Search

The quality of reporting of health economic evaluations for rehabilitation services has been questioned, limiting the ability to provide accurate recommendations for health decisions.To document current overall reporting quality of the published literature for economic evaluations of rehabilitation services using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and to identify factors that could influence the quality of reporting.Electronic literature searches were performed using MEDLINE and the NHS Economic Evaluations DatabaseProspective rehabilitation economic evaluation articles from 2013 to 2020 were selected.Data were extracted by one reviewer and independently verified by a second reviewer.Title and abstracts of 3,454 papers were reviewed. 204 papers were selected for a full text screening. From those, 129 potential papers were identified to be included in this study.Only two databases were used in data collection, and papers were selected from 2013 to 2020 only.Inconsistent reporting in health economic evaluations of rehabilitation services has continued, despite the availability of the CHEERS checklist. The methods of the analyzed studies were frequently under-reported, thereby creating challenges in determining whether the results reported were valid.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONVariable quality of reporting has been identified in rehabilitation research assessing cost-effectiveness.To grow as an area of expertise, the field of rehabilitation must produce research demonstrating its cost-effectiveness.Both rehabilitation clinicians and funders would benefit from full and transparent information to identify optimal solutions for effective and efficient care.

Objective This study aimed to verify a possible relationship between shoulder disability and shoulder pain intensity and the variables related to cervical-spine dysfunction, and determine which of these can differentiate moderate to severe shoulder pain (>4 on a numerical rating scale [NRS]) from mild shoulder pain (≤4 on the NRS) in individuals with subacromial impingement symptoms. Methods One hundred and forty volunteers with shoulder pain were evaluated. Demographic information and variables related to the shoulder and neck were collected. Self-reported pain and disability of the shoulder and cervical spine were measured using the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) questionnaires, respectively. An NRS was used to measure pain in the shoulder and cervical spine. A purposeful modeling strategy was used to determine the best model to predict shoulder disability and shoulder pain (dependent variables). Multiple logistic regression analysis followed by receiver operating curve analysis was used to determine which variables better differentiated moderate to severe shoulder pain from mild shoulder pain. Results Variables such as Neck Disability Index (NDI) score (β = 1.09, P = .00) and age (β = −0.19, P = .03) were associated with the total SPADI score. Neck pain was significantly associated with shoulder pain (β = 0.40, P = .00). The combination of variables predicting moderate to severe shoulder pain was total SPADI score (odds ratio [OR] = 1.15, P = .003), neck pain (OR = 3.20, P = .04), and age (OR = 1.01, P = .05). Conclusion Our results demonstrate the important connection between shoulder- and neck-related symptoms in individuals with subacromial impingement symptoms.

Background Sponsorship bias could affect research results to inform decision makers when using the results of these trials. The extent to which sponsorship bias affect results in the field of physical therapy has been unexplored in the literature. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of sponsorship bias on the treatment effects of randomized controlled trials in physical therapy area. Methods This was a meta-epidemiological study. A random sample of randomized controlled trials included in meta-analyses of physical therapy area were identified. Data extraction including assessments of appropriate influence of funders was conducted independently by two reviewers. To determine the association between biases related to sponsorship biases and effect sizes, a two-level analysis was conducted using a meta-meta-analytic approach. Results We analyzed 393 trials included in 43 meta-analyses. The most common sources of sponsorship for this sample of physical therapy trials were government (n = 205, 52%), followed by academic (n = 44, 11%) and industry (n = 39, 10%). The funding was not declared in a high percentage of the trials (n = 85, 22%). The influence of the trial sponsor was assessed as being appropriate in 246 trials (63%) and considered inappropriate/unclear in 147 (37%) of them. We have moderate evidence to say that trials with inappropriate/unclear influence of funders tended to have on average a larger effect size than those with appropriate influence of funding (effect size = 0.15; 95% confidence interval = -0.03 to 0.33). Conclusions Based on our sample of physical therapy trials, it seems that most of the trials are funded by either government and academia and a small percentage are funded by the industry. Treatment effect size estimates were on average 0.15 larger in trials with lack of appropriate influence of funders as compared with trials with appropriate influence of funding. Contrarily to other fields, industry funding was relatively small and their influence perhaps less marked. All these results could be explained by the relative youth of the field and/or the absence of clear industry interests. In front of the call for action by the World Health Organization to strengthen rehabilitation in health systems, these results raise the issue of the need of public funding in the field.

Objective Some recent studies suggest that double blinding should not be considered a validity criterion in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on real-life circumstances. This study aims to assess whether blinding vs. nonblinding have been analyzed conceptually in the rehabilitation literature. Propositions on the role of blinding in RCTs on rehabilitation are presented based on the conceptual analysis. Design Study questions, literature search strategy, and inclusion and exclusion criteria for the original studies were formulated. A health science librarian carried out the literature search. Eligibility was assessed and data extraction was performed by two independent researchers. Results The literature search identified a total of 1052 citations, of which 13 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. None of the included studies answered our research questions, and thus we were unable to extract any relevant data. Conclusions The ideas on blinding vs. nonblinding in RCTs have not been considered in the rehabilitation research literature. This conceptual systematic review proposes that a physical therapy modality is a single core element, and when the study question is on effectiveness of this single core element itself, double blinding in an RCT is indicated. In all other RCTs in rehabilitation, double blinding is not indicated and double blinding should not be considered a criterion for the assessment of risk of bias.

BACKGROUND: One of the goals of Cochrane Rehabilitation is to strengthen methodology relevant to evidence-based clinical practice. Toward this goal, several research activities have been performed in rehabilitation literature: a scoping review listed the methodological issues in research, a study showed the low clinical replicability of randomized controlled trials, two systematic reviews showed the relevant items in reporting guidelines, and a series of articles discussed main methodological issues as a result of the first Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodological Meeting (Paris 2018). The need to improve the quality of conduct and reporting of research studies in rehabilitation emerged as a relevant task. The aim of this article is to present the Randomized Controlled Trial Rehabilitation Checklists (RCTRACK) project to produce a specific reporting guideline in rehabilitation. METHODS: The project followed a combination of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and EQUATOR Network methodologies. The project includes five phases. The first is kick-off, first consensus meeting and executive and advisory committee identification. The second is literature search and synthesis, where eight working groups will produce knowledge synthesis products (systematic or scoping reviews) to compile items relevant to reporting of randomized controlled trials in rehabilitation. The topics will be as follows: patient selection; blinding; treatment group; control group and co-interventions; attrition, follow-up, and protocol deviation; outcomes; statistical analysis and appropriate randomization; and research questions. The third is guidelines development, which means drafting of a document with the guidelines through a consensus meeting. The fourth is Delphi process consensus, a Delphi study involving all the rehabilitation research and methodological community. The fifth is final consensus meeting and publication. CONCLUSIONS: The RCTRACK will be an important contribution to the rehabilitation field and will impact several groups of rehabilitation stakeholders worldwide. The main goal is to improve the quality of the evidence produced in rehabilitation research. The RCTRACK also wants to improve the recognition and understanding of rehabilitation within Cochrane and the scientific and medical community at large. ispartof: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE & REHABILITATION vol:99 issue:3 pages:210-215 ispartof: location:United States status: published

