.0% (p< 0.001), 10.1% (p< 0.001), 13.9% (p< 0.001), and 10.2% (p=0.013), respectively. Separate best subset multiple linear regression models at the forearm (predictors; Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) total), lumbar (predictors; MSPSS total, Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) total, Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS) depression), calf (predictors; MSPSS friends, PCS total), and global (predictors; MSPSS friends, PCS total) accounted for 7.5% (p=0.053), 13% (p=0.052), 24% (p=0.003), and 17% (p=0.015) of the variance, respectively. Conclusion: These findings confirm that cycling exercise produced EIH in young nurses and provided preliminary evidence to support the interaction between perceived social support, pain catastrophizing and EIH. Further investigation is required to better understand psychological and social factors that mediate EIH on a larger sample of adults at high risk of developing chronic musculoskeletal pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Examine the effectiveness of interventions to approach guideline-adherent surgical referrals for low back pain assessed via systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Five databases (10 September 2021), Google Scholar, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were searched and forward and backward citation tracking of included studies were implemented. Randomised controlled/clinical trials in adults with low back pain of interventions to optimise surgery rates or referrals to surgery or secondary referral were included. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROB2 tool and evidence certainty via Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). A random effects meta-analysis with a Paule Mandel estimator plus Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman method was used to calculate the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval, respectively. Results: Of 886 records, 6 studies were included (N = 258,329) participants; cluster sizes ranged from 4 to 54. Five studies were rated as low risk of bias and one as having some concerns. Two studies reporting spine surgery referral or rates could only be pooled via combination of p values and gave evidence for a reduction (p = 0.021, Fisher's method, risk of bias: low). This did not persist with sensitivity analysis (p = 0.053). For secondary referral, meta-analysis revealed a non-significant odds ratio of 1.07 (95% CI [0.55, 2.06], I2 = 73.0%, n = 4 studies, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE] evidence certainty: very low). Conclusion: Few RCTs exist for interventions to improve guideline-adherent spine surgery rates or referral. Clinician education in isolation may not be effective. Future RCTs should consider organisational and/or policy level interventions. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020215137. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic back pain (CBP) is heterogenous and identifying sub-groups could improve clinical decision making. Machine learning can build upon prior sub-grouping approaches by using a data-driven approach to overcome clinician subjectivity, however, only binary classification of pain versus no-pain has been attempted to date. In our cross-sectional study, age- and sex-matched participants with CBP (n = 4156) and pain-free controls (n = 14,927) from the UkBioBank were included. We included variables of body mass index, depression, loneliness/social isolation, grip strength, brain grey matter volumes and functional connectivity. We used fuzzy c-means clustering to derive CBP sub-groups and Support Vector Machine (SVM), Naïve Bayes, k-Nearest Neighbour (kNN) and Random Forest classifiers to determine classification accuracy. We showed that two variables (loneliness/social isolation and depression) and five clusters were optimal for creating sub-groups of CBP individuals. Classification accuracy was greater than 95% for when CBP sub-groups were assessed only, while misclassification in CBP sub-groups increased to 35–53% across classifiers when pain-free controls were added. We showed that individuals with CBP could sub-grouped and accurately classified. Future research should optimise variables by including specific spinal, psychosocial and nervous system measures associated with CBP to create more robust sub-groups that are discernible from pain-free controls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

*OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of implementing interventions to improve guideline-recommended imaging referrals in low back pain. *DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. *LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to June 14, 2021, as well as Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews published in the last 10 years. We conducted forward and backward citation tracking. *STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled or clinical trials in adults with low back pain to improve imaging referrals. *DATA SYNTHESIS: Bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data were synthesized using narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis (Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.*RESULTS: Of the 2719 identified records, 8 trials were included, with 6 studies eligible for meta-analysis (participants: N = 170 460). All trials incorporated clinician education; 4 included audit and/or feedback components. Comparators were no-intervention control and passive dissemination of guidelines. Five trials were rated as low risk of bias, and 2 trials were rated as having some concerns. There was low-certainty evidence that implementing interventions to improve guideline-recommended imaging referrals had no effect (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.87 [0.72, 1.05]; I² = 0%; studies: n = 6). The main finding was robust to sensitivity analyses. * CONCLUSION: We found low-certainty evidence that interventions to reduce imaging referrals or use in low back pain had no effect. Education interventions are unlikely to be effective. Organizational- and policy-level interventions are more likely to be effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction is presented to the article "Attempting to Separate Placebo Efects from Exercise in Chronic Pain."

