Search

The aim of the Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative (AUS-TBI) is to design a data dictionary to inform data collection and facilitate prediction of outcomes for moderate-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) across Australia. The process has engaged diverse stakeholders across six areas: social, health, clinical, biological, acute interventions, and long-term outcomes. Here, we report the results of the clinical review. Standardized searches were implemented across databases to April 2022. English-language reports of studies evaluating an association between a clinical factor and any clinical outcome in at least 100 patients with moderate-severe TBI were included. Abstracts, and full-text records, were independently screened by at least two reviewers in Covidence. The findings were assessed through a consensus process to determine inclusion in the AUS-TBI data resource. The searches retrieved 22,441 records, of which 1137 were screened at full text and 313 papers were included. The clinical outcomes identified were predominantly measures of survival and disability. The clinical predictors most frequently associated with these outcomes were the Glasgow Coma Scale, pupil reactivity, and blood pressure measures. Following discussion with an expert consensus group, 15 were recommended for inclusion in the data dictionary. This review identified numerous studies evaluating associations between clinical factors and outcomes in patients with moderate-severe TBI. A small number of factors were reported consistently, however, how and when these factors were assessed varied. The findings of this review and the subsequent consensus process have informed the development of an evidence-informed data dictionary for moderate-severe TBI in Australia., (© Ancelin McKimmie et al., 2024; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.)

In modern times there is increasing acceptance that music-based interventions are useful aids in the clinical treatment of a range of neurological and psychiatric conditions, including helping to reduce the perception of pain. Indeed, the belief that music, whether listening or performing, can alter human pain experiences has a long history, dating back to the ancient Greeks, and its potential healing properties have long been appreciated by indigenous cultures around the world. The subjective experience of acute or chronic pain is complex, influenced by many intersecting physiological and psychological factors, and it is therefore to be expected that the impact of music therapy on the pain experience may vary from one situation to another, and from one person to another. Where pain persists and becomes chronic, aberrant central processing is a key feature associated with the ongoing pain experience. Nonetheless, beneficial effects of exposure to music on pain relief have been reported across a wide range of acute and chronic conditions, and it has been shown to be effective in neonates, children and adults. In this comprehensive review we examine the various neurochemical, physiological and psychological factors that underpin the impact of music on the pain experience, factors that potentially operate at many levels - the periphery, spinal cord, brainstem, limbic system and multiple areas of cerebral cortex. We discuss the extent to which these factors, individually or in combination, influence how music affects both the quality and intensity of pain, noting that there remains controversy about the respective roles that diverse central and peripheral processes play in this experience. Better understanding of the mechanisms that underlie music's impact on pain perception together with insights into central processing of pain should aid in developing more effective synergistic approaches when music therapy is combined with clinical treatments. The ubiquitous nature of music also facilitates application from the therapeutic environment into daily life, for ongoing individual and social benefit., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Arnold, Bagg and Harvey.)

The first aim of the Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative (AUS-TBI) encompasses development of a set of measures that comprehensively predict outcomes for people with moderate-severe TBI across Australia. This process engaged diverse stakeholders and information sources across six areas: social, health, and clinical factors; biological markers; treatments; and longer-term outcomes. Here, we report the systematic review of pre-existing health conditions as predictors of outcome for people with moderate-severe TBI. Standardized searches were implemented across databases until March 31, 2022. English-language reports of studies evaluating association between pre-existing health conditions and clinical outcome in at least 10 patients with moderate-severe TBI were included. A predefined algorithm was used to assign a judgement of predictive value to each observed association. The list of identified pre-existing health conditions was then discussed with key stakeholders during a consensus meeting to determine the feasibility of incorporating them into standard care. The searches retrieved 22,217 records, of which 47 articles were included. The process led to identification of 88 unique health predictors (homologized to 21 predictor categories) of 55 outcomes (homologized to 19 outcome categories). Only pre-existing health conditions with high and moderate predictive values were discussed during the consensus meeting. Following the consensus meeting, 5 out of 11 were included (migraine, mental health conditions, ≥4 pre-existing health conditions, osteoporosis, and body mass index [BMI]) as common data elements in the AUS-TBI data dictionary. Upon further discussion, 3 additional pre-existing health conditions were included. These are pre-existing heart disease, frailty score, and previous incidence of TBI.