BACKGROUND Long-term therapy for psoriasis is impaired by gradual loss of effectiveness and treatment discontinuation. Identifying factors that affect biologic drug survival may help in treatment optimization. OBJECTIVES To identify factors that predicted biologic drug persistence or discontinuation in a real-life setting. METHODS We identified studies of biologic persistence in psoriasis through a comprehensive, systematic literature search using predefined search criteria. Studies were screened by title and abstract then further by full-text review. Hazard ratio (HR) data were extracted for all available predictive factors (HRs > 1 denoted biologic discontinuation, and HRs < 1 denoted biologic persistence). A meta-analysis of HRs (random-effects model) was used to assess any predictive factor included in at least two studies. RESULTS Sixteen cohort studies were included in the review, with a total of 32 194 patients. A meta-analysis was performed on 13 studies (n = 29 802): nine for female sex (n = 28 090), six for obesity (n = 9311) and six for psoriatic arthritis (n = 24 444). Obesity and female sex predicted treatment discontinuation, with HRs of 1.21 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.32, I2 = 0%] and 1.22 (95% CI 1.07-1.38, I2 = 84%), respectively. Concomitant psoriatic arthritis predicted biologic persistence (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.80-0.86, I2 = 0%). Female sex predicted biologic discontinuation due to side-effects, with a pooled HR of 2.16 (95% CI 1.39-3.35, I2 = 67%). Other reported predictive factors (smoking, metabolic syndrome, biologic naivety, age, Dermatology Life Quality Index, dyslipidaemia, high socioeconomic status and concomitant methotrexate) were insufficiently reported for meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS Our meta-analysis demonstrates that female sex and obesity predict biologic discontinuation, and concomitant psoriatic arthritis predicts biologic survival. What's already known about this topic? Ineffectiveness is the main factor that causes drug discontinuation during long-term treatment of psoriasis. It is unclear which factors and comorbidities impact drug persistence. What does this study add? Female sex and obesity predict biologic discontinuation due to ineffectiveness and adverse events. Concomitant psoriatic arthritis is associated with improved drug persistence.

To determine which factors influence and better differentiate between good and poor oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in patients with myogenous TMD and which cut-off could predict a good/poor OHRQoL.Fifty-eight women with myogenous TMD were included. Factors of interest were collected (i.e., demographic variables, depression symptoms (Symptom Checklist-90 R (RDC/TMD)), pain intensity (Visual Analog Scale), jaw function (Mandibular Functional Limitation Questionnaire), and OHRQoL (Oral Health Impact Profile-14). A multivariable regression model, logistic regression, and receiver operating curve (ROC) analyses were conducted.Depression symptoms (β = 0.139) and jaw function (β = 0.478) were significantly associated with OHRQoL in the multivariable model. The best model to discriminate between good/poor OHRQoL included only jaw function (AUC = 0.90), with the best cut-off of 17 points (sensitivity: 0.93; specificity: 0.79).Depression symptoms and jaw function were significantly associated with OHRQoL. The best model and cut-off to discriminate good/poor OHRQoL included only jaw function.

To synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of mass media campaigns for the management of LBP on beliefs of the general public and health care providers, LBP-related disability, health utilization, and LBP clinical outcomes. Five electronic databases were searched from inception to December 17, 2019. Any studies evaluating the effectiveness of mass media campaigns for LBP were eligible. Primary outcome was general public LBP beliefs, while secondary outcomes included health care provider beliefs as well as LBP-related disability, health utilization, and clinical outcomes. The search resulted in 4,164 unique records, of which 18 studies were included. These 18 studies predominantly used quasi-experimental methods to evaluate seven LBP mass media campaigns conducted in seven countries. All studies evaluating LBP beliefs in the general public detected positive effects. Health care provider beliefs also consistently improved. Results for behavioural outcomes (disability behaviour and health utilization) were mixed and appeared dependent on campaign characteristics and local context. Mass media campaigns for LBP appear effective for improving beliefs of the general public and health care providers. Prospero CRD42018116797IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONMass media campaigns about low back pain (LBP) appear effective for improving beliefs of the general public and health care providers, aligning beliefs with current evidence and self-management principles.Rehabilitation professionals should be aware of and seek to support public education initiatives in their communities related to LBP and other disabling health conditions.Rehabilitation professionals can highlight and reinforce campaign messages when providing education and reassurance to individual patients.Several campaign resources (i.e., posters, pamphlets, electronic resources, etc.) are available for rehabilitation professionals to use in their efforts to reduce disability related to LBP. Mass media campaigns about low back pain (LBP) appear effective for improving beliefs of the general public and health care providers, aligning beliefs with current evidence and self-management principles. Rehabilitation professionals should be aware of and seek to support public education initiatives in their communities related to LBP and other disabling health conditions. Rehabilitation professionals can highlight and reinforce campaign messages when providing education and reassurance to individual patients. Several campaign resources (i.e., posters, pamphlets, electronic resources, etc.) are available for rehabilitation professionals to use in their efforts to reduce disability related to LBP.

OBJECTIVE To summarize evidence regarding the prevalence and incidence of low back pain and associated risk factors in nursing and medical students. TYPE: Systematic review and meta-analysis. LITERATURE SURVEY The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015029729). Its reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Seven databases were searched until August 2020 to identify relevant studies. METHODOLOGY Two independent reviewers screened, extracted, and evaluated the risk of bias of the selected studies. Meta-analyses were used to estimate 12-month prevalence/incidence rates of low back pain and associated risk factors in these students. Levels of evidence for risk factors were determined by the updated Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. SYNTHESIS Sixteen studies involving 7072 students were included. The pooled 12-month prevalence rates of low back pain for nursing and medical students were 44% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 27%-61%) and 53% (95% CI: 44%-62%), respectively. The 12-month incidence of low back pain in nursing students ranged from 29% to 67%. No incidence rate was reported in medical students. Strong/moderate-quality evidence supported that final year of study (pooled odds ratio [OR] from five studies, 1.96, 95% CI: 1.13-3.40), anxiety (OR ranging from 3.12 to 4.61), or high mental pressure or psychological distress (OR ranging from 1.37 to 4.52) was associated with a higher 12-month low back pain prevalence in both student groups. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that prior history of low back pain (pooled OR from two studies: 3.46, 95% CI: 1.88-6.36) was associated with a higher 12-month low back pain incidence in nursing students. Similarly, moderate-quality evidence suggested that female medical students (pooled OR from two studies: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.09-2.86) demonstrated a higher 12-month low back pain prevalence than male counterparts. CONCLUSIONS Although it is impossible to alter nonmodifiable risk factors for low back pain, universities may develop and implement proper strategies to mitigate modifiable risk factors in these students.

Introduction Attrition, missing data, compliance, and related biases are three interrelated concepts. Previous research has found that these biases can affect the treatment estimates of randomized trials (RCTs). The extent to which the effects of attrition, missing data, compliance and related biases influence effect size estimates in rehabilitation as well as the effect of analytic strategies to mitigate these biases is unknown. Evidence acquisition To compile and synthetize the empirical evidence regarding the effects of attrition and compliance related biases on treatment effect estimates in rehabilitation RCTs. Electronic searches were conducted. Studies were included if they investigated the effects of attrition, missing data, compliance and related biases on treatment estimates. The seven studies meeting inclusion criteria were coded for type of biases and summarized using a narrative and/or quantitative approach when appropriate. Evidence synthesis Findings demonstrated that trials reporting higher levels of attrition (differences in ES: 0.18 [95%CI: 0.15, 0.22 ]), exclusion of participants from analyses (differences in ES: 0.13 [95% CI: -0.03, 0.29]), lack of good control of incomplete outcome data (differences in ES: 0.14 [95%CI: -0.02, 0.30]) and analysis by "as treated"(differences in ES:-0.39 [95%CI: -0.99, 0.2]) or "per protocol" (differences in ES:-0.46 [95%CI: -0.92, 0]) analyses were more likely to have higher effects than those that did not. Conclusions These findings suggest that attrition, missing data, compliance, and related biases have an influence in treatment effect estimates in rehabilitation trials. Therefore, these results should be taken into consideration when designing, conducting and reporting trials in the rehabilitation field.