Background: Pain is the most disabling characteristic of musculoskeletal disorders, and while exercise is promoted as an important treatment modality for chronic musculoskeletal conditions, the relative contribution of the specific effects of exercise training, placebo effects and non-specific effects such as natural history are not clear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the relative contribution of these factors to better understand the true effect of exercise training for reducing pain in chronic primary musculoskeletal pain conditions. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis Data Sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE and CENTRAL from inception to February 2021. Reference lists of prior systematic reviews. Eligibility Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of interventions that used exercise training compared to placebo, true control or usual care in adults with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain. The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42019141096). Results: We identified 79 eligible trials for quantitative analysis. Pairwise meta-analysis showed very low-quality evidence (GRADE criteria) that exercise training was not more effective than placebo (g [95% CI]: 0.94 [− 0.17, 2.06], P = 0.098, I2 = 92.46%, studies: n = 4). Exercise training was more effective than true, no intervention controls (g [95% CI]: 0.99 [0.66, 1.32], P < 0.001, I2 = 92.43%, studies: n = 42), usual care controls (g [95% CI]: 0.64 [0.44, 0.83], P < 0.001, I2 = 76.52%, studies: n = 33), and when all controls combined (g [95% CI]: 0.84 [0.64, 1.04], P < 0.001, I2 = 90.02%, studies: n = 79). Conclusions: There is very low-quality evidence that exercise training is not more effective than non-exercise placebo treatments in chronic pain. Exercise training and the associated clinical encounter are more effective than true control or standard medical care for reductions in pain for adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain, with very low quality of evidence based on GRADE criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Nervous system, psychosocial and spinal tissue biomarkers are associated with non‐specific low back pain (nsLBP), though relative contributions are unclear. Databases and Data Treatment: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and SPORTDiscus were searched up to 25 March 2020. Related reviews and reference lists were also screened. Observational studies examining structural and functional nervous system biomarkers (e.g. quantitative sensory tests, structural and functional brain measures), psychosocial factors (e.g. mental health, catastrophizing) and structural spinal imaging biomarkers (e.g. intervertebral disc degeneration, paraspinal muscle size) between nsLBP and pain‐free controls were included. For multivariate meta‐analysis, two of three domains were required in each study. Random‐effects pairwise and multivariate meta‐analyses were performed. GRADE approach assessed evidence certainty. Newcastle‐Ottawa scale assessed risk of bias. Main outcomes were the effect size difference of domains between nsLBP and pain‐free controls. Results: Of 4519 unique records identified, 33 studies (LBP = 1552, referents = 1322) were meta‐analysed. Psychosocial state (Hedges' g [95%CI]: 0.90 [0.69–1.10], p < 0.001) in nsLBP showed larger effect sizes than nervous system (0.31 [0.13–0.49], p < 0.001; difference: 0.61 [0.36–0.86], p < 0.001) and spine imaging biomarkers (0.55 [0.37–0.73], p < 0.001; difference: 0.36 [0.04–0.67], p = 0.027). The relationship between domains changes depending on if pain duration is acute or chronic. Conclusions: Psychosocial effect sizes in nsLBP are greater than those for spinal imaging and nervous system biomarkers. Limitations include cross‐sectional design of studies included and inference of causality. Future research should investigate the clinical relevance of these effect size differences in relation to pain intensity and disability. Study Registration: PROSPERO‐CRD42020159188. Significance: Spinal structural lesions (e.g. intervertebral disc degeneration), psychosocial (e.g. depression) and nervous system factors (detected by e.g. quantitative sensory tests, structural and functional measures) contribute to non‐specific low back pain. However, psychosocial factors may be more compromised than nervous system and spinal imaging biomarkers. This relationship depends on if the pain is acute or chronic. These findings underscore that the 'non‐specific' label in back pain should be reconsidered, and more specific multidimensional categories evaluated to guide patient management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

