Search

Objective:The objective of this scoping review was to examine the research question: In the adults with or without cardiometabolic risk, what is the availability of literature examining interventions to improve or maintain nutrition and physical activity-related outcomes? Sub-topics included: (1) behaviour counseling or coaching from a dietitian/nutritionist or exercise practitioner, (2) mobile applications to improve nutrition and physical activity and (3) nutritional ergogenic aids.Design:The current study is a scoping review. A literature search of the Medline Complete, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and other databases was conducted to identify articles published in the English language from January 2005 until May 2020. Data were synthesised using bubble charts and heat maps.Setting:Out-patient, community and workplace.Participants:Adults with or without cardiometabolic risk factors living in economically developed countries.Results:Searches resulted in 19 474 unique articles and 170 articles were included in this scoping review, including one guideline, thirty systematic reviews (SR), 134 randomised controlled trials and five non-randomised trials. Mobile applications (n37) as well as ergogenic aids (n87) have been addressed in several recent studies, including SR. While primary research has examined the effect of individual-level nutrition and physical activity counseling or coaching from a dietitian/nutritionist and/or exercise practitioner (n48), interventions provided by these practitioners have not been recently synthesised in SR.Conclusion:SR of behaviour counseling or coaching provided by a dietitian/nutritionist and/or exercise practitioner are needed and can inform practice for practitioners working with individuals who are healthy or have cardiometabolic risk.

Background context The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain features evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for nonspecific low back pain as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2016. PURPOSE The purpose of the guideline is to provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists when making clinical decisions for adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. This article provides a brief summary of the evidence-based guideline recommendations for diagnosing and treating patients with this condition. Study design This is a guideline summary review. Methods This guideline is the product of the Low Back Pain Work Group of NASS’ Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The methods used to develop this guideline are detailed in the complete guideline and technical report available on the NASS website. In brief, a multidisciplinary work group of spine care specialists convened to identify clinical questions to address in the guideline. The literature search strategy was developed in consultation with medical librarians. Upon completion of the systematic literature search, evidence relevant to the clinical questions posed in the guideline was reviewed. Work group members utilized NASS evidentiary table templates to summarize study conclusions, identify study strengths and weaknesses, and assign levels of evidence. Work group members participated in webcasts and in-person recommendation meetings to update and formulate evidence-based recommendations and incorporate expert opinion when necessary. The draft guideline was submitted to an internal and external peer review process and ultimately approved by the NASS Board of Directors. Results Eighty-two clinical questions were addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded according to the levels of evidence of the supporting literature. Conclusions The evidence-based clinical guideline has been created using techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, literature search parameters, literature attrition flowchart, suggestions for future research, and all of the references, is available electronically on the NASS website at https://www.spine.org/ResearchClinicalCare/QualityImprovement/ClinicalGuidelines.aspx

Objective: To describe and compare (1) classification of obesity using clinical proxies of body composition that are easily accessible in the outpatient clinic setting, (2) cardiometabolic risk using existing screening tools and staging systems, and (3) the presence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) using four commonly-used definitions in adults with spinal cord injury (SCI). Design: Retrospective chart review Setting: Outpatient Veterans Affairs (VA) SCI Annual Evaluation Clinic Participants: Patients who attended an annual evaluation appointment with demographic, anthropometric, and biochemical data documented in their medical records as part of routine medical care. Outcome measures: Obesity classification (body mass index, waist circumference, ideal body weight percentage), cardiometabolic risk scores (Framingham Risk Score, Cardiometabolic Disease Staging System, Edmonton Obesity Staging System), and MetS classification (using four commonly-used definitions) were described and compared. Results: Of the 155 veterans included in this analysis, 93% were considered “at risk” by at least one of the measurements studied. However, there was considerable variation between the different screening tools. The κ-agreement between various definitions of MetS ranged from fair to moderate. Conclusion: Screening tools that were developed for the non-SCI population produced variable assessments of risk when applied to veterans with SCI. Due to the fair to moderate inter-rater agreement between MetS definitions, it is unknown which definition is superior to identify MetS in the SCI population. An SCI-specific screening tool is needed to accurately classify obesity, cardiometabolic risk, and MetS in order to provide timely education and intervention.