Background The craniocervical flexion test (CCFT) is recommended when examining patients with neck pain related conditions and as a deep cervical retraining exercise option. During the execution of the CCFT the examiner should visually assess that the amount of craniocervical flexion range of motion (ROM) progressively increases. However, this task is very subjective. The use of inertial wearable sensors may be a user-friendly option to measure and objectively monitor the ROM. The objectives of our study were (1) to measure craniocervical flexion range of motion (ROM) associated with each stage of the CCFT using a wearable inertial sensor and to determine the reliability of the measurements and (2) to determine craniocervical flexion ROM targets associated with each stage of the CCFT to standardize their use for assessment and training of the deep cervical flexor (DCF) muscles. Methods Adults from a university community able to successfully perform the CCFT participated in this study. Two independent examiners evaluated the CCFT in two separate sessions. During the CCFT, a small wireless inertial sensor was adhered to the centre of the forehead to provide real-time monitoring and to record craniocervical flexion ROM. The intra- and inter-rater reliability of the assessment of craniocervical ROM was calculated. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of CEU San Pablo University (236/17/08). Results Fifty-six participants (18 males, 23 females; mean [SD] age, 21.8 [3.45] years) were included in the study and successfully completed the study protocol. All interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values indicated good or excellent reliability of the assessment of craniocervical ROM using a wearable inertial sensor. There was high variability between subjects on the amount of craniocervical ROM necessary to achieve each stage of the CCFT. Conclusions The use of inertial sensors is a reliable method to measure the craniocervical flexion ROM associated with the CCFT. The great variability in the ROM limits the possibility to standardize a set of targets of craniocervical flexion ROM equivalent to each of the pressure targets of the pressure biofeedback unit.

Background In this meta-epidemiological study, we aimed to examine associations between treatment effect size estimates and sponsorship bias in oral health randomized clinical trials. Methods We selected oral health related meta-analyses that included a minimum of five randomized controlled trials. We extracted data, in duplicate, related to influence of sponsorship bias. We quantified the extent of bias associated with influence of sponsorship on the magnitude of effect size estimates of continuous variables using a two-level meta-meta-analytic approach with random-effects models to allow for intra- and inter-meta-analysis heterogeneity. Results We initially identified 540 randomized trials included in 64 meta-analyses. Risk of sponsorship bias was judged as being “unclear” in 72.8% (n = 393) of the trials, while it was assessed as “low” in 16.7% (n = 90) and as “high” in 10.6% (n = 57) of the trials. Using a meta-epidemiological analysis (37 meta-analyses, including 328 trials that analyzed 85,934 patients), we identified statistically significant larger treatment effect size estimates in trials that had ”high or unclear” risk of sponsorship bias (difference in treatment effect size estimates=0.10; 95% confidence intervals: 0.02 to 0.19) than in trials that had “low” risk of sponsorship bias. Conclusions We identified significant differences in treatment effect size estimates between dental trials based on sponsorship bias. Treatment effect size estimates were 0.10 larger in trials with “high or unclear” risk of sponsorship bias. Practical Implications Clinicians should have an adequate knowledge of sponsorship bias in a clinical trial and be able to estimate the degree to which the conclusions of a systematic review are synthesized and interpreted, based on trials with low risk of sponsorship bias.

Background: Studies exploring interventions targeting the cervical spine to improve symptoms in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are limited. Objectives: To determine whether mobilisation of the upper cervical region and craniocervical flexor training decreased orofacial pain, increased mandibular function and pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) of the masticatory muscles and decreased headache impact in women with TMD when compared to no intervention. Methods: In a single‐blind randomised controlled trial, 61 women with TMD were randomised into an intervention group (IG) and a control group (CG). The IG received upper cervical mobilisations and neck motor control and stabilisation exercises for 5 weeks. The CG received no treatment. Outcomes were collected by a blind rater at baseline and 5‐week follow‐up. Orofacial pain intensity was collected once a week. A mixed ANOVA and Cohen's d were used to determine differences within/between groups and effect sizes. Results: Pain intensity showed significant time‐by‐group interaction (P < 0.05), with significant between‐group differences at four and five weeks (P < 0.05), with large effect sizes (d > 0.8). The decrease in orofacial pain over time was clinically relevant only in the IG. Change in headache impact was significantly different between groups, and the IG showed a clinically relevant decrease after the treatment. No effects were found for PPT or mandibular function. Conclusion: Women with TMD reported a significant decrease in orofacial pain and headache impact after 5 weeks of treatment aimed at the upper cervical spine compared to a CG.

Fall prevention exercise programs have been reported to be effective in minimizing falls in older adults. However, adherence and attrition in exercise programs remain a challenge. This study reviewed the evidence on how levels of adherence and attrition in fall prevention exercise programs may affect magnitude of effect of fall risk reduction in community-dwelling older adults. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on fall prevention exercise programs for community-dwelling older adults aged 65+ years published between 2005 and 2016 from six databases were undertaken. Twenty articles met inclusion criteria. Results showed that program adherence >80% may result in greater fall risk reduction compared to lower levels of adherence. A possible inverse relationship exists between attrition levels and effect sizes of fall prevention exercise programs. Future studies should properly report falls/fallers and a consensus on a standardized measure for reporting adherence to fall prevention exercise programs is recommended.

Context Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive, incurable interstitial lung disease with heavy symptom burden and poor quality of life. The last year of life is characterized by increased acute care utilization and hospital deaths. Clinical guidelines recommend early integration of palliative care but are rarely implemented. In 2012, we reorganized our clinic into a multidisciplinary team comprising two pulmonologists (expertise in interstitial lung disease and palliative respiratory care, respectively), nurse, respiratory therapist, physiotherapist, and a dietitian. We adopted an early integrated palliative approach with a focus on early symptom management and advance care planning starting at the first clinic visit. We designed a Multidisciplinary collaborative (MDC) care model with emphasis on community-based care to manage patients in their homes and support caregivers. Objectives Exploratory analysis of this model's association with acute care utilization in the last year of life and location of death was undertaken. Methods Data from deceased IPF patients before and after 2012 (non-MDC and MDC care model, respectively) were collected, and statistical analysis was performed. Results Patients in MDC care were 24.2 times less likely to have respiratory-related emergency room visits (95% CI: 3.12–187.44, P = 0.002), 2.32 times less likely to have respiratory-related hospitalizations (95% CI: 0.95–5.6, P = 0.064). The odds of achieving a home or hospice death in MDC care were 9.2 times compared to non-MDC care, who die mostly in the hospital (95% CI: 1.14–75, P = 0.037). Conclusions MDC care model for IPF was associated with reduced health care use in the last year of life and more home deaths.