* OBJECTIVE: To determine whether classification systems improve patient-reported outcomes for people with low back pain (LBP). * DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. * LITERATURE SEARCH: The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to June 21, 2021. Reference lists of prior systematic reviews and included trials were screened. * STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized trials comparing a classification system (eg, the McKenzie method or the STarT Back Tool) to any comparator. Studies evaluating participants with specific spinal conditions (eg, fractures or tumors) were excluded. * DATA SYNTHESIS: Outcomes were patient-reported LBP intensity, leg pain intensity, and disability. We used the revised Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool to assess risk of bias, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence. We used random-effects meta-analysis, with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment, to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD; Hedges' g) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses explored classification system, comparator type, pain type, and pain duration. * RESULTS: Twenty-four trials assessing classification systems and 34 assessing subclasses were included. There was low certainty of a small effect at the end of intervention for LBP intensity (SMD, -0.31; 95% CI: -0.54, -0.07; P = .014, n = 4416, n = 21 trials) and disability (SMD, -0.27; 95% CI: -0.46, -0.07; P = .011, n = 4809, n = 24 trials), favoring classified treatments compared to generalized interventions, but not for leg pain intensity. At the end of intervention, no specific type of classification system was superior to generalized interventions for improving pain intensity and disability. None of the estimates exceeded the effect size that one would consider clinically meaningful. * CONCLUSION: For patient-reported pain intensity and disability, there is insufficient evidence supporting the use of classification systems over generalized interventions when managing LBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Worldwide, low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability and affects 16% of the Australian population. Pain that lasts more than 12 weeks and is presumed lumbar musculoskeletal in origin is deemed non-specific chronic LBP. Managing LBP requires a multidisciplinary approach. Objective The aim of this article is to provide evidence for incorporating exercise training into the multidisciplinary treatment plans of patients with non-specific chronic LBP. Discussion There is mounting evidence in support of the integration of exercise training for the multidisciplinary treatment of non-specific chronic LBP. Clinically meaningful reductions in pain intensity may be achieved with Pilates, aerobic, stabilisation/motor control and resistance exercise training. Clinically meaningful reductions in disability may be attained with resistance, stabilisation/motor control, water-based, Pilates and yoga exercise. Resistance and aerobic exercise can also improve mental health in this susceptible population group. The evidence suggests it is reasonable to consider including exercise-based services in the care team to enable patients with non-specific chronic LBP to transition to self-management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fear of pain and movement is an important factor in the development of hypervigilance and avoidance behaviours. Objective: We examined the effectiveness of exercise training on improving fear-avoidance beliefs. Methods: A systematic review (data sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and metaanalysis of randomised controlled/clinical trials of exercise training in adults versus relevant nonexercise comparators that quantified fear-avoidance was conducted. Results: After screening 4603 identified records, 17 (2014 participants) and 13 (1152 participants) studies were eligible for qualitative and quantitative synthesis, respectively. Pairwise meta-analysis showed exercise training was more effective than all non-exercise comparators (standardised mean difference (SMD) [95% CI] − 0.378 [− 0.623, − 0.133], P = 0.002, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE]: very low) for reducing fear-avoidance. Exercise training was more effective than true control for reducing fear avoidance (− 0.407 [− 0.750, − 0.065], P = 0.020, GRADE: very low), however it was not more effective than other interventions (− 0.243 [− 0.614, 0.128], P = 0.199, GRADE: very low). In people with low back pain, exercise training was more effective than non-exercise comparator groups for reducing fear-avoidance (− 0.530 [− 0.755, − 0.304], P < 0.001, GRADE: very low). For individuals with neck pain, exercise training was not more effective than non-exercise comparator groups for reducing fear-avoidance (0.061 [− 0.360, 0.482], P = 0.777, GRADE: very low). Conclusion: There is very low to low-quality evidence that exercise training is effective for reducing fear-avoidance, including in people with low back pain. Exercise training may be more effective than no intervention for reducing fear avoidance, but there is very low-quality evidence that non-exercise interventions are as effective as exercise for fear avoidance. Few studies with low risk of bias is a limitation. Trail Registration: PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42019139678. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Examine the effectiveness of specific modes of exercise training in non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP).Design: Network meta-analysis (NMA).Data Sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE, CENTRAL.Eligibility Criteria: Exercise training randomised controlled/clinical trials in adults with NSCLBP.Results: Among 9543 records, 89 studies (patients=5578) were eligible for qualitative synthesis and 70 (pain), 63 (physical function), 16 (mental health) and 4 (trunk muscle strength) for NMA. The NMA consistency model revealed that the following exercise training modalities had the highest probability (surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA)) of being best when compared with true control: Pilates for pain (SUCRA=100%; pooled standardised mean difference (95% CI): -1.86 (-2.54 to -1.19)), resistance (SUCRA=80%; -1.14 (-1.71 to -0.56)) and stabilisation/motor control (SUCRA=80%; -1.13 (-1.53 to -0.74)) for physical function and resistance (SUCRA=80%; -1.26 (-2.10 to -0.41)) and aerobic (SUCRA=80%; -1.18 (-2.20 to -0.15)) for mental health. True control was most likely (SUCRA≤10%) to be the worst treatment for all outcomes, followed by therapist hands-off control for pain (SUCRA=10%; 0.09 (-0.71 to 0.89)) and physical function (SUCRA=20%; -0.31 (-0.94 to 0.32)) and therapist hands-on control for mental health (SUCRA=20%; -0.31 (-1.31 to 0.70)). Stretching and McKenzie exercise effect sizes did not differ to true control for pain or function (p>0.095; SUCRA<40%). NMA was not possible for trunk muscle endurance or analgesic medication. The quality of the synthesised evidence was low according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria.Summary/conclusion: There is low quality evidence that Pilates, stabilisation/motor control, resistance training and aerobic exercise training are the most effective treatments, pending outcome of interest, for adults with NSCLBP. Exercise training may also be more effective than therapist hands-on treatment. Heterogeneity among studies and the fact that there are few studies with low risk of bias are both limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background context: Muscle, bone and tendon respond anabolically to mechanical forces. Whether the intervertebral disc (IVD) can benefit from exercise is unclear. Purpose: To examine whether exercise can beneficially affect IVD characteristics. Study design/setting: This is a single-blinded 6-month randomised controlled trial (ACTRN12615001270505) in an exercise and physiotherapy clinic. Patient sample: Forty patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (NSCLBP) are included in this study. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was lumbar IVD T2 time (MRI). Secondary outcomes included IVD diffusion coefficient and IVD expansion with short-duration lying. Methods: Twenty patients progressively loaded their lumbar IVDs (exercise) via an exercise programme involving progressive upright aerobic and resistance exercises targeting the trunk and major muscle groups and were compared to twenty patients who performed motor control training and manual therapy (control). Testing occurred at baseline, 3 months and 6 months. Results: Seventeen exercise and fifteen control patients completed the interventions. There were no group-by-time differences in T2 time of the entire IVD (exercise 94.1 ± 10.0 ms vs. control 96.5 ± 9.3 ms, p = 0.549). Exercise patients had shorter T2 time in the posterior annulus at 6 months (82.7 ± 6.8 ms vs. 85.1 ± 8.0 ms, p = 0.028). Exercise patients showed higher L5/S1 apparent diffusion coefficients and decreased IVD height at 3 months (both p ≤ 0.050). After adjustments for multiple comparisons, differences lost statistical significance. Per-protocol and intent-to-treat analyses yielded similar findings. Conclusions: This trial found that 6 months of exercise did not benefit the IVD of people with NSCLBP. Based on this index study, future studies could investigate the effect of exercise on IVD in different populations, with different types, durations and/or intensities of exercise, and using different IVD markers. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) could enhance the ability to detect patterns of clinical characteristics in low-back pain (LBP) and guide treatment. We conducted three systematic reviews to address the following aims: (a) review the status of AI/ML research in LBP, (b) compare its status to that of two established LBP classification systems (STarT Back, McKenzie). AI/ML in LBP is in its infancy: 45 of 48 studies assessed sample sizes <1000 people, 19 of 48 studies used ≤5 parameters in models, 13 of 48 studies applied multiple models and attained high accuracy, 25 of 48 studies assessed the binary classification of LBP versus no-LBP only. Beyond the 48 studies using AI/ML for LBP classification, no studies examined use of AI/ML in prognosis prediction of specific sub-groups, and AI/ML techniques are yet to be implemented in guiding LBP treatment. In contrast, the STarT Back tool has been assessed for internal consistency, test−retest reliability, validity, pain and disability prognosis, and influence on pain and disability treatment outcomes. McKenzie has been assessed for inter- and intra-tester reliability, prognosis, and impact on pain and disability outcomes relative to other treatments. For AI/ML methods to contribute to the refinement of LBP (sub-)classification and guide treatment allocation, large data sets containing known and exploratory clinical features should be examined. There is also a need to establish reliability, validity, and prognostic capacity of AI/ML techniques in LBP as well as its ability to inform treatment allocation for improved patient outcomes and/or reduced healthcare costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To