Search

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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