Indexación: Scopus. The purpose of the study is to establish absolute reliability and concurrent validity between hand-held dynamometers (HHDs) and isokinetic dynamometers (IDs) in lower extremity peak torque assessment. Medline, Embase, CINAHL databases were searched for studies related to psychometric properties in muscle dynamometry. Studies considering standard error of measurement SEM (%) or limit of agreement LOA (%) expressed as percentage of the mean, were considered to establish absolute reliability while studies using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) were considered to establish concurrent validity between dynamometers. In total, 17 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The COSMIN checklist classified them between fair and poor. Using HHDs, knee extension LOA (%) was 33.59%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 23.91 to 43.26 and ankle plantar flexion LOA (%) was 48.87%, CI 35.19 to 62.56. Using IDs, hip adduction and extension; knee flexion and extension; and ankle dorsiflexion showed LOA (%) under 15%. Lower hip, knee, and ankle LOA (%) were obtained using an ID compared to HHD. ICC between devices ranged between 0.62, CI (0.37 to 0.87) for ankle dorsiflexion to 0.94, IC (0.91to 0.98) for hip adduction. Very high correlation were found for hip adductors and hip flexors and moderate correlations for knee flexors/extensors and ankle plantar/dorsiflexors. https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/med.2017.12.issue-1/med-2017-0052/med-2017-0052.xml

The primary objective of this study was to determine the structural and known-group validity as well as the inter-rater reliability of a test battery to evaluate the motor control of the craniofacial region. Seventy volunteers without TMD and 25 subjects with TMD (Axes I) per the DC/TMD were asked to execute a test battery consisting of eight tests. The tests were video-taped in the same sequence in a standardised manner. Two experienced physical therapists participated in this study as blinded assessors. We used exploratory factor analysis to identify the underlying component structure of the eight tests. Internal consistency (Cronbach's α), inter-rater reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient) and construct validity (ie, hypothesis testing-known-group validity) (receiver operating curves) were also explored for the test battery. The structural validity showed the presence of one factor underlying the construct of the test battery. The internal consistency was excellent (0.90) as well as the inter-rater reliability. All values of reliability were close to 0.9 or above indicating very high inter-rater reliability. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.93 for rater 1 and 0.94 for rater two, respectively, indicating excellent discrimination between subjects with TMD and healthy controls. The results of the present study support the psychometric properties of test battery to measure motor control of the craniofacial region when evaluated through videotaping. This test battery could be used to differentiate between healthy subjects and subjects with musculoskeletal impairments in the cervical and oro-facial regions. In addition, this test battery could be used to assess the effectiveness of management strategies in the craniofacial region.

Emerging evidence suggests that design flaws of randomized controlled trials can result in over- or underestimation of the treatment effect size (ES). The objective of this study was to examine associations between treatment ES estimates and adequacy of sequence generation, allocation concealment, and baseline comparability among a sample of oral health randomized controlled trials. For our analysis, we selected all meta-analyses that included a minimum of 5 oral health randomized controlled trials and used continuous outcomes. We extracted data, in duplicate, related to items of selection bias (sequence generation, allocation concealment, and baseline comparability) in the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Using a 2-level meta-meta-analytic approach with a random effects model to allow for intra- and inter-meta-analysis heterogeneity, we quantified the impact of selection bias on the magnitude of ES estimates. We identified 64 meta-analyses, including 540 randomized controlled trials analyzing 137,957 patients. Sequence generation was judged to be adequate (at low risk of bias) in 32% ( n = 173) of trials, and baseline comparability was judged to be adequate in 77.8% of trials. Allocation concealment was unclear in the majority of trials ( n = 458, 84.8%). We identified significantly larger treatment ES estimates in trials that had inadequate/unknown sequence generation (difference in ES = 0.13; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.25) and inadequate/unknown allocation concealment (difference in ES = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.27). In contrast, baseline imbalance (difference in ES = 0.01, 95% CI: –0.09 to 0.12) was not associated with inflated or underestimated ES. In conclusion, treatment ES estimates were 0.13 and 0.15 larger in trials with inadequate/unknown sequence generation and inadequate/unknown allocation concealment, respectively. Therefore, authors of systematic reviews using oral health randomized controlled trials should perform sensitivity analyses based on the adequacy of sequence generation and allocation concealment.

Purpose Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive neuromodulation tool that can be used to influence cortical brain activity to induce measurable behavioral changes. Although there is growing evidence that tDCS combined with behavioural language therapy could boost language recovery in patients with post-stroke aphasia, there is great variability in patient characteristics, treatment protocols, and outcome measures in these studies that poses challenges for analyzing the evidence. The purpose of this study is to critically analyze the methodological rigor of the evidence regarding the use of tDCS for post-stroke anomia. Method This critical review was conducted by searching four databases (MEDLINE, EMBase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL). Nineteen studies fully met the inclusion criteria. Three critical appraisal tools and Robey and Schultz’s (1998) five- phase model for conducting clinical outcome research were adopted to evaluate and analyze the current level of evidence. Methodological issues of the studies were also identified. Results The current level of evidence for using tDCS for anomia is at the pre-efficacy level with emerging evidence at the efficacy level. Lack of proper evaluation of carry-over effects in cross-over studies, lack of or unclear randomization, allocation concealment, and incomplete data handling were the main methodological issues that could threaten the validity of the tDCS for anomia studies. Conclusions Several methodological issues have been identified in pre-efficacy studies that pose challenges in determining whether tDCS is a beneficial adjunct to behavioral aphasia therapy. Future studies need to improve the quality of the methods used to investigate the effect of tDCS for anomia.

Objective The aim of the study was to assess the association between different types of blinding on treatment effects estimates in the area of rehabilitation. Methods Evidence synthesis was used for the design of the study. This study included any systematic review or meta-epidemiological study that investigated associations between any blinding component and treatment effects estimates in randomized control trials in the area of rehabilitation. The information obtained from the included studies was organized by type of blinding and summarized using a narrative and/or quantitative approach when possible. If there were enough data of estimates for any type of blinding, we decided to pool them in an exploratory fashion. Results The literature search identified a total of 1015 citations, of which 7 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Studies show overestimation, underestimation, or neutral associations for different types of blinding on treatment effects. Conclusions Associations were mixed and did not follow a consistent pattern. Lack/poor reporting of blinding, small sample sizes, and heterogeneity of data sets could have led to nonsignificant and inconsistent results obtained by the included studies. Although the evidence regarding the association between blinding and treatment effect estimates is still inconclusive in the rehabilitation field, based on the available literature, researchers should select creative solutions to avoid performance and detection bias.

Background There is an agreement that the methodological quality of randomized trials should be assessed in systematic reviews, but there is a debate on how this should be done. We conducted a construct validation study of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale, which is widely used to assess the quality of trials in physical therapy and rehabilitation. Methods We analyzed 345 trials that were included in Cochrane reviews and for which a PEDro summary score was available. We used one- and two-parameter logistic item response theory (IRT) models to study the psychometric properties of the PEDro scale and assessed the items' difficulty and discrimination parameters. We ran goodness of fit post estimations and examined the IRT unidimensionality assumption with a multidimensional IRT (MIRT) model. Results Out of a maximum of 10, the mean PEDro summary score was 5.46 (SD = 1.51). The allocation concealment and intention-to-treat scale items contributed most of the information on the underlying construct (with discriminations of 1.79 and 2.05, respectively) at similar difficulties (0.63 and 0.65, respectively). The other items provided little additional information and did not distinguish trials of different quality. There was substantial evidence of departure from the unidimensionality assumption, suggesting that the PEDro items relate to more than one latent trait. Conclusions Our findings question the construct validity of the PEDro scale to assess the methodological quality of clinical trials. PEDro summary scores should not be used; rather, the physiotherapy community should consider working with the individual items of the scale.