determine whether combined exercise training with an energy-restricted diet leads to improved physical fitness and body composition when compared to energy restriction alone in free-living premenopausal women with clinically severe obesity. Methods: Sixty premenopausal women (BMI of 40.4 ± 6.7) were randomised to energy restriction only (ER) or to exercise plus energy restriction (EXER) for 12 months. Body composition and fitness were measured at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. Results: VO2 peak improved more for EXER compared to ER at 3 (mean difference ± SEM 2.5 ± 0.9 mL ∙ kg–1 ∙ min–1, p = 0.006) and 6 (3.1 ± 1.2 mL ∙ kg–1 ∙ min–1, p = 0.007) but not 12 months (2.3 ± 1.6 mL ∙ kg–1 ∙ min–1, p = 0.15). Muscle strength improved more for EXER compared to ER at all time points. No differences between groups for lean mass were observed at 12 months. Conclusion: Combining exercise training with an energy-restricted diet did not lead to greater aerobic power, total body mass, fat mass or limit lean body mass loss at 12 months when compared to energy restriction alone for premenopausal women with clinically severe obesity in free-living situations. Future research should aim to determine an effective lifestyle approach which can be applied in the community setting for this high-risk group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a common clinical condition that has impacts at both the individual and societal level. Pain intensity is a primary outcome used in clinical practice to quantify the severity of CLBP and the efficacy of its treatment; however, pain is a subjective experience that is impacted by a multitude of factors. Moreover, differences in effect sizes for pain intensity are not observed between common conservative treatments, such as spinal manipulative therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, acupuncture, and exercise training. As pain science evolves, the biopsychosocial model is gaining interest in its application for CLBP management. The aim of this article is to discuss our current scientific understanding of pain and present why additional factors should be considered in conservative CLBP management. In addition to pain intensity, we recommend that clinicians should consider assessing the multidimensional nature of CLBP by including physical (disability, muscular strength and endurance, performance in activities of daily living, and body composition), psychological (kinesiophobia, fear‐avoidance, pain catastrophizing, pain self‐efficacy, depression, anxiety, and sleep quality), social (social functioning and work absenteeism), and health‐related quality‐of‐life measures, depending on what is deemed relevant for each individual. This review also provides practical recommendations to clinicians for the assessment of outcomes beyond pain intensity, including information on how large a change must be for it to be considered "real" in an individual patient. This information can guide treatment selection when working with an individual with CLBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study assessed the deconditioning hypothesis of low back pain (LBP) by examining physical function in relation to LBP and self-reported physical activity in women. This cross-sectional study recruited a representative population-based sample of females aged greater than 60 years. In total, 1182 women were included in the study and completed questionnaires (physical activity and LBP intensity) and functional testing (countermovement jump, chair rise, gait speed and grip strength). Individuals were stratified into four groups based on physical activity and LBP status and analysed via a two-way ANOVA. Most participants (87%) reported current LBP and 25% were physically active. Countermovement jump height, chair rise and grip strength were lower in physically inactive women (p ≤ 0.005), but not women with LBP (p ≥ 0.21). Gait speed was not associated with physical activity or LBP status. There was no association between LBP and physical activity status. Whilst LBP was associated with lower physical activity, contrary to the deconditioning hypothesis, LBP status itself was not associated with reduced physical function in community-dwelling women 60 years and older. This implies that LBP may not be related to physical function in this population group, but rather to their physical activity levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Exercise training is an essential component of falls prevention strategies, but they do not fully address components of physical function that leads to falls. The training approaches to achieve this may not be perceived as appropriate or even feasible in older adults. This study aims to assess the perceived feasibility and acceptability of novel exercise training approaches not usually prescribed to older adults. Patients and methods: Fourteen adults were exposed to conceptually and physically demanding exercises. Interviews were then conducted to determine perceptions and acceptability of individual exercise tasks. Qualitative thematic analysis was used to identify themes. Results: Safety and confidence, acceptability, and population participation were the key themes identified. Staff knowledge, presence, program design, and overt safety equipment were important for alleviating initial