The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative (AUS-TBI) aims to develop a health informatics approach to collect data predictive of outcomes for persons with moderate-severe TBI across Australia. Central to this approach is a data dictionary; however, no systematic reviews of methods to define and develop data dictionaries exist to-date. This rapid systematic review aimed to identify and characterize methods for designing data dictionaries to collect outcomes or variables in persons with neurological conditions. Database searches were conducted from inception through October 2021. Records were screened in two stages against set criteria to identify methods to define data dictionaries for neurological conditions (International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision: 08, 22, and 23). Standardized data were extracted. Processes were checked at each stage by independent review of a random 25% of records. Consensus was reached through discussion where necessary. Thirty-nine initiatives were identified across 29 neurological conditions. No single established or recommended method for defining a data dictionary was identified. Nine initiatives conducted systematic reviews to collate information before implementing a consensus process. Thirty-seven initiatives consulted with end-users. Methods of consultation were "roundtable" discussion ( n  = 30); with facilitation ( n  = 16); that was iterative ( n  = 27); and frequently conducted in-person ( n  = 27). Researcher stakeholders were involved in all initiatives and clinicians in 25. Importantly, only six initiatives involved persons with lived experience of TBI and four involved carers. Methods for defining data dictionaries were variable and reporting is sparse. Our findings are instructive for AUS-TBI and can be used to further development of methods for defining data dictionaries., Competing Interests: M.K.B. has received personal fees for travel or consulting from Chiropractor's Association of Australia, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Life Ready Health Group, and Active Linc Pty Ltd. M.K.B. has received research funding from the Australian NHMRC, MRFF and RTP schemes, UNSW, and NeuRA. D.J.C. occasionally consults for Pressura Neuro, all funds to Monash University. M.F. is the CEO of the charitable organization Connectivity–Traumatic Brain Injury Australia., (© Matthew K. Bagg et al., 2024; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.)

The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative (AUS-TBI) aims to select a set of measures to comprehensively predict and assess outcomes following moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) across Australia. The aim of this article was to report on the implementation and findings of an evidence-based consensus approach to develop AUS-TBI recommendations for outcome measures following adult and pediatric moderate-to-severe TBI. Following consultation with a panel of expert clinicians, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives and a Living Experience group, and preliminary literature searches with a broader focus, a decision was made to focus on measures of mortality, everyday functional outcomes, and quality of life. Standardized searches of bibliographic databases were conducted through March 2022. Characteristics of 75 outcome measures were extracted from 1485 primary studies. Consensus meetings among the AUS-TBI Steering Committee, an expert panel of clinicians and researchers and a group of individuals with lived experience of TBI resulted in the production of a final list of 11 core outcome measures: the Functional Independence Measure (FIM); Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E); Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) (adult); mortality; EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ5D); Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory (MPAI); Return to Work /Study (adult and pediatric); Functional Independence Measure for Children (WEEFIM); Glasgow Outcome Scale Modified for Children (GOS-E PEDS); Paediatric Quality of Life Scale (PEDS-QL); and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (pediatric). These 11 outcome measures will be included as common data elements in the AUS-TBI data dictionary. Review Registration PROSPERO (CRD42022290954)., Competing Interests: D.J.C. occasionally consults to Pressure P/L, with all funds being given to Monash University. M.F. is the CEO of the charitable organization Connectivity - Traumatic Brain Injury Australia. The other authors have nothing to disclose., (© Jennie L. Ponsford et al., 2024; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.)

The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative (AUS-TBI) is developing a data resource to enable improved outcome prediction for people with moderate-severe TBI (msTBI) across Australia. Fundamental to this resource is the collaboratively designed data dictionary. This systematic review and consultation aimed to identify acute interventions with potential to modify clinical outcomes for people after msTBI, for inclusion in a data dictionary. Standardized searches were implemented across bibliographic databases from inception through April 2022. English-language reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating any association between any acute intervention and clinical outcome in at least 100 patients with msTBI, were included. A predefined algorithm was used to assign a value to each observed association. Consultation with AUS-TBI clinicians and researchers formed the consensus process for interventions to be included in a single data dictionary. Searches retrieved 14,455 records, of which 124 full-length RCTs were screened, with 35 studies included. These studies evaluated 26 unique acute interventions across 21 unique clinical outcomes. Only 4 interventions were considered to have medium modifying value for any outcome from the review, with an additional 8 interventions agreed upon through the consensus process. The interventions with medium value were tranexamic acid and phenytoin, which had a positive effect on an outcome; and decompressive craniectomy surgery and hypothermia, which negatively affected outcomes. From the systematic review and consensus process, 12 interventions were identified as potential modifiers to be included in the AUS-TBI national data resource.

In this series of eight articles, the Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative (AUS-TBI) consortium describes the Australian approach used to select the common data elements collected acutely that have been shown to predict outcome following moderate-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) across the lifespan. This article presents the unified single data dictionary, together with additional measures chosen to facilitate comparative effectiveness research and data linkage. Consultations with the AUS-TBI Lived Experience Expert Group provided insights on the merits and considerations regarding data elements for some of the study areas, as well as more general principles to guide the collection of data and the selection of meaningful measures. These are presented as a series of guiding principles and themes. The AUS-TBI Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Group identified a number of key points and considerations for the project approach specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, including key issues of data sovereignty and community involvement. These are outlined in the form of principles to guide selection of appropriate methodologies, data management, and governance. Implementation of the AUS-TBI approach aims to maximize ongoing data collection and linkage, to facilitate personalization of care and improved outcomes for people who experience moderate-severe TBI.