Objectives The objective of this study was to assess the agreement of treatment effect estimates from meta-analyses based on abbreviated or comprehensive literature searches. Study Design and Setting This was a meta-epidemiological study. We abbreviated 47 comprehensive Cochrane review searches and searched MEDLINE/Embase/CENTRAL alone, in combination, with/without checking references (658 new searches). We compared one meta-analysis from each review with recalculated ones based on abbreviated searches. Results The 47 original meta-analyses included 444 trials (median 6 per review [interquartile range (IQR) 3–11]) with 360045 participants (median 1,371 per review [IQR 685–8,041]). Depending on the search approach, abbreviated searches led to identical effect estimates in 34–79% of meta-analyses, to different effect estimates with the same direction and level of statistical significance in 15–51%, and to opposite effects (or effects could not be estimated anymore) in 6–13%. The deviation of effect sizes was zero in 50% of the meta-analyses and in 75% not larger than 1.07-fold. Effect estimates of abbreviated searches were not consistently smaller or larger (median ratio of odds ratio 1 [IQR 1–1.01]) but more imprecise (1.02–1.06-fold larger standard errors). Conclusion Abbreviated literature searches often led to identical or very similar effect estimates as comprehensive searches with slightly increased confidence intervals. Relevant deviations may occur.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to examine whether blinding of participants, assessors, health providers, and statisticians have an effect on treatment effect estimates in physical therapy (PT) trials. DESIGN This was a meta-epidemiological study. Randomized controlled trials in PT were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for meta-analyses of PT interventions. Assessments of blinding in PT trials were conducted independently following established guidelines. RESULTS Three hundred ninety-three trials and 43 meta-analyses that included 44,622 patients contributed to this study. Only a quarter of the trials were adequately blinded (n = 80; 20%). Most individual components of blinding as well as what they were blinded to were also poorly reported. Although trials with inappropriate blinding of assessors and participants tended to underestimate treatment effects when compared with trials with appropriate blinding of assessors and participants, the difference was not statistically significant (effect size, -0.07; 95% confidence interval, -0.22 to 0.08; effect size, -0.12; 95% confidence interval, -0.30 to 0.06, respectively). CONCLUSIONS The lack of statistical significance between blinding and effect sizes should not be interpreted as meaning that an impact of blinding on effect size is not present in PT. More empirical evidence in a larger sample is needed to determine which biases are likely to influence reported effect sizes of PT trials and under which conditions.

Aim Manual cranial bone tissue techniques (CBTT) are used by physiotherapists as a tool for assessment and treatment of complaints in the craniocervical, face, and head regions. The goal of this study was to determine whether CBTT were able to discriminate between subjects with cervical and/or temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and a healthy group. In addition, the inter-rater reliability when applying CBTT was also investigated. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted and included 60 participants. Six standardized passive techniques were applied and judged for resistance, compliance, and sensory answer. In order to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of these techniques a cohort of participants was measured twice (by two evaluators) prospectively. A logistic regression model and Receiver Operating Curve (ROC) analyses were used to determining the discriminative validity of these techniques. Results Logistic regression identified a significant difference for five techniques for resistance and/or compliance and/or the sensory answer between the groups. Based on the Area Under the Curve (AUC) analysis, the discriminative ability of the temporal rotation to distinguish between the groups was fair to good (for resistance AUC = 0.7775 and for compliance AUC = 0.8065). The highest agreement between the two assessors was for the resistance with occipital compression (73%) technique. Conclusion This study highlights that some of the CBTT could be potentially useful in distinguishing subjects with cervical and/or TMD from healthy subjects. Inter-rater reliability was moderate. CBTT could be potentially integrated in the examination of participants with complaints in the craniofacial region.

Background There are insufficient studies providing Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for outcomes related to temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Objectives (1) To provide the MCID of outcomes related to TMD using the Global Rating of Change Scale (GRCS) as an anchor. (2) To verify which outcomes can predict a moderate or large response to the treatment. Study design Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial in subjects with TMD. Methods Sixty-one women with TMD were divided into intervention and control groups. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) of masticatory muscles, Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire (MFIQ), and Craniocervical Flexion Test (CCFT) were collected at baseline and 5-weeks follow-up. Results Participants were divided based on their response to the treatment, according to the GRCS. MCID values were provided for subjects that moderately or largely improved to the treatment. MCID was between 0 and 1.90 for orofacial pain, around 2 points for the MFIQ, between 3 and 6.26 points for the HIT-6, around 0.2 kg/cm2 for the PPTs on masticatory muscles, around 2.5 mm for MMO and between 60 and 68 points for CCFT. Orofacial pain and HIT-6 were the most discriminative variables at determining whether patients would largely/moderately improve or would not improve after treatment. Conclusions The values of MCID could be used as guidance for both clinical practice and research. Pain intensity and headache impact were the most predictive outcomes for improvement of the general health status of women with TMD.

Background Evidence from new health technologies is growing, along with demands for evidence to inform policy decisions, creating challenges in completing health technology assessments (HTAs)/systematic reviews (SRs) in a timely manner. Software can decrease the time and burden by automating the process, but evidence validating such software is limited. We tested the accuracy of RobotReviewer, a semi-autonomous risk of bias (RoB) assessment tool, and its agreement with human reviewers. Methods Two reviewers independently conducted RoB assessments on a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and their consensus ratings were compared with those generated by RobotReviewer. Agreement with the human reviewers was assessed using percent agreement and weighted kappa (κ). The accuracy of RobotReviewer was also assessed by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve in comparison to the consensus agreement of the human reviewers. Results The study included 372 RCTs. Inter-rater reliability ranged from κ = -0.06 (no agreement) for blinding of participants and personnel to κ = 0.62 (good agreement) for random sequence generation (excluding overall RoB). RobotReviewer was found to use a high percentage of "irrelevant supporting quotations" to complement RoB assessments for blinding of participants and personnel (72.6%), blinding of outcome assessment (70.4%), and allocation concealment (54.3%). Conclusion RobotReviewer can help with risk of bias assessment of RCTs but cannot replace human evaluations. Thus, reviewers should check and validate RoB assessments from RobotReviewer by consulting the original article when not relevant supporting quotations are provided by RobotReviewer. This consultation is in line with the recommendation provided by the developers.

Background Scholarship cites health care managers (HCMs) as not using research evidence in their management practice. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to enhance HCMs use of research evidence in practice. Methods We carried out a systematic review and focus groups to validate the review findings. We searched 10 electronic databases for studies reporting on interventions for HCMs to enhance research utilization in their practice. Qualitative studies were analysed using Hoon’s approach to meta-synthesis. Results Seven, primarily qualitative, studies of varying quality (reported in 11 articles) met our inclusion criteria. Interventions to enhance research use by HCMs included: informal and formal training, computer-based application, executive-level knowledge translation activities and residency programmes. Studies did not report efficacy of interventions or impacts of increasing managers’ use of research on staff or patient outcomes. Meta-synthesis yielded four contextual factors influencing the perceived effectiveness of interventions to enhance research use by HCMs: organizational culture, competing priorities, time as a resource and capacity building. Included studies differed in how they defined research and demonstrated varying understandings of research among HCMs, limiting the generalizability of work in this field. Conclusions Healthcare managers are increasingly called upon to make evidence-based decisions in practice, but the small number of studies and diverse strategies employed hinder our ability to identify any intervention to increase use of evidence as superior. Future studies in this area should clearly articulate the definition of research evidence they base their decisions on. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42014006256)