apprehension. Although physically demanding, participants expressed satisfaction when challenged. Prior disposition, understanding the value, and the appeal of novel exercises were perceived to influence program engagement. Conclusion: Given the evidence for acceptability, this type of training is feasible and may be appropriate as part of an exercise training program for older adults. Further research should be conducted to confirm that the physical adaptations to exercise training approaches as presented in this study occur in a similar manner to that observed in younger adults, and to also determine whether these adaptations lead to prolonged independence and reduced falls in older adults compared to usual care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Obesity is associated with a decline in health-related quality of life (HRQOL), while weight loss and exercise training have a positive influence. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the effects of energy restriction (ER) alone intervention to diet and exercise intervention on HRQOL.Methods: MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases were searched for randomised controlled trials examining HRQOL through lifestyle interventions which examined ER and energy restriction plus exercise in obese adults.Results: Nine hundred and fifty-two papers were assessed for inclusion in this review with nine being deemed suitable. This review indicates that four studies provide evidence to support the role of exercise in addition to ER to improve HRQOL in adults with obesity. The findings of this review are limited due to the limited number of studies as well as substantial heterogeneity in ER, exercise prescription variables and outcome measures utilised within studies.Conclusions: A definitive conclusion regarding the capacity of exercise to facilitate greater improvement in HRQOL than diet alone, or, to formulate an exercise prescription for obese adults to address HRQOL is not feasible based on the existing evidence. Future studies should utilise comparable HRQOL assessment tools along with ensuring full reporting of results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lower back pain is a global health issue affecting approximately 80% of people at some stage in their life. The current literature suggests that any exercise is beneficial for reducing back pain. However, as pain is a subjective evaluation and physical deficits are evident in low back pain, using it as the sole outcome measure to evaluate superiority of an exercise protocol for low back pain treatment is insufficient. The overarching goal of the current clinical trial is to implement two common, conservative intervention approaches and examine their impact on deficits in chronic low back pain.Methods/design: Forty participants, 25-45 years old with chronic (>3 months), non-specific low back pain will be recruited. Participants will be randomised to receive either motor control and manual therapy (n = 20) or general strength and conditioning (n = 20) exercise treatments for 6 months. The motor control/manual therapy group will receive twelve 30-min sessions, ten in the first 3 months (one or two per week) and two in the last 3 months. The general exercise group will attend two 1-hour sessions weekly for 3 months, and one or two a week for the following 3 months. Primary outcome measures are average lumbar spine intervertebral disc T2 relaxation time and changes in thickness of the transversus abdominis muscle on a leg lift using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Secondary outcomes include muscle size and fat content, vertebral body fat content, intervertebral disc morphology and water diffusion measured by MRI, body composition using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, physical function through functional tests, changes in corticospinal excitability and cortical motor representation of the spinal muscles using transcranial magnetic stimulation and self-reported measure of pain symptoms, health and disability. Outcome measures will be conducted at baseline, at the 3-month follow-up and at 6 months at the end of intervention. Pain, depressive symptomology and emotions will be captured fortnightly by questionnaires.Discussion: Chronic low back pain is ranked the highest disabling disorder in Australia. The findings of this study will inform clinical practice guidelines to assist with decision-making approaches where outcomes beyond pain are sought for adults with chronic low back pain.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12615001270505 . Registered on 20 November 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical practice guidelines globally recommend lifestyle modification including diet and exercise training as first-line treatment for obesity. The clinical benefits of exercise training in adults with obesity is well-documented; however, there is no strong evidence for the effectiveness of exercise training for weight loss in class II and class III obesity. The purpose of the randomised controlled trial described in this protocol article is to examine the effect of exercise training, in addition to a very low energy diet (VLED), in clinically severe obese women for changes in body composition, physical function, quality of life, and markers of cardiometabolic risk.Methods/design: Sixty women, aged 