The objective of the Australian Traumatic Brain Injury (AUS-TBI) Initiative is to develop a data dictionary to inform data collection and facilitate prediction of outcomes of people who experience moderate-severe TBI in Australia. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence of the association between demographic, injury event, and social characteristics with outcomes, in people with moderate-severe TBI, to identify potentially predictive indicators. Standardized searches were implemented across bibliographic databases to March 31, 2022. English-language reports, excluding case series, which evaluated the association between demographic, injury event, and social characteristics, and any clinical outcome in at least 10 patients with moderate-severe TBI were included. Abstracts and full text records were independently screened by at least two reviewers in Covidence. A pre-defined algorithm was used to assign a judgement of predictive value to each observed association. The review findings were discussed with an expert panel to determine the feasibility of incorporation of routine measurement into standard care. The search strategy retrieved 16,685 records; 867 full-length records were screened, and 111 studies included. Twenty-two predictors of 32 different outcomes were identified; 7 were classified as high-level (age, sex, ethnicity, employment, insurance, education, and living situation at the time of injury). After discussion with an expert consensus group, 15 were recommended for inclusion in the data dictionary. This review identified numerous predictors capable of enabling early identification of those at risk for poor outcomes and improved personalization of care through inclusion in routine data collection.

The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative (AUS-TBI) aims to co-design a data resource to predict outcomes for people with moderate-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) across Australia. Fundamental to this resource is the data dictionary, which is an ontology of data items. Here, we report the systematic review and consensus process for inclusion of biological markers in the data dictionary. Standardized database searches were implemented from inception through April 2022. English-language studies evaluating association between a fluid, tissue, or imaging marker and any clinical outcome in at least 10 patients with moderate-severe TBI were included. Records were screened using a prioritization algorithm and saturation threshold in Research Screener. Full-length records were then screened in Covidence. A pre-defined algorithm was used to assign a judgement of predictive value to each observed association, and high-value predictors were discussed in a consensus process. Searches retrieved 106,593 records; 1,417 full-length records were screened, resulting in 546 included records. Two hundred thirty-nine individual markers were extracted, evaluated against 101 outcomes. Forty-one markers were judged to be high-value predictors of 15 outcomes. Fluid markers retained following the consensus process included ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1), S100, and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP). Imaging markers included computed tomography (CT) scores (e.g., Marshall scores), pathological observations (e.g., hemorrhage, midline shift), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) classification (e.g., diffuse axonal injury). Clinical context and time of sampling of potential predictive indicators are important considerations for utility. This systematic review and consensus process has identified fluid and imaging biomarkers with high predictive value of clinical and long-term outcomes following moderate-severe TBI.

Abstract: An improved understanding of the biopsychosocial influences that contribute to and maintain pain has promoted the development of new efficacious treatments for chronic low back pain (CLBP). This study aimed to investigate the mechanisms of a new treatment-education and graded sensorimotor retraining-on pain and disability. We conducted a preplanned causal mediation analysis of a randomized clinical trial which allocated 276 participants with CLBP to 12 weekly clinical sessions of education and graded sensorimotor retraining (n = 138) or a sham and attention control (n = 138). Outcomes were pain intensity and disability, both assessed at 18 weeks. Hypothesized mediators included tactile acuity, motor coordination, back self-perception, beliefs about the consequences of back pain, kinesiophobia, pain self-efficacy, and pain catastrophizing, all assessed at the end of treatment (12 weeks). Four of 7 mechanisms (57%) mediated the intervention effect on pain; the largest mediated effects were for beliefs about back pain consequences (-0.96 [-1.47 to -0.64]), pain catastrophizing (-0.49 [-0.61 to -0.24]), and pain self-efficacy (-0.37 [-0.66 to -0.22]). Five of 7 mechanisms (71%) mediated the intervention effect on disability; the largest mediated effects were for beliefs about back pain consequences (-1.66 [-2.62 to -0.87]), pain catastrophizing (-1.06 [-1.79 to -0.53]), and pain self-efficacy (-0.84 [-1.89 to -0.45]). When all 7 mechanisms were considered simultaneously, the joint mediation effect explained most of the intervention effect for both pain and disability. Optimizing interventions to target beliefs about the consequences of back pain, pain catastrophizing, and pain self-efficacy is likely to lead to improved outcomes for people with CLBP., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Objectives: Our aim is to provide an overview of how neck pain is classified in the literature, define and group conservative interventions into 'nodes', and develop draft networks of interventions in preparation for a network meta-analysis (NMA)., Study Design and Settings: We performed a scoping review. For feasibility reasons, we searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) via neck pain clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published from 2014. We used standardized data extraction forms to extract data about classification of neck pain and interventions evaluated in the included RCTs. We