Background Recent methodologic evidence suggests that lack of blinding in randomized trials can result in under- or overestimation of the treatment effect size. The objective of this study is to quantify the extent of bias associated with blinding in randomized controlled trials of oral health interventions. Methods We selected all oral health meta-analyses that included a minimum of five randomized controlled trials. We extracted data, in duplicate, related to nine blinding-related criteria, namely: patient blinding, assessor blinding, care-provider blinding, investigator blinding, statistician blinding, blinding of both patients and assessors, study described as “double blind”, blinding of patients, assessors, and care providers concurrently, and the appropriateness of blinding. We quantified the impact of bias associated with blinding on the magnitude of effect size using a two-level meta-meta-analytic approach with a random effects model to allow for intra- and inter-meta-analysis heterogeneity. Results We identified 540 randomized controlled trials, included in 64 meta-analyses, analyzing data from 137,957 patients. We identified significantly larger treatment effect size estimates in trials that had inadequate patient blinding (difference in treatment effect size = 0.12; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.23), lack of blinding of both patients and assessors (difference = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.32), and lack of blinding of patients, assessors, and care-providers concurrently (difference = 0.14; 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.25). In contrast, assessor blinding (difference = 0.06; 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.18), caregiver blinding (difference = 0.02; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.09), principal-investigator blinding (difference = − 0.02; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.06), describing a trial as “double-blind” (difference = 0.09; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.22), and lack of an appropriate method of blinding (difference = 0.06; 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.18) were not associated with over- or underestimated treatment effect size. Conclusions We found significant differences in treatment effect size estimates between oral health trials based on lack of patient and assessor blinding. Treatment effect size estimates were 0.19 and 0.14 larger in trials with lack of blinding of both patients and assessors and blinding of patients, assessors, and care-providers concurrently. No significant differences were identified in other blinding criteria. Investigators of oral health systematic reviews should perform sensitivity analyses based on the adequacy of blinding in included trials. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0491-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction Hope is recognised as an important factor in health, illness, and well-being. Many scales to measure hope have been developed and used in various disciplines, yet, their psychometric properties have not been systematically reviewed. Aim To systematically review the psychometric properties of hope scales. Design Systematic review. Methods Four electronic databases were searched followed by a hand search. The data were extracted and qualitatively evaluated by the COSMIN checklist, an instrument designed as a quality rating tool for systematic reviews of psychometric properties. Results From 1271 retrieved abstracts, 68 papers met the inclusion criteria. The most used scale was the Snyder Hope Scale (46%) followed by the Herth Hope Index (16%). All other scales (n = 16) were evaluated in less than 10% of the papers. Structural validity (91%), internal consistency (88%), and hypothesis testing (74%) were the most reported properties. Reliability (34%), cross-cultural validity (34%), content validity (25%), and criterion validity (15%) were reported in less than 50% of the papers. Only two (3%) studies reported responsiveness, and none reported measurement error. Less than 35% of the validation studies achieved excellent or good quality for any of the measurement properties. Conclusion The results show that no robust and valid scale exists for measuring hope. It highlights important gaps in psychometric properties of hope scales. Despite more than 40 years of research and development of hope scales, the currently available scales do not meet the standards of psychometric evaluation. This calls for efforts to improve the quality of hope scales.

Global advances in pain relief have improved the quality of life of cancer populations. Yet, variation in cancer pain outcomes has been found in populations with social disparities compared to mainstream groups. Populations with social disparities bear an inequitable distribution of resources such as ethnic minorities, low income individuals, and women in vulnerable circumstances. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of non-pharmacological cancer pain interventions in cancer populations with social disparities of income, ethnicity, or gender. Randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, and before and after studies were targeted through comprehensive multidatabase searches. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts for potentially relevant studies and reviewed the full text of relevant articles for inclusion. Data were extracted from included studies by one reviewer and verified by another reviewer. Four reviewers independently completed quality assessment. Studies were grouped by intervention. Effects were evaluated for heterogeneity and pooled. The search found 5219 potential records. Full text of 26 reports was evaluated. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met inclusion criteria, targeting ethnic minorities and underserved populations and/or women. Interventions included education, coaching, and online support groups. Studies found no significant differences in pain reduction between intervention and control groups or between ethnic minorities and their counterparts. A high risk of bias was found in all studies. Meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference on pain intensity among underserved groups, ethnic minorities, or between ethnic minorities and white counterparts. Results show the need to examine supportive care interventions particularly in populations with social disparities.

Background The aim of this study was to compare muscle activation onset times of knee muscles between the involved and uninvolved knee of patients with unilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), and the uninjured knees of healthy subjects after a controlled perturbation at the ankle level. Methods Fifty male amateur soccer players, 25 with unilateral ACLR using semitendinosus-gracilis graft (age = 28.36 ± 7.87 years; time after surgery = 9 ± 3 months) and 25 uninjured control subjects (age = 24.16 ± 2.67 years) participated in the study. Two destabilizing platforms (one for each limb) generated a controlled perturbation at the ankle of each participant (30°of inversion, 10°plantarflexion simultaneously) in a weight bearing condition. The muscle activation onset times of semitendinosus (ST) and vastus medialis (VM) was detected through an electromyographic (EMG) analysis to assess the neuromuscular function of knee muscles. Results Subjects with ACLR had significant delays in EMG onset in the involved (VM = 99.9 ± 30 ms; ST = 101.7 ± 28 ms) and uninvolved knee (VM = 100.4 ± 26 ms; ST = 104.7 ± 28 ms) when compared with the healthy subjects (VM = 69.1 ± 9 ms; ST = 74.6 ± 9 ms). However, no difference was found between involved and uninvolved knee of the ACLR group. Discussion The results show a bilateral alteration of knee muscles in EMG onset after a unilateral ACLR, responses that can be elicited with an ankle perturbation. This suggests an alteration in the central processing of proprioceptive information and/or central nervous system re-organization that may affect neuromuscular control of knee muscles in the involved and uninvolved lower limbs.

Objective To assess the effects of abbreviated literature searches on evidence syntheses conclusions. Study design and setting We randomly selected 60 Cochrane reviews of clinical interventions and repeated literature searches using 14 abbreviated approaches (combinations of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL with and without searches of reference lists). If abbreviated searches missed included studies, we recalculated meta-analyses. Cochrane authors determined whether the new evidence base would change conclusions. We assessed the noninferiority of abbreviated searches allowing for a maximum of 10% changed conclusions. Results We conducted 840 abbreviated literature searches. Noninferiority varied based on the definition of “changed conclusion”. When the reduction of the certainty of a conclusion was of concern, all abbreviated searches were inferior. Searching Embase only rendered the greatest proportion of changed conclusions (27%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16%–40%); combining MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL with searches of references lists the lowest (8%, 95% CI 3%–18%). When falsely reaching an opposite conclusion was of concern, combining one database with another or with searches of reference lists was noninferior to comprehensive searches (2%, 95% CI: 0%–9%). Conclusion If decision-makers are willing to accept less certainty and a small risk for opposite conclusions, some abbreviated searches are viable options for rapid evidence syntheses. Decisions demanding high certainty require comprehensive searches.

