Search

Objective: To describe management strategies used in public emergency departments in a middle-income country for patients with acute non-specific low back pain., Design: A descriptive, cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a prospective cohort study., Setting and Participants: A study with 600 patients with low back pain presenting in four public emergency departments from São Paulo, Brazil was conducted., Outcome Measures: Diagnostic tests, pharmacological interventions, and/or referral to other healthcare professionals were collected. Descriptive analyses were used to report all outcomes., Results: Of all patients, 12.5% (n=75) underwent some diagnostic imaging tests. Medication was administered to 94.7% (n=568) of patients. The most common medications were non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (71.3%; n=428), opioids (29%; n=174) and corticosteroids (22.5%; n=135). Only 7.5% (n=45) of patients were referred to another type of care., Conclusion: There is a need for research data on low back pain from middle-income countries. There was an acceptable rate of prescription for diagnostic imaging tests. However, there were high medication prescriptions and small rates of referrals to other healthcare services. Our findings indicate that there is still a need to implement best practices in the management of acute low back pain at public emergency departments in Brazil., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Abstract: Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) has been used in several musculoskeletal disorders to reduce pain, inflammation, and promoting tissue regeneration. The current evidence about the effects of PBMT on low back pain (LBP) is still conflicting. We aimed to evaluate the effects of PBMT against placebo on pain intensity and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific LBP. This was a prospectively registered, randomised placebo-controlled trial, with blinded patients, therapists, and assessors. The study was conducted on an outpatient physical therapy clinic in Brazil, between April 2017 and May 2019. A total of 148 patients with chronic nonspecific LBP were randomised to either active PBMT (n = 74) or placebo (n = 74). Patients from both groups received 12 treatment sessions, 3 times a week, for 4 weeks. Patients from both groups also received an educational booklet based on "The Back Book." Clinical outcomes were measured at baseline and at follow-up appointments at 4 weeks, 3, 6, and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability measured at 4 weeks. We estimated the treatment effects using linear mixed models following the principles of intention-to-treat. There was no clinical important between-group differences in terms of pain intensity (mean difference = 0.01 point; 95% confidence interval = -0.94 to 0.96) and disability (mean difference = -0.63 points; 95% confidence interval = -2.23 to 0.97) at 4 weeks. Patients did not report any adverse events. Photobiomodulation therapy was not better than placebo to reduce pain and disability in patients with chronic nonspecific LBP., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Background: Abstracts of systematic reviews (SR) are frequently used to guide clinical decision-making. However, if the abstract is inadequately reported, key information may be missing and it may not accurately summarize the results of the review., Objective: We aimed to investigate 1) if abstracts are fully reported; 2) if abstract reporting is associated with review/journal characteristics in physical therapy for low back pain (LBP); and 3) if these abstracts are consistent with the corresponding full texts., Methods: We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database for SRs in physical therapy for LBP published between 2015 and 2017. Associations between abstract reporting quality and review/journal characteristics were explored with linear regression. Abstract reporting was assessed with the 12 item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) checklist. Consistency of reporting between abstracts and the full text was evaluated by comparing responses to each item of the PRISMA-A using Kappa coefficients. Methodological quality of the reviews was assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2)., Results: We included 66 SRs, 9 Cochrane and 57 non-Cochrane. Review methodological quality ranged from 'high' (8%) to 'critically low' (76%). The mean ± SD of the "total number of PRISMA-A fully reported items" (range 0-12 points for fully reported items) was 4.1 ± 1.9 points for non-Cochrane review abstracts and 9.9 ± 1.1 points for Cochrane abstracts. Factors associated with reporting quality of abstracts were: journal impact factor (ß 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.35), number of words in abstract (ß 0.01; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.01) and review methodological quality ('critically low' with ß -3.06; 95% CI: -5.30, -0.82; with 'high' as reference variable). There was typically inconsistent reporting between abstract and full text, with most Kappa values lower than 0.60., Conclusions: The abstracts of SRs in physical therapy for LBP were poorly reported and inconsistent with the full text. The reporting quality of abstracts was higher in journals with a higher impact factor, in abstracts with a greater number of words, and when the review was of higher methodological quality., (Copyright © 2020 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although Altmetric has been widely used by researchers to monitor the audience of their articles, there are no studies that have analysed factors associated with Altmetric score for systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines., Objectives: 1) To analyse factors that could be associated with Altmetric scores for low back pain systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. 2) To describe the characteristics of these articles and their Altmetric scores., Methods: We searched for all low back pain systematic reviews and guidelines indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database published between 2015 and 2017. We extracted data related to the published paper, the publishing journal, and Altmetric scores., Results: A total of 66 systematic reviews and 5 guidelines were included. The variable impact factor (independent variable) was associated with Altmetric mentioned score (dependent variable) with a β coefficient of 15.4 (95% CI: 0.97, 29.7) ajusted to all remaining variables. The variable number of citations normalized by year of publication (independent variable) was associated with Altmetric reader score (dependent variable) with a β coefficient of 6.4 (95% CI: 4.03, 8.72) ajusted to all remaining variables. We also found that the majority of the systematic reviews and guidelines were published in English, had a descriptive title, were published as open access, included multicenter studies, and had media release generated by the publishing journal., Conclusion: Metrics related to the number of citations, such as the impact factor are associated with Altmetric scores., (Copyright © 2020 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To analyze the association of impact factor of the journals publishing low back pain systematic reviews with whether these journals endorsed the PRISMA recommendations and the reviews methodological quality., Methods: We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database on January 2018 for all low back pain systematic reviews, published between 2015 and 2017. Our primary outcomes were PRISMA recommendations endorsement by the journal and 2017 journal impact factor. We assessed systematic review methodological quality using the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) and reported descriptive statistics. A multivariate linear regression model was built. We assessed 66 systematic reviews published in 42 journals. Thirty-seven journals had an impact factor (mean 4.0, SD 4.8). 