calculated frequencies of neck pain classifications and grouped interventions into nodes based on the definitions used in Cochrane reviews. Draft network graphs comparing interventions were constructed using the online Shiny R application CINEMA., Results: We included 242 RCTs from seven CPGs, evaluating 28,581 patients. We found three different classification systems of which The Neck Pain Task Force classification was used most often. We defined and grouped all interventions into 19 discrete potential nodes., Conclusion: We found a wide variation in neck pain classifications and conservative interventions. Grouping the interventions was challenging and needs further evaluation before conducting a final NMA., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Low back pain contributes to an increasing global health burden exacerbated by unsustained improvements from current treatments. There is a need to develop, and test interventions to maintain initial improvements from low back pain treatments. One option is to implement a booster intervention. This study aimed to develop and test the feasibility of implementing a booster intervention delivered remotely to supplement the benefits from a complex intervention for chronic low back pain., Method: This study was nested in the RESOLVE trial. The booster intervention was developed by an expert group, including a clinical psychologist, exercise physiologist and physiotherapists, and based on a motivational interviewing framework. We developed a conversational flow chart to support the clinician to guide participants towards achieving their pre-specified personal goals and future low back pain self-management. Participants with chronic low back pain who were aged over 18 years and fluent in English were recruited. The booster intervention was delivered in one session, remotely, by telephone. The intervention was considered feasible if: participants were able to be contacted or <3 contacts were necessary to arrange the booster session; there were sufficient willing participants (<15% of sample unwilling to participate); and participants and research clinicians reported a perceived benefit of >7/10., Results: Fifty participants with chronic non-specific low back pain were recruited to test the feasibility of implementing the booster intervention. Less than three contact attempts were necessary to arrange the booster session, only one participant declined to participate. Participants perceived the session to be beneficial; on a 0 to 10 scale of perceived benefit, the average score recorded was 8.3 (SD 2.0). Clinicians also reported a moderate perceived benefit to the participant; the average score recorded by clinicians was 6.3 (SD 1.6)., Conclusion: We developed a step by step, simple booster intervention that was perceived to be beneficial to participants with chronic low back pain. The booster can feasibly be delivered remotely following a complex intervention., (© 2022 The Authors. Musculoskeletal Care published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

A new wave of treatments has emerged to target nervous system alterations and maladaptive conceptualizations about pain for chronic low back pain. The acceptability of these treatments is still uncertain. We conducted a qualitative study alongside a randomized controlled trial to identify perceptions of facilitators or barriers to participation in a non-pharmacological intervention that resulted in clinically meaningful reductions across 12 months for disability compared to a sham intervention. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants from the trial's active arm after they completed the 12-week program. We included a purposeful sample (baseline and clinical characteristics) (n = 20). We used reflexive thematic analysis informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability for health care interventions. We identified positive and negative emotional/cognitive responses associated with treatment acceptability and potential efficacy, including emotional support, cognitive empowerment, readiness for self-management, and acceptance of face-to-face and online components designed to target the brain. These findings suggest the importance of psychoeducation and behavior change techniques to create a positive attitude towards movement and increase the perception of pain control; systematic approaches to monitor and target misconceptions about the interventions during treatment; and psychoeducation and behavior change techniques to maintain the improvements after the cessation of formal care. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the experiences of people with chronic low back pain participating in a new non-pharmacological brain-targeted treatment that includes face-to-face and self-directed approaches. The facilitators and barriers of the interventions could potentially inform adaptations and optimization of treatments designed to target the brain to treat chronic low back pain., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview., Objectives: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP., Methods: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety., Main Results: Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and ≤ 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29)., Authors' Conclusions: We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events., (Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain., Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis., Data Sources: Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022., Eligibility Criteria for Study Selection: Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks)., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method., Results: 98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference -26.1 (95% confidence intervals -34.0 to -18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (-26.1 (-38.5 to -13.6)), pregabalin (-24.7 (-34.6 to -14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes., Conclusions: The comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019145257., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: this study received project support funding from a 2020 Exercise