Objectives To examine the risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodological quality of randomized clinical trials of oral health interventions and the development of these aspects over time. Methods We included 540 randomized clinical trials from 64 selected systematic reviews. We extracted, in duplicate, details from each of the selected randomized clinical trials with respect to publication and trial characteristics, reporting and methodologic characteristics, and Cochrane risk of bias domains. We analyzed data using logistic regression and Chi-square statistics. Results Sequence generation was assessed to be inadequate (at unclear or high risk of bias) in 68% (n = 367) of the trials, while allocation concealment was inadequate in the majority of trials (n = 464; 85.9%). Blinding of participants and blinding of the outcome assessment were judged to be inadequate in 28.5% (n = 154) and 40.5% (n = 219) of the trials, respectively. A sample size calculation before the initiation of the study was not performed/reported in 79.1% (n = 427) of the trials, while the sample size was assessed as adequate in only 17.6% (n = 95) of the trials. Two thirds of the trials were not described as double blinded (n = 358; 66.3%), while the method of blinding was appropriate in 53% (n = 286) of the trials. We identified a significant decrease over time (1955–2013) in the proportion of trials assessed as having inadequately addressed methodological quality items (P < 0.05) in 30 out of the 40 quality criteria, or as being inadequate (at high or unclear risk of bias) in five domains of the Cochrane risk of bias tool: sequence generation, allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data, other sources of bias, and overall risk of bias. Conclusions The risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodological quality of randomized clinical trials of oral health interventions have improved over time; however, further efforts that contribute to the development of more stringent methodology and detailed reporting of trials are still needed.

Context Cancer pain is prevalent, yet patients do not receive best care despite widely available evidence. Although national cancer control policies call for education, effectiveness of such programs is unclear and best practices are not well defined. Objectives To examine existing evidence on whether knowledge translation (KT) interventions targeting health care providers, patients, and caregivers improve cancer pain outcomes. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to evaluate primary studies that examined effects of KT interventions on providers and patients. Results Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies reported interventions targeting health care providers, four focused on patients or their families, one study examined patients and their significant others, and 16 studies examined patients only. Seven quantitative comparisons measured the statistical effects of interventions. A significant difference favoring the treatment group in least pain intensity (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44, 1.42) and in usual pain/average pain (95% CI: 0.13, 0.74) was observed. No other statistical differences were observed. However, most studies were assessed as having high risk of bias and failed to report sufficient information about the intervention dose, quality of educational material, fidelity, and other key factors required to evaluate effectiveness of intervention design. Conclusion Trials that used a higher dose of KT intervention (characterized by extensive follow-up, comprehensive educational program, and higher resource allocation) were significantly more likely to have positive results than trials that did not use this approach. Further attention to methodological issues to improve educational interventions and research to clarify factors that lead to better pain control are urgently needed.

Armijo-Olivo SL, Fuentes JP, Major PW, Warren S, Thie NM, Magee DJ. Is maximal strength of the cervical flexor muscles reduced in patients with temporomandibular disorders? Objective To determine whether there was a difference in maximal cervical flexor muscle strength in subjects with temporomandibular disorders (mixed and myogenous) compared with healthy subjects. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Orthopedics/sports laboratory at the University of Alberta. Participants Subjects (N=149) of whom 50 were healthy, 54 had myogenous temporomandibular disorders (TMD), and 45 had mixed TMD. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Maximal cervical flexor strength, pain. Results There was no statistically significant difference in maximal cervical flexor strength among groups ( P >.05). Subjects' body weight was significantly associated with strength. No significant association between jaw disability with maximal cervical flexor strength was found. A significant but weak association between neck disability and maximal cervical flexors strength was found. Conclusions These results indicated that strength evaluation is one of several assessment factors that need to be addressed when evaluating musculoskeletal painful conditions such as TMD and neck disorders, but strength evaluation cannot be considered as a direct measure of disability. Future studies should explore evaluation of strength in other muscular groups such as cervical extensors, rotators, and lateral flexors, and also under different conditions such as rapid movements, and in patients with more severe jaw disability.

PurposeWe aimed to identify and inventory clinical decision support (CDS) tools for helping front-line staff select interventions for patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders.MethodsWe used Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework which progresses through five stages: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting studies for analysis; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing and reporting results. We considered computer-based, and other available tools, such as algorithms, care pathways, rules and models. Since this research crosses multiple disciplines, we searched health care, computing science and business databases.ResultsOur search resulted in 4605 manuscripts. Titles and abstracts were screened for relevance. The reliability of the screening process was high with an average percentage of agreement of 92.3 %. Of the located articles, 123 were considered relevant. Within this literature, there were 43 CDS tools located. These were classified into 3 main areas: computer-based tools/questionnaires (n = 8, 19 %), treatment algorithms/models (n = 14, 33 %), and clinical prediction rules/classification systems (n = 21, 49 %). Each of these areas and the associated evidence are described. The state of evidentiary support for CDS tools is still preliminary and lacks external validation, head-to-head comparisons, or evidence of generalizability across different populations and settings.ConclusionsCDS tools, especially those employing rapidly advancing computer technologies, are under development and of potential interest to health care providers, case management organizations and funders of care. Based on the results of this scoping review, we conclude that these tools, models and systems should be subjected to further validation before they can be recommended for large-scale implementation for managing patients with MSK disorders.

BackgroundManual therapy (MT) and exercise have been extensively used to treat people with musculoskeletal conditions such as temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The evidence regarding their effectiveness provided by early systematic reviews is outdated.PurposeThe aim of this study was to summarize evidence from and evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of MT and therapeutic exercise interventions compared with other active interventions or standard care for treatment of TMD.Data SourcesElectronic data searches of 6 databases were performed, in addition to a manual search.Study SelectionRandomized controlled trials involving adults with TMD that compared any type of MT intervention (eg, mobilization, manipulation) or exercise therapy with a placebo intervention, controlled comparison intervention, or standard care were included. The main outcomes of this systematic review were pain, range of motion, and oral function. Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed.Data ExtractionData were extracted in duplicate on specific study characteristics.Data SynthesisThe overall evidence for this systematic review was considered low. The trials included in this review had unclear or high risk of bias. Thus, the evidence was generally downgraded based on assessments of risk of bias. Most of the effect sizes were low to moderate, with no clear indication of superiority of exercises versus other conservative treatments for TMD. However, MT alone or in combination with exercises at the jaw or cervical level showed promising effects.LimitationsQuality of the evidence and heterogeneity of the studies were limitations of the study.ConclusionsNo high-quality evidence was found, indicating that there is great uncertainty about the effectiveness of exercise and MT for treatment of TMD.

Objective: To evaluate the concurrent validity of a clinical decision support tool (Work Assessment Triage Tool (WATT)) developed to select rehabilitation treatments for injured workers with musculoskeletal conditions. Design: Methodological study with cross-sectional and prospective components. Setting: Data were obtained from the Workers’ Compensation Board of Alberta rehabilitation facility in Edmonton, Canada. Subjects: A total of 432 workers’ compensation claimants evaluated between November 2011 and June 2012. Main measures: Percentage agreement between the Work Assessment Triage Tool and clinician recommendations was used to determine concurrent validity. In claimants returning to work, frequencies of matching were calculated and compared between clinician and Work Assessment Triage Tool recommendations and the actual programs undertaken by claimants. The frequency of each intervention recommended by clinicians, Work Assessment Triage Tool, and case managers were also calculated and compared. Results: Percentage agreement between clinician and Work Assessment Triage Tool recommendations was poor (19%) to moderate (46%) and Kappa = 0.37 (95% CI −0.02, 0.76). The Work Assessment Triage Tool did not improve upon clinician recommendations as only 14 out of 31 claimants returning to work had programs that contradicted clinician recommendations, but were consistent with Work Assessment Triage Tool recommendations. Clinicians and case managers were inclined to recommend functional restoration, physical therapy, or no rehabilitation while the Work Assessment Triage Tool recommended additional evidence-based interventions, such as workplace-based interventions. Conclusions: Our findings do not provide evidence of concurrent validity for the Work Assessment Triage Tool compared with clinician recommendations. Based on these results, we cannot recommend further implementation of the Work Assessment Triage Tool. However, the Work Assessment Triage Tool appeared more likely than clinicians to recommend interventions supported by evidence; thus warranting further research.