55% journals endorsed the PRISMA recommendations. The methodological quality of 75.8% systematic reviews was critically low. Journals with higher impact factor were associated with journals endorsing the PRISMA recommendations (ß 3.7; 95% CI 1.2, 6.3), but were not associated with the reviews' methodological quality (ß - 0.3; 95% CI - 4.8, 4.3)., Limitations: Our findings may not be generalized to other study populations and interventions such as medical devices, surgery and medication., Conclusions: Three out of every four published low back pain systematic reviews had critically low methodological quality. Journals with higher impact factor were associated with journals endorsing the PRISMA recommendations. Clinicians must know how to critically appraise reviews. Journals' editorial policies should include the assessment of study methodological quality and reporting in the review process of an article. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Objective: To describe the main characteristics of low back pain randomized controlled trials on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and to rank the journals where these trials were published according to their Impact Factor., Methods: This is a cross sectional study based on a collection of randomized controlled trials. A random sample of 200 low back pain trials published between 2010 and 2015 were selected from Physiotherapy Evidence Database in February 2016. We collected the following main characteristics of trials: 2015 journal Impact Factor; if the paper was published as open access; CONSORT recommendations endorsement by the journal; methodological quality and statistical reporting measured by the 0-10 items Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Data was analyzed descriptively., Results: Trials were published in journals with a mean Impact Factor of 2.5 (SD 2.5), from which 55.5% endorsed the CONSORT recommendations. The methodological quality was moderate with 5.8 points (SD 1.6). The top 3 journals according to Impact Factor were: (1) British Medical Journal; (2) Annals of Internal Medicine; and (3) BMC Medicine. Only 6 out of 97 journals publishing low back pain trials combined the following factors: journal Impact Factor higher than 2.0, mean trial methodological quality higher than 6.0 points, endorse CONSORT recommendations and offering papers as open access., Conclusion: Clinicians interested in low back pain trials must look for a wide variety of healthcare journals. A substantial number of low back pain randomized controlled trials did not follow adequate reporting and methodological recommendations., (Copyright © 2018 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Systematically review the literature about all available interventions to manage non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) in older adults (≥60 years)., Design: We searched the Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, PEDro, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases reference lists for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing interventions for NSLBP. Two independent reviewers extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and completeness of the description of interventions., Results: Eighteen (RCTs) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Evidence about interventions to manage NSLBP in older adults is weak. Very low to moderate quality evidence showed that complementary health approach (i.e., manual therapy, acupuncture, mindfulness, yoga), percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS), education, exercise or pharmacological agents were not effective to produce a clinically significant reduction in pain and disability at short-term and intermediate-term compared to sham, usual care or minimal intervention. Interventions were moderately well-described according to the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) and the risk of bias was moderate 6.4 points on the 10-point PEDro Scale (SD=1.44)., Conclusion: Evidence about interventions for NSLP in older adults is limited and new studies are highly likely to change these results. This result may impact healthcare providers due to the lack of effective evidence based interventions, patients, and policy makers that will expend financial resources with interventions that provide in the best scenario a not significant improvement of the clinical symptoms. Researchers need to consider the importance of designing clinical trials targeting older adults and examine possible outcome modifiers present in this population allowing the recommendation of more efficacious evidence-based interventions., Systematic Review Registration Number: PROSPERO (CRD42016036686)., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: There is interest from authors and publishers in sharing the results of their studies over the Internet in order to increase their readership. In this way, articles tend to be discussed and the impact of these articles tends to be increased. In order to measure this type of impact, a new score (named Altmetric) was created. Altmetric aims to understand the individual impact of each article through the attention attracted online., Objective: The primary objective of this study was to analyze potential factors related with the publishing journal and the publishing trial that could be associated with Altmetric scores on a random sample of low back pain randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The secondary objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of these trials and their Altmetric scores., Methods: We searched for all low back pain RCTs indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; www.pedro.org.au) published between 2010 and 2015. A total of 200 articles were randomly selected, and we extracted data related to the publishing trial, the publishing journal, methodological quality of the trials (measured by the 0-10 item PEDro scale), and total and individual scores of Altmetric mentioned and Altmetric reader. The study was a cross-sectional study, and multivariate regression models and descriptive statistics were used., Results: A total of four variables were associated with Altmetric mentioned score: impact factor (β-coefficient=3.4 points), number of years since publication (β-coefficient=-4.9 points), number of citations divided by years since publication (β-coefficient=5.2 points), and descriptive title (β-coefficient=-29.4 points). Only one independent variable was associated with Altmetric reader score: number of citations divided by years since publication (β-coefficient=10.1 points, 95% CI 7.74-12.46). We also found that the majority of articles were published in English, with a descriptive title, and published in open access journals endorsing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement., Conclusions: Researchers should preferably select high impact factor journals for submission and use declarative or interrogative titles, as these factors are likely to increase the visibility of their studies in social media., (©Amanda Costa Araujo, Dafne Port Nascimento, Gabrielle Zoldan Gonzalez, Christopher G Maher, Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 05.04.2018.)

