Search

• The DiTA database, launched in 2019, is freely accessible at dita.org.au. • DiTA indexes physical therapy relevant diagnostic test accuracy research. • There are more than 2400 primary studies and systematic reviews indexed on DiTA. • This Masterclass provides tips on how to best search this database. Physical therapists use diagnostic tests in a variety of settings. Choosing the best diagnostic test to apply in a particular situation can be difficult. The choice of diagnostic test should be informed, at least in part, by evidence of test accuracy. Finding evidence of diagnostic test accuracy has, until recently, been challenging. Ideally, there would exist a database that comprehensively indexes evidence on diagnostic tests relevant to physical therapy practice, is free to access, and is easy to use. This Masterclass will describe the DiTA (Di agnostic T est A ccuracy) database (dita.org.au) including its development and search interface, and provide advice on how to search and retrieve records. DiTA indexes more than 2400 primary studies and systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy relevant to physical therapy practice. Users can search DiTA using text fields and dropdown lists to find evidence of diagnostic test accuracy. The database is freely accessible on the internet. Since its launch, DiTA has been accessed from almost every country in the world, the largest number of searches having been conducted from Brazil. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: PEDro (the Physiotherapy Evidence Database) is a widely used, comprehensive, freely available, online database that indexes studies of the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions. We have recently built another database, called DiTA, on the same platform as PEDro. DiTA provides a comprehensive index of studies of the accuracy of diagnostic tests used by physiotherapists. This study aims to describe the number and scope of such studies. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted for studies of the accuracy of diagnostic tests. The search was conducted on the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases from their inceptions to November 2018. Subsequently, monthly searches have updated the database. To be included on DiTA, studies need to investigate (a) both a pathology and patients that a physiotherapist could assess in clinical practice, and (b) an index test that a physiotherapist would perform themselves rather than one which they would request. Results: To date, the searches have yielded 44,884 titles. Screening has identified 1,419 reports that meet the inclusion criteria. The most frequently studied subdisciplines are "musculoskeletal" (1,050/1,419; 74.0%) and "cardiothoracics" (241; 17.0%); the most frequently studied categories of pathologies are joint pathologies (463; 32.6%) and nervous system pathologies (175; 12.3%); and the most frequently studied body part is the "lower leg or knee" (232; 16.3%). Most studies investigate index tests which are "physical examination" procedures (851; 60.0%); fewer investigate "questions or questionnaires" (420; 29.6%) and "health technologies" (351; 24.7%). Discussion: There is a rapidly growing body of evidence on the accuracy of diagnostic tests relevant to most physiotherapy subdisciplines. While the volume of evidence is substantial, it is not yet clear how much of the evidence is of good enough quality to support clinical decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: The effects of altered neural processing, defined as altering neural networks responsible for perceptions of pain and function, on chronic pain remains unclear.Objective: To estimate the effect of a graded sensorimotor retraining intervention (RESOLVE) on pain intensity in people with chronic low back pain.Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 2-group, randomized clinical trial recruited participants with chronic (>3 months) nonspecific low back pain from primary care and community settings. A total of 276 adults were randomized (in a 1:1 ratio) to the intervention or sham procedure and attention control groups delivered by clinicians at a medical research institute in Sydney, Australia. The first participant was randomized on December 10, 2015, and the last was randomized on July 25, 2019. Follow-up was completed on February 3, 2020.Interventions: Participants randomized to the intervention group (n = 138) were asked to participate in 12 weekly clinical sessions and home training designed to educate them about and assist them with movement and physical activity while experiencing lower back pain. Participants randomized to the control group (n = 138) were asked to participate in 12 weekly clinical sessions and home training that required similar time as the intervention but did not focus on education, movement, and physical activity. The control group included sham laser and shortwave diathermy applied to the back and sham noninvasive brain stimulation.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity at 18 weeks, measured on an 11-point numerical rating scale (range, 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain imaginable]) for which the between-group minimum clinically important difference is 1.0 point.Results: Among 276 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 46 [14.3] years; 138 [50%] women), 261 (95%) completed follow-up at 18 weeks. The mean pain intensity was 5.6 at baseline and 3.1 at 18 weeks in the intervention group and 5.8 at baseline and 4.0 at 18 weeks in the control group, with an estimated between-group mean difference at 18 weeks of -1.0 point ([95% CI, -1.5 to -0.4]; P = .001), favoring the intervention group.Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial conducted at a single center among patients with chronic low back pain, graded sensorimotor retraining, compared with a sham procedure and attention control, significantly improved pain intensity at 18 weeks. The improvements in pain intensity were small, and further research is needed to understand the generalizability of the findings.Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12615000610538. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors reflect on 15 years of existence of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), a free resource that indexes published randomised controlled trials (RCT), systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines relevant to physiotherapy. Topics discussed include the growth in the number of published RCTs and systematic reviews relevant to physiotherapy, the key features of PEDro, and enhancement projects to increase access and uptake of the database.

• First head-to-head comparison of QUADAS, QUADAS-2, DAQS measurement properties. • Inter-tester reliability of individual items of the tools was poor. • Summary scores were imprecise and convergent validity was often low. • The quality of the included studies was mixed. • A new quality assessment tool should exclude items relating to generalizability. To determine the reliability, internal consistency, measurement error, convergent validity, and floor and ceiling effects of three quality assessment tools commonly used to evaluate the quality of diagnostic test accuracy studies in physical therapy. A secondary aim was to describe the quality of a sample of diagnostic accuracy studies. 50 studies were randomly selected from a comprehensive database of physical therapy-relevant diagnostic accuracy studies. Two reviewers independently rated each study with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS), Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) and Diagnostic Accuracy Quality Scale (DAQS) tools in random sequence. Only 7% of QUADAS items, 14% of QUADAS-2 items, and 33% of DAQS items had at least moderate inter-rater reliability (kappa > 0.40). Internal consistency and convergent validity measures were acceptable (>0.70) in 33% and 50% of cases respectively. Floor or ceiling effects were not present in any tool. The quality of studies was mixed: most avoided case–control sampling strategies and used the same reference standard on all subjects, but many failed to enroll a consecutive or random sample of subjects or provide confidence intervals about estimates of diagnostic accuracy. The QUADAS, QUADAS-2 and DAQS tools provide unreliable estimates of the quality of studies of diagnostic accuracy in physical therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]