Physiology Research (Consumables) Grant from the University of New South Wales, which was used to obtain translations of studies published in languages other than English. MKB received travel support from Memorial University of Newfoundland to speak about engagement with research evidence, including the effects of medicines. The Sydney Pharmacy School receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline for a postgraduate scholarship supporting a research student supervised by AJM; all other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) is a complex and multifaceted problem. The following Perspective piece tries to help make sense of this complexity by describing a model for the development and maintenance of persistent LBP that integrates modifiable factors across the biopsychosocial spectrum. The Fit-for-Purpose model posits the view that chronic nonspecific LBP represents a state in which the person in pain holds strong and relatively intransient internal models of an immutably damaged, fragile, and unhealthy back, and information that supports these models is more available and trustworthy than information that counters them. This Perspective proposes a corresponding treatment framework for persistent pain that aims to shift internal models of a fragile, damaged, unhealthy, and unchangeable self toward the formulation of the back as healthy, strong, adaptable, and fit for purpose and to provide the system with precise and trustworthy evidence that supports this supposition while minimizing information that works against it., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Physical Therapy Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: To evaluate (1) the feasibility of an audit-feedback intervention to facilitate sports science journal policy change, (2) the reliability of the Transparency of Research Underpinning Social Intervention Tiers (TRUST) policy evaluation form, and (3) the extent to which policies of sports science journals support transparent and open research practices., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, audit-feedback, feasibility study of transparency and openness standards of the top 38 sports science journals by impact factor. The TRUST form was used to evaluate journal policies support for transparent and open research practices. Feedback was provided to journal editors in the format of a tailored letter. Inter-rater reliability and agreement of the TRUST form was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients and the standard error of measurement, respectively. Time-based criteria, fidelity of intervention delivery and qualitative feedback were used to determine feasibility., Results: The audit-feedback intervention was feasible based on the time taken to rate journals and provide tailored feedback. The mean (SD) score on the TRUST form (range 0-27) was 2.05 (1.99), reflecting low engagement with transparent and open practices. Inter-rater reliability of the overall score of the TRUST form was moderate [ICC (2,1) = 0.68 (95% CI 0.55-0.79)], with standard error of measurement of 1.17. However, some individual items had poor reliability., Conclusion: Policies of the top 38 sports science journals have potential for improved support for transparent and open research practices. The feasible audit-feedback intervention developed here warrants large-scale evaluation as a means to facilitate change in journal policies., Registration: OSF ( https://osf.io/d2t4s/ )., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Importance: The effects of altered neural processing, defined as altering neural networks responsible for perceptions of pain and function, on chronic pain remains unclear., Objective: To estimate the effect of a graded sensorimotor retraining intervention (RESOLVE) on pain intensity in people with chronic low back pain., Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 2-group, randomized clinical trial recruited participants with chronic (>3 months) nonspecific low back pain from primary care and community settings. A total of 276 adults were randomized (in a 1:1 ratio) to the intervention or sham procedure and attention control groups delivered by clinicians at a medical research institute in Sydney, Australia. The first participant was randomized on December 10, 2015, and the last was randomized on July 25, 2019. Follow-up was completed on February 3, 2020., Interventions: Participants randomized to the intervention group (n = 138) were asked to participate in 12 weekly clinical sessions and home training designed to educate them about and assist them with movement and physical activity while experiencing lower back pain. Participants randomized to the control group (n = 138) were asked to participate in 12 weekly clinical sessions and home training that required similar time as the intervention but did not focus on education, movement, and physical activity. The control group included sham laser and shortwave diathermy applied to the back and sham noninvasive brain stimulation., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity at 18 weeks, measured on an 11-point numerical rating scale (range, 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain imaginable]) for which the between-group minimum clinically important difference is 1.0 point., Results: Among 276 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 46 [14.3] years; 138 [50%] women), 261 (95%) completed follow-up at 18 weeks. The mean pain intensity was 5.6 at baseline and 3.1 at 18 weeks in the intervention group and 5.8 at baseline and 4.0 at 18 weeks in the control group, with an estimated between-group mean difference at 18 weeks of -1.0 point ([95% CI, -1.5 to -0.4]; P = .001), favoring the intervention group., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial conducted at a single center among patients with chronic low back pain, graded sensorimotor retraining, compared with a sham procedure and attention control, significantly improved pain intensity at 18 weeks. The improvements in pain intensity were small, and further research is needed to understand the generalizability of the findings., Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12615000610538.