Background: Kinesio taping is a commonly used intervention for patients with chronic low back pain. However, the medium term effects of kinesio taping in these patients are unknown., Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of kinesio taping in patients with chronic low back pain after 6 months from randomization., Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial with a 6 months follow up. One hundred and forty eight participants were randomly assigned to the experimental (kinesio taping with skin convolutions) or control (kinesio taping without convolutions-Sham Taping) group. Participants from both groups had the tape reapplied twice a week for four weeks. The outcomes were pain, disability and global impression of recovery after 6 months., Results: One participant was lost to follow up in the experimental group (n=73, response rate 99%) and two in the control group (n=72, response rate 97%). After 6 months there were no statistically significant between-group differences in pain intensity (between-group difference -0.8 points, 95% CI -1.7 to 0.2), global impression of recovery (0.4, -0.7 to 1.5), or disability (-1.1, -3.0 to 0.7)., Conclusion: Four weeks of kinesio taping treatment was no better than sham taping for patients with chronic low back pain, at 6 months follow-up. Trial Registration Number (http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/): RBR-7ggfkv (Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials)., (Copyright © 2017 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the largest and most frequent public health problems worldwide. Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) is a frequently used non-pharmacological therapy for the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. However, there is little high-quality scientific evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of PBMT in the treatment of patients with chronic LBP in the short, medium and long term. Therefore, the objective of this clinical trial is to evaluate the effects of PBMT in patients with chronic non-specific LBP in the short, medium and long term., Methods and Analyses: This is a prospectively registered, two-arm randomised placebo-controlled trial with blinded patients, assessors and treatment providers. One hundred and forty-eight patients with chronic non-specific LBP will be recruited. Treatment sessions will be provided three times a week for 4 weeks (totaling 12 sessions) with patients receiving either placebo or active PBMT. For ethical reasons, all patients, regardless of treatment allocation, will also receive an information booklet based on 'The Back Book'. Clinical outcomes will be measured at baseline, at the end of treatment, as well as 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcomes will be pain intensity and disability measured after 12 sessions of treatment. The secondary outcomes will be pain intensity and disability measured at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation, in addition to specific disability and global perceived effect in all time points., Ethics and Dissemination: The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Universidade Cidade de São Paulo. The results will be disseminated through scientific publications and presentations at national and international scientific meetings., Trial Registration Number: NCT03089424., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Study Design: Cross-cultural adaptation and analysis of measurement properties., Objective: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ) into Brazilian-Portuguese and to test its measurement properties in Brazilian patients with low back pain., Summary of Background Data: The selection of subgroup of patients that respond better to specific interventions is the top research priority in the field of back pain. The LSIQ is a tool able to stratify patients with low back pain who responds better to motor control exercises. There is no Brazilian-Portuguese version of the LSIQ available., Methods: The original version of the LSIQ was translated and cross-culturally adapted. We collected data from 100 patients with low back pain. In addition to LSIQ, we also collected information about physical activity levels (measured by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire short version), disability (measured by the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), pain intensity (measured by the Pain numerical Rating Scale), kinesiophobia (measured by the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia), and depression (measured by the Beck Depression Inventory). The measurement properties tested were internal consistency, reproducibility (reliability and agreement), construct validity, and ceiling and floor effects., Results: The Brazilian-Portuguese version of the LSIQ showed good measurement properties with a Cronbach alpha of 0.79, an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.75, a standard error of measurement of 1.65 points, and a minimal detectable change of 3.54 points. We did not detect ceiling and floor effects. The construct validity analysis was observed a moderate correlation between the LSIQ and Pain Numerical Rating Scale r = 0.46, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire r = 0.66, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia r = 0.49, and Beck Depression Inventory r = 0.44., Conclusion: The Brazilian-Portuguese version of LIQ has adequate measurement properties and can be used in clinical practice and research., Level of Evidence: NA.