18-50 years with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 34.9 kg.m(2) and at least one obesity-related co-morbidity, will be recruited for this 12-month study. Participants will be randomised to either exercise plus energy restriction (n = 30), or energy restriction alone (n = 30). All participants will follow an energy-restricted individualised diet incorporating a VLED component. The exercise intervention group will also receive exercise by supervised aerobic and resistance training and a home-based exercise programme totalling 300 minutes per week. Primary outcome measures include body composition and aerobic fitness. Secondary outcome measures include: physical function, cardiometabolic risk factors, quality of life, physical activity, and mental health. All outcome measures will be conducted at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months.Discussion: Previous research demonstrates various health benefits of including exercise training as part of a healthy lifestyle at all BMI ranges. Although clinical practice guidelines recommend exercise training as part of first-line treatment for overweight and obesity, there are few studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of exercise in class II and class III obesity. The study aims to determine whether the addition of exercise training to a VLED provides more favourable improvements in body composition, physical function, quality of life, and markers of cardiometabolic risk for women with clinically severe obesity, compared to VLED alone.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12611000694910 ). Date registered: 4 July 2011. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Obesity is associated with impairments of physical function, cardiovascular fitness, muscle strength and the capacity to perform activities of daily living. This review examines the specific effects of exercise training in relation to body composition and physical function demonstrated by changes in cardiovascular fitness, and muscle strength when obese adults undergo energy restriction. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials comparing energy restriction plus exercise training to energy restriction alone. Studies published to May 2013 were included if they used multi-component methods for analysing body composition and assessed measures of fitness in obese adults. Results: Fourteen RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Heterogeneity of study characteristics prevented meta-analysis. Energy restriction plus exercise training was more effective than energy restriction alone for improving cardiovascular fitness, muscle strength, and increasing fat mass loss and preserving lean body mass, depending on the type of exercise training. Conclusion: Adding exercise training to energy restriction for obese middle-aged and older individuals results in favourable changes to fitness and body composition. Whilst weight loss should be encouraged for obese individuals, exercise training should be included in lifestyle interventions as it offers additional benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Exercise and spinal manipulative therapy are commonly used for the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) in Australia. Reduction in pain intensity is a common outcome; however, it is only one measure of intervention efficacy in clinical practice. Therefore, we evaluated the effectiveness of two common clinical interventions on physical and self-report measures in CLBP. Participants were randomized to a 6-month intervention of general strength and conditioning (GSC; n = 20; up to 52 sessions) or motor control exercise plus manual therapy (MCMT; n = 20; up to 12 sessions). Pain intensity was measured at baseline and fortnightly throughout the intervention. Trunk extension and flexion endurance, leg muscle strength and endurance, paraspinal muscle volume, cardio-respiratory fitness and self-report measures of kinesiophobia, disability and quality of life were assessed at baseline and 3- and 6-month follow-up. Pain intensity differed favoring MCMT between-groups at week 14 and 16 of treatment (both, p = 0.003), but not at 6-month follow-up. Both GSC (mean change (95%CI): −10.7 (−18.7, −2.8) mm; p = 0.008) and MCMT (−19.2 (−28.1, −10.3) mm; p < 0.001) had within-group reductions in pain intensity at six months, but did not achieve clinically meaningful thresholds (20mm) within- or between-group. At 6-month follow-up, GSC increased trunk extension (mean difference (95% CI): 81.8 (34.8, 128.8) s; p = 0.004) and flexion endurance (51.5 (20.5, 82.6) s; p = 0.004), as well as leg muscle strength (24.7 (3.4, 46.0) kg; p = 0.001) and endurance (9.1 (1.7, 16.4) reps; p = 0.015) compared to MCMT. GSC reduced disability (−5.7 (−11.2, −0.2) pts; p = 0.041) and kinesiophobia (−6.6 (−9.9, −3.2) pts; p < 0.001) compared to MCMT at 6-month follow-up. Multifidus volume increased within-group for GSC (p = 0.003), but not MCMT or between-groups. No other between-group changes were observed at six months. Overall, GSC improved trunk endurance, leg muscle strength and endurance, self-report disability and kinesiophobia compared to MCMT at six months. These results show that GSC may provide a more diverse range of treatment effects compared to MCMT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]