Mediation analysis is a common statistical method used to investigate mechanisms of health exposure and interventions. The reporting quality of mediation studies used in randomised controlled trials has been considered heterogeneous and incomplete. The reporting quality of mediation analysis in observational studies is unknown. We conducted a systematic review to describe the reporting standards of recently published observational studies that used mediation analysis to understand the mechanism of health exposures. We searched for studies published between June 2017 and June 2019 indexed in EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. Two reviewers screened articles and selected a random sample of 50 eligible studies for inclusion. We included studies across 13 healthcare fields and ten different health conditions. Most studies (74%) collected data on healthy individuals to assess their risk of developing a health disorder. Psychosocial and behavioural factors (self-control, self-esteem, alcohol consumption, pain) were the most prevalent exposures (n = 30, 60%), outcomes (n = 23, 46%) and mediators (n = 29, 58%). Most studies used a cross-sectional design (64%, n = 32), and a few studies reported sample size calculations (4%, n = 8). In 20% (n = 10) of the studies, adjustment for confounders was reported. Only 10% (n = 5) of studies reported the assumptions underlying the mediation analysis, and 14% (n = 7) of studies conducted some sensitivity analysis to assess the degree which unmeasured confounders would affect the estimate of the mediation effect. Mediation analysis is a common method used to investigate mechanisms in prevention research. The reporting of mediation analysis in observational studies is incomplete and may impact reproducibility, evidence synthesis and implementation., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Scientific progress requires transparency and openness. The ability to critique, replicate and implement scientific findings depends on the transparency of the study design and methods, and the open availability of study materials, data and code. Journals are key stakeholders in supporting transparency and openness. This study aimed to evaluate 10 highest ranked pain journals' authorship policies with respect to their support for transparent and open research practices. Two independent authors evaluated the journal policies (as at 27 May 2019) using three tools: the self-developed Transparency and Openness Evaluation Tool, the Centre for Open Science (COS) Transparency Factor and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requirements for disclosure of conflicts of interest. We found that the journal policies had an overall low level of engagement with research transparency and openness standards. The median COS Transparency Factor score was 3.5 (IQR 2.8) of 29 possible points, and only 7 of 10 journals' stated requirements for disclosure of conflicts of interest aligned fully with the ICMJE recommendations. Improved transparency and openness of pain research has the potential to benefit all that are involved in generating and using research findings. Journal policies that endorse and facilitate transparent and open research practices will ultimately improve the evidence base that informs the care provided for people with pain., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AGC is supported by the University of New South Wales Prince of Wales Clinical School Postgraduate Research Scholarship and a NeuRA PhD Candidature Supplementary Scholarship. AGC is a Catalyst for the Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences and received travel support from Memorial University of Newfoundland to speak about engagement with research. MKB is supported by a NeuRA PhD Candidature Scholarship and Supplementary Scholarship. MKB is an ambassador for the Centre for Open Science and received travel support from the Chiropractor’s Association of Australia to speak about an unrelated topic and Memorial University of Newfoundland to speak about engagement with research. GCR receives funding from the NHS National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research (SPCR), the Naji Foundation and the Rotary Foundation to study for a Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) at the University of Oxford. ET is funded by the Health Research Board of Ireland Interdisciplinary Capacity Enhancement (ICE) awards (ICE-2015-1026) and is a Catalyst for the Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences. HL is funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (grant no. APP1126767); National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust; received project funding from the Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences, a program of the Center for Effective Global Action (CEGA), with support from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation; and is a Catalyst for the Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Question: What are the effects of specific types of exercise treatments on pain intensity and functional limitation outcomes for adults with chronic low back pain?, Design: Systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials., Participants: Adults with non-specific low back pain for ≥ 12 weeks., Intervention: Exercise treatments prescribed or planned by a health professional that involved conducting specific activities, postures and/or movements with a goal to improve low back pain outcomes., Outcome Measures: Pain intensity (eg, visual analogue scale or numerical rating scale) and back-related functional limitations (eg, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire or Oswestry Disability Index), each standardised to range from 0 to 100., Results: This review included 217 randomised controlled trials with 20,969 participants and 507 treatment groups. Most exercise types were more effective than minimal treatment for pain and functional limitation outcomes. Network meta-analysis results were compatible with moderate to clinically important treatment effects for Pilates, McKenzie therapy, and functional restoration (pain only) and flexibility exercises (function only) compared with minimal treatment, other effective treatments and other exercise types. The estimated mean differences for these exercise types compared with minimal treatment ranged from -15 to -19 for pain and from -10 to -12 for functional limitation., Conclusion: This review found evidence that Pilates, McKenzie therapy and functional restoration were more effective than other types of exercise treatment for reducing pain intensity and functional limitations. Nevertheless, people with chronic low back pain should be encouraged to perform the exercise that they enjoy to promote adherence., Registration: DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD009790., (Copyright © 2021 Australian Physiotherapy Association. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem associated with an increasing burden on individuals, health care systems, and society. Common treatments for people with CLBP produce, on average, small short-term improvements in pain and function compared with minimal care. The RESOLVE trial randomly allocated 276 people with CLBP to a new complex treatment strategy, pain education integrated with graded sensorimotor precision training (RESOLVE), or a sham control. The RESOLVE treatment was developed within a theoretical framework to target possible treatment mechanisms associated with CLBP development and persistence., Objective: This protocol describes the planned evaluation of these proposed treatment mechanisms. Improved understanding of the mechanisms underpinning the RESOLVE treatment may guide its refinement and implementation., Methods: We will use causal mediation analysis to evaluate the proposed treatment mechanisms, including pain self-efficacy, back beliefs, pain catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, back perception, tactile acuity, and movement coordination. The primary outcomes are pain intensity and function at 18 weeks following allocation. Data were collected blind to allocation and hypotheses at baseline (mediators, outcomes, confounders), end of treatment (mediators), and at 18 weeks following allocation (outcomes). We will test the robustness of our findings by conducting planned sensitivity analyses., Results: Ethical approval was granted by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HC15357). A total of 276 participants have been recruited from primary care practices and the community in Sydney, Australia., Conclusions: The RESOLVE treatment constitutes a new paradigm for CLBP management with potentially wide-reaching implications. This mechanistic evaluation will provide evidence for the hypothesized treatment mechanisms and help explain why the treatment strategy did or did not have an effect on patient-reported outcomes. These results will help guide the treatment refinement and implementation., Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12615000610538; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=368619&isReview=true., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/26053., (©Aidan G Cashin, Hopin Lee, Matthew K Bagg, Benedict M Wand, Edel O'Hagan, Rodrigo R N Rizzo, Tasha R Stanton, G Lorimer Moseley, James H McAuley. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 02.07.2021.)

