Search

The correct sentence should have read: The panelists strongly agreed that HT may be indicated in non-specific low back pain (95%) and chronic nociceptive pain (93%), whereas it is not indicated in acute inflammatory joint pain (95%). [Extracted from the article]

Introduction: Musculoskeletal pain (MP) is prevalent in our society, having a strong negative impact on physical and psychosocial quality of life. Heat therapy (HT) has been frequently described as a treatment strategy for musculoskeletal pain, but scientific evidence is still poor. The aim of the present Delphi method study is to gather a consensus among European experts on the role of HT in MP. Methods: To address this topic, a list of 54 statements was developed, concerning mechanism of action of heat on muscle, types of MP eligible for heat treatment, efficacy of HT, time and modalities of treatment, maximizing compliance to HT, safety (based on heat wraps), wrong beliefs and common errors in the prescription of HT and the role of HT in preventing muscular damage in athletes. The survey was distributed to 116 European experts, using a 5-point Likert scale to express agreement or disagreement with the statements; 66% concordance with the statements was needed to define a consensus. Results: Consensus was reached on 78% of statements. There was a strong consensus on the mechanism of action of heat on muscle, the indication in chronic MP, its effectiveness as part of a multimodal approach to MP and the safety and tolerability of superficial heat therapy. A low-level of consensus was obtained on the role of heat in preventing muscular damage and in acute MP. Conclusion: This Delphi consensus recognizes the role of HT mostly in chronic MP and highlights the need for stronger scientific evidence to regulate the use of this therapy in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Medizinische Klinik: Intensivmedizin & Notfallmedizin is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Rehabilitation plays a vital role in the mitigation and improvement of functional limitations associated with aging and chronic conditions. Moderating factors such as sex, age, the medical diagnosis, and rehabilitation timing for admission status, as well as the expected change related to inpatient rehabilitation, are examined to provide a valid basis for the routine assessment of the quality of medical outcomes. An observational study was carried out, placing a focus on general and disease-specific health measurements, to assess representative results of multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation. Aspects that were possibly confounding and introduced bias were controlled based on data from a quasi-experimental (waiting) control group. Existing data or general health indicators were extracted from medical records. The indicators included blood pressure, resting heart rate, self-assessed health, and pain, as well as more disease-specific indicators of physical function and performance (eg, activities of daily living, walking tests, blood lipids). These are used to identify moderating factors related to health outcomes. A standardized collection of routine data from 16,966 patients [61.5 ± 12.5 years; 7871 (46%) women, 9095 (54%) men] with different medical diagnoses before and after rehabilitation were summarized using a descriptive evaluation in terms of a content and factor analysis. Without rehabilitation, general health indicators did not improve independently and remained stable at best [odds ratio (OR) = 0.74], whereas disease-specific indicators improved noticeably after surgery (OR = 3.20). Inpatient rehabilitation was shown to reduce the risk factors associated with certain lifestyles, optimize organ function, and improve well-being in most patients (>70%; cutoff: z -difference >0.20), with a standardized mean difference (SMD) seen in overall medical quality outcome of −0.48 ± 0.37 [pre- vs post-rehabilitation: η p 2 = 0.622 ; d Cohen = −1.22; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) −1.24 to −1.19]. The baseline medical values obtained at the beginning of rehabilitation were influenced by indication, age, and sex (all P <.001); however, these factors have less significant effects on improvements in general health indicators (η p 2 < 0.01). According to the disease-specific results, the greatest improvements were found in older patients (SMD for patients >60 vs ≤60 years: 95% CI 0.08–0.11) and during the early rehabilitation stage (η p 2 = 0.063). Compared with those who received no inpatient rehabilitation, patients who received rehabilitation showed greater improvements in 2 independent areas, general and disease-specific health measures, regardless of their diagnosis, age, and sex. Due to the study design and the use of a nonrandomized waiting group, causal conclusions must be drawn with caution. However, the comparability and stability of the presented results strongly support the validity of the observed improvements associated with inpatient rehabilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]