Study Design A prospective cohort study. Background Motor control dysfunctions have been commonly reported in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP). Physical therapists need clinical tools with adequate psychometric properties to assess such patients in clinical practice. The deep muscle contraction (DMC) scale is a clinical rating scale for assessing patients' ability to voluntarily contract deep abdominal muscles. Objectives To investigate the intrarater reliability, floor and ceiling effects, internal and external responsiveness, and correlation analysis (with ultrasound measures) of the DMC scale in patients with chronic nonspecific LBP undergoing a lumbar stabilization exercise program. Methods Sixty-two patients with chronic nonspecific LBP were included. At baseline, self-report questionnaires were administered to patients and a trained assessor evaluated abdominal muscle recruitment with the DMC scale and ultrasound imaging. Four ratios of the change in abdominal muscle thickness between the resting and contracted states were calculated through the ultrasound measures. After 1 week, the same ultrasound measures and DMC scale were collected again for the reliability analysis. The proportions of patients with the lowest and highest scores on the DMC scale were calculated to investigate floor and ceiling effects. All patients underwent a lumbar stabilization program, administered twice a week for 8 weeks. After the treatment period, all measures were collected again, with the addition of the global perceived effect scale, to assess the internal and external responsiveness of the measures. Correlation coefficients between ultrasound ratios and DMC scale total and subscale scores were also calculated. Results The intrarater reliability of the DMC scale and the 4 ratios of abdominal muscle thickness varied from moderate to excellent. The DMC scale showed no floor or ceiling effects. Results for internal responsiveness of the DMC scale showed large effect sizes (2.26; 84% confidence interval [CI]: 2.06, 2.45), whereas the external responsiveness was below the proposed threshold (area under the curve = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.68). Fair and significant correlations between some ultrasound ratios and DMC subscales were found. Conclusion The DMC scale was demonstrated to be a reliable tool, with no ceiling and floor effects, and to detect change in the ability to contract the deep abdominal muscles after a lumbar stabilization exercise program, but with low accuracy for estimating patient-perceived clinical outcome. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(6):432-441. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7140.

Background: In the low back pain (LBP) field, therapeutic alliance is considered a non-specific factor of interventions associated with improvements in clinical outcomes. However, there is a paucity of studies aimed to evaluate measurement properties of tools used to objectively quantify the alliance between therapist and patients, such as the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI) and Session Rating Scale (SRS)., Objective: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the short-form version of WAI - therapist and SRS into Brazilian Portuguese; to investigate the measurement properties, of the WAI-Patient, WAI-Therapist and SRS in patients with LBP and their physical therapists, respectively., Methods: One hundred patients with LBP and 18 physical therapists were recruited from physical therapy clinics in Brazil. Therapeutic alliance measures were collected at the initial assessment, prior to the second session, and at 2-month follow-up. The measurement properties investigated were reproducibility, internal consistency, ceiling/floor effects and responsiveness., Results: Although WAI-Patient, WAI-Therapist and SRS were considered to have acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC2,1 > 0.70), these questionnaires showed problems with other measurement properties. WAI-Patient showed problems with internal consistency (i.e. Cronbach's alpha < 0.70 for all subscales). Presence of ceiling effect (i.e. > 15% of participants with the maximum score) and poor internal responsiveness were found for the WAI-Patient (Effect size = 0.15; 84% CI: 0.04 to 0.29) and for the SRS (Effect size = 0.05; 84% CI: -0.22 to 0.11). The WAI-Therapist revealed slightly better measurement properties., Conclusion: We identified psychometric limitations with most measurement properties of the WAI questionnaires and SRS. Future studies are needed to refine these tools.

Studies have shown that children and adolescents with low back pain are also similarly affected when they reach adulthood, thus highlighting the importance of investigating causes of low back pain in school-age children. The study examined low back pain and associated factors in 770 schoolchildren 7 to 17 years of age in a private school in Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil. Low back pain was defined as pain or discomfort in the lumbar region in the previous month, assessed by a questionnaire. Low back pain was found in 31.6% of the subjects and was more prevalent in girls (41.9%) than boys (21.4%). Factors associated with lumbar pain were female gender, age 9 to 17 years, hyperactivity (borderline and abnormal categories), and emotional symptoms (abnormal category). Mapping the occurrence of low back pain and associated factors is important for identifying children and adolescents at risk and for developing effective programs for primary prevention.