Background: Antidepressant medicines are used to manage symptoms of low back pain. The efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressant medicines for low back pain (LBP) are not clear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of antidepressant medicines for LBP., Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov , the EU Clinical Trials Register, and the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform from inception to May 2020. We included published and trial registry reports of RCTs that allocated adult participants with LBP to receive an antidepressant medicine or a placebo medicine. Pairs of authors independently extracted data in duplicate. We extracted participant characteristics, study sample size, outcome values, and measures of variance for each outcome. We data using random-effects meta-analysis models and calculated estimates of effects and heterogeneity for each outcome. We formed judgments of confidence in the evidence in accordance with GRADE. We report our findings in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We prespecified all outcomes in a prospectively registered protocol. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and acceptability. We measured pain intensity at end-of-treatment on a 0-100 point scale and considered 10 points the minimal clinically important difference. We defined acceptability as the odds of stopping treatment for any reason., Results: We included 23 RCTs in this review. Data were available for pain in 17 trials and acceptability in 14 trials. Treatment with antidepressants decreased pain intensity by 4.33  points (95% CI - 6.15 to - 2.50) on a 0-100 scale, compared to placebo. Treatment with antidepressants increased the odds of stopping treatment for any reason (OR 1.27 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.56]), compared to placebo., Conclusions: Treatment of LBP with antidepressants is associated with small reductions in pain intensity and increased odds of stopping treatment for any reason, compared to placebo. The effect on pain is not clinically important. The effect on acceptability warrants consideration. These findings provide Level I evidence to guide clinicians in their use of antidepressants to treat LBP., Trial Registration: We prospectively registered the protocol for this systematic review on PROSPERO ( CRD42020149275 ).

Background: Exercise is recommended for the management of chronic low back pain (CLBP). Trialists have proposed numerous mechanisms to explain why exercise improves pain and function in people with CLBP, but these are yet to be synthesised., Objective: To synthesise the proposed mechanisms of benefit for exercise in people with CLBP., Design: Review., Methods: The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was searched from inception to July 2019. Randomised controlled trials of adults with CLBP, indexed in PEDro as 'fitness training', were included. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data from each study. Data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively using thematic analysis., Results: 186 studies were identified and 110 were included in the analysis. Thirty-six studies (33%) did not provide a mechanism of benefit for exercise in people with CLBP. Of the remaining studies, most provided more than one mechanism, from which 33 unique mechanisms were identified. These were grouped into five themes which, from most to least common, were: neuromuscular (n = 105 (44%)); psychosocial (n = 87 (36%)); neurophysiological (n = 22 (9%)); cardiometabolic (n = 15 (6%)); and tissue healing (n = 12 (5%)). The effects of these proposed mechanisms on outcomes for people with CLBP were seldom examined., Conclusions: This review identified a variety of mechanisms proposed in clinical trials to explain why 'fitness training' works for people with CLBP, but these mechanisms were seldom tested. Randomised controlled trials investigating the mediating effects of these mechanisms may be warranted to better understand why exercise works for CLBP., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Statistical analysis plans describe the planned data management and analysis for clinical trials. This supports transparent reporting and interpretation of clinical trial results. This paper reports the statistical analysis plan for the RESOLVE clinical trial. The RESOLVE trial assigned participants with chronic low back pain to graded sensory-motor precision training or sham-control., Results: We report the planned data management and analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes. The primary outcome is pain intensity at 18-weeks post randomization. We will use mixed-effects models to analyze the primary and secondary outcomes by intention-to-treat. We will report adverse effects in full. We also describe analyses if there is non-adherence to the interventions, data management procedures, and our planned reporting of results., Conclusion: This statistical analysis plan will minimize the potential for bias in the analysis and reporting of results from the RESOLVE trial., Trial Registration: ACTRN12615000610538 (https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=368619)., (Copyright © 2020 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is limited evidence for the comparative effectiveness of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to determine the analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, effect on function, and relative rank according to analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, and effect on function of a single course of [an] analgesic medicine(s) or combination of these medicines for people with low back pain., Methods: We will include published and unpublished randomised trials written in any language that compare an analgesic medicine to either another medicine, placebo/sham, or no intervention in adults with low back pain, grouped according to pain duration: acute (fewer than 6 weeks), sub-acute (6 to 12 weeks), and chronic (greater than 12 weeks). The co-primary outcomes are pain intensity following treatment and safety (adverse events). The secondary outcomes are function and acceptability (all-cause dropouts). We will perform a network meta-analysis to compare and rank analgesic medicines. We will form judgements of confidence in the results using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) methodology., Discussion: This network meta-analysis will establish which medicine, or combination of medicines, is most effective for reducing pain and safest for adults with low back pain., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019145257.