Search

Study Design. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric testing of self-report outcome measurements.Objectives. The aims of this study were to adapt the Functional Rating Index (FRI) to Brazilian- Portuguese and to test the psychometric properties of this new questionnaire and the Brazilian-Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ).Summary of Background Data. Self-report measures are commonly used in clinical practice and in research studies. Most existing questionnaires were developed in English and there is only 1 Brazilian-Portuguese cross-cultural adaptation of a spine outcome measure.Methods. The FRI was translated and adapted into Brazilian-Portuguese according to the Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self report measures. The Brazilian-Portuguese FRI and RMDQ were tested for internal consistency, reliability, ceiling and floor effects, construct validity, and responsiveness in 140 low back pain (LBP) patients.Results. A very high level of internal consistency (Cronbach's a = 0.92) and reliability [ICC = 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.93-0.97)] was shown for both instruments. The FRI and RMDQ were highly correlated (r = 0.80), while both the FRI and RMDQ were moderately correlated with pain at baseline (r = 0.67 and 0.55, respectively). No ceiling or floor effects were detected; however, the responsiveness of both questionnaires was quite small (RMDQ ES = 0.10 [84% confidence interval, 0.04-0.16] and FRI ES 0.18 [84% confidence interval, 0.11-0.24]).Conclusion. The results of this study indicate that the Brazilian-Portuguese versions of the FRI and RMDQ are reliable and valid instruments for the measurement of disability in Brazilian-Portuguese-speaking patients with LBP presenting for physiotherapy treatment. Both instruments are suitable for use in clinical practice and research studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A task force from the US National Institute of Health aimed to establish parameters for surveys with patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) by recommending the use of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System 29-item (PROMIS-29) questionnaire and the stratification according to the Impact Score. We aimed to assess the internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, construct validity and responsiveness of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the PROMIS-29 questionnaire (version 2.1) and the Impact Score in patients with chronic LBP., Methods: A prospective cohort study was carried out with patients with chronic LBP who were receiving physiotherapy treatment in clinics in São Paulo and Vitória cities, Brazil. The sample included