Objectives The study of cervical muscles and their significance in the development and perpetuation of Temporomandibular Disorders has not been elucidated. Thus this project was designed to investigate the association between cervical musculoskeletal impairments and Temporomandibular Disorders. Material and Methods A sample of 154 subjects participated in this study. All subjects underwent a series of physical tests and electromyographic assessment (i.e. head and neck posture, maximal cervical muscle strength, cervical flexor and extensor muscles endurance, and cervical flexor muscle performance) to determine cervical musculoskeletal impairments. Results A strong relationship between neck disability and jaw disability was found (r = 0.82). Craniocervical posture was statistically different between patients with myogenous Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD) and healthy subjects. However, the difference was too small (3.3º) to be considered clinically relevant. Maximal cervical flexor muscle strength was not statistically or clinically different between patients with TMD and healthy subjects. No statistically significant differences were found in electromyographic activity of the sternocleidomastoid or the anterior scalene muscles in patients with TMD when compared to healthy subjects while executing the craniocervical flexion test (P = 0.07). However, clinically important effect sizes (0.42 - 0.82) were found. Subjects with TMD presented with reduced cervical flexor as well as extensor muscle endurance while performing the flexor and extensor muscle endurance tests when compared to healthy individuals. Conclusions Subjects with Temporomandibular Disorders presented with impairments of the cervical flexors and extensors muscles. These results could help guide clinicians in the assessment and prescription of more effective interventions for individuals with Temporomandibular Disorders.

Background The authors aimed to describe how often and by what means investigators assessed the risk of bias of clinical trials in systematic reviews of oral health interventions and to identify factors associated with risk of bias assessments. Methods The authors selected therapeutic oral health systematic reviews published from 1991 through 2014. They extracted data related to the tools used for risk of bias assessment of primary studies and data related to other review characteristics. They descriptively analyzed the data and used multivariate logistic regression. Results The authors identified 1,114 oral health systematic reviews (130 Cochrane reviews and 984 non-Cochrane reviews). The investigators of the primary studies assessed risk of bias in 61.4% of the reviews, and the risk of bias assessments occurred more often in Cochrane reviews than in non-Cochrane reviews (100% versus 56.3%; P Conclusions The investigators of primary studies did not undertake risk of bias assessment in a considerable portion of non-Cochrane oral health systematic reviews. The investigators of reviews published in dental journals were less likely to assess risk of bias than the investigators of reviews published in nondental journals. The results of this study provide evidence of the need for improving the conduct and reporting of oral health systematic reviews with respect to risk of bias assessment. Practical Implications Clinicians should determine to what extent the findings of a systematic review are valid on the basis of whether the investigators assessed and considered risk of bias during the interpretation of findings.

Objectives To determine whether the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) tool added to the predictive ability of established prognostic factors, including patient demographic and clinical outcomes, to predict return to work (RTW) in injured workers with musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders of the upper extremity. Methods A retrospective cohort study using a population-based database from the Workers’ Compensation Board of Alberta (WCB-Alberta) that focused on claimants with upper extremity injuries was used. Besides the DASH, potential predictors included demographic, occupational, clinical and health usage variables. Outcome was receipt of compensation benefits after 3 months. To identify RTW predictors, a purposeful logistic modelling strategy was used. A series of receiver operating curve analyses were performed to determine which model provided the best discriminative ability. Results The sample included 3036 claimants with upper extremity injuries. The final model for predicting RTW included the total DASH score in addition to other established predictors. The area under the curve for this model was 0.77, which is interpreted as fair discrimination. This model was statistically significantly different than the model of established predictors alone (p Conclusions The DASH tool together with other established predictors significantly helped predict RTW after 3 months in participants with upper extremity MSK disorders. An appealing result for clinicians and busy researchers is that DASH item 23 has equal predictive ability to the total DASH score.

Background Numerous tools and items have been developed in all health areas to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The Cochrane Collaboration (CC) released a new tool to assess bias in RCTs, based on empirical evidence quantifying the association between some design features and estimates of treatment effects (TEs). However, this evidence is limited to medicine and investigating a selected set of components. No such studies have been conducted in other health areas such as Physical Therapy (PT) and allied health professions. Evidence specific to the PT area is needed to understand and quantify the association between design features and TE estimates to inform practice and decision-making in this field. The overall goal of this project is to provide direction for the design, conduct, reporting and bias assessment of PT RCTs. We will achieve this through the following specific objectives and methods. Methods/Design 1) to measure the association between methodological components and other factors (for example, PT area, type of intervention, type of outcomes) and TE estimates in RCTs in PT, 40 randomly selected meta-analyses of RCTs involving PT interventions will be identified from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Trials will be evaluated independently by two reviewers using the most commonly used tools in the PT field. A two-level analysis will be conducted using a meta-meta-analytic approach; 2) to identify relevant items to evaluate risk of bias of PT trials, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) will be used to identify the latent structure of the items; 3) to develop guidelines for the design, conduct, reporting, and risk of bias assessment of PT RCTs, items obtained from the factor analysis and the meta-epidemiological approach will be further evaluated by experts in PT through a web-based survey following a Delphi procedure. Discussion The results of this project will have a direct impact on research and practice in PT and are valuable to a number of stakeholders: researchers when designing, conducting, and reporting trials; systematic reviewers and meta-analysts when synthesizing trial results; physiotherapists when making day-to-day treatment decision; and, other healthcare decision-makers, such as those developing policy or practice guidelines.

Background Assessing the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is crucial to understand how biases affect treatment effect estimates. A number of tools have been developed to evaluate risk of bias of RCTs; however, it is unknown how these tools compare to each other in the items included. The main objective of this study was to describe which individual items are included in RCT quality tools used in general health and physical therapy (PT) research, and how these items compare to those of the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool. Methods We used comprehensive literature searches and a systematic approach to identify tools that evaluated the methodological quality or risk of bias of RCTs in general health and PT research. We extracted individual items from all quality tools. We calculated the frequency of quality items used across tools and compared them to those in the RoB tool. Comparisons were made between general health and PT quality tools using Chi-squared tests. Results In addition to the RoB tool, 26 quality tools were identified, with 19 being used in general health and seven in PT research. The total number of quality items included in general health research tools was 130, compared with 48 items across PT tools and seven items in the RoB tool. The most frequently included items in general health research tools (14/19, 74%) were inclusion and exclusion criteria, and appropriate statistical analysis. In contrast, the most frequent items included in PT tools (86%, 6/7) were: baseline comparability, blinding of investigator/assessor, and use of intention-to-treat analysis. Key items of the RoB tool (sequence generation and allocation concealment) were included in 71% (5/7) of PT tools, and 63% (12/19) and 37% (7/19) of general health research tools, respectively. Conclusions There is extensive item variation across tools that evaluate the risk of bias of RCTs in health research. Results call for an in-depth analysis of items that should be used to assess risk of bias of RCTs. Further empirical evidence on the use of individual items and the psychometric properties of risk of bias tools is needed.