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to review and assess the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials that test physical therapy interventions for low back pain., Study Design and Setting: This is a systematic review of trials of physical therapy interventions to prevent or treat low back pain (of any duration or type) in participants of any age indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Existing PEDro scale ratings were used to evaluate methodological quality., Results: This review identified 2,215 trials. The majority of trials were for adults (n = 2136, 96.4%), low back pain without specific etiology (n = 1,863, 84.1%), and chronic duration (n = 947, 42.8%). The quality of trials improved over time; however, most were at risk of bias. Less than half of the trials concealed allocation to intervention (n = 813, 36.7%), used intention-to-treat principles (n = 778, 35.1%), and blinded assessors (n = 810, 36.6%), participants (n = 174, 7.9%), and therapists (n = 39, 1.8%). These findings did not vary by the type of therapy., Conclusion: Most trials that test physical therapy interventions for low back pain have methodological limitations that could bias treatment effect estimates. Greater attention to methodological features, such as allocation concealment and the reporting of intention-to-treat effects, would improve the quality of trials testing physical therapy interventions for low back pain., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Systematic reviews of analgesics for low back pain generally include published data only. Obtaining data from unpublished trials is potentially important because they may impact effect sizes in meta-analyses. We determined whether including unpublished data from trial registries changes the effect sizes in meta-analyses of analgesics for low back pain., Study Design and Setting: Trial registries were searched for unpublished data that conformed to the inclusion criteria of n = 5 individual source systematic reviews. We reproduced the meta-analyses using data available from the original reviews and then reran the same analyses with the addition of new unpublished data., Results: Sixteen completed, unpublished, trials were eligible for inclusion in four of the source reviews. Data were available for five trials. We updated the analyses for two of the source reviews. The addition of data from two trials reduced the effect size of muscle relaxants, compared with sham, for recent-onset low back pain from -21.71 (95% CI: -28.23 to -15.19) to -2.34 (95% CI: -3.34 to -1.34) on a 0-100 scale for pain intensity. The addition of data from three trials (one enriched design) reduced the effect size of opioid analgesics, compared with sham, for chronic low back pain from -10.10 (95% CI: -12.81 to -7.39) to -9.31 (95% CI: -11.51 to -7.11). The effect reduced in the subgroup of enriched design studies, from -12.40 (95% CI: -16.90 to -7.91) to -11.34 (95% CI: -15.36 to -7.32), and in the subgroup of nonenriched design studies, from -7.27 (95% CI: -9.97 to -4.57) to -7.19 (95% CI: -9.24 to -5.14)., Conclusion: Systematic reviews should include reports of unpublished trials. The result for muscle relaxants conflicts with the conclusion of the published review and recent international guidelines. Adding unpublished data strengthens the evidence that opioid analgesics have small effects on persistent low back pain and more clearly suggests these effects may not be clinically meaningful., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is often considered to be involved when people present for care with low back pain where SIJ is located. However, determining why the pain has arisen can be challenging, especially in the absence of a specific cause such as pregnancy, disease, or trauma, when the SIJ might be identified as a source of symptoms with the help of manual clinical tests. Nonspecific SIJ-related pain is commonly suggested to be causally associated with movement problems in the SIJ(s)-a diagnosis traditionally derived from manual assessment of movements of the SIJ complex. Management choices often consist of patient education, manual treatment, and exercise. Although some elements of management are consistent with guidelines, this Perspective article argues that the assumptions on which these diagnoses and treatments are based are problematic, particularly if they reinforce unhelpful, pathoanatomical beliefs. This article reviews the evidence regarding the clinical detection and diagnosis of SIJ movement dysfunction. In particular, it questions the continued use of assessing movement dysfunction despite mounting evidence undermining the biological plausibility and subsequent treatment paradigms based on such diagnoses. Clinicians are encouraged to align their assessment methods and explanatory models with contemporary science to reduce the risk of their diagnoses and choice of intervention negatively affecting clinical outcomes., (© 2019 American Physical Therapy Association.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: MKB received conference travel support from the Chiropractors' Association of Australia to speak about pain neuroscience and rehabilitation. GLM receives speaker’s fees for lectures on pain and rehabilitation. GLM received payment for contributions to Pfizer’s web-based pain education strategy; and has received support from Kaiser Permanente (USA), workers’ compensation boards in Australia, North America and Europe, Noigroup Australasia, Agile Physiotherapy (USA), Results Physiotherapy (USA), the IOC, the Arsenal Football Club, and the Port Adelaide Football Club. GLM receives royalties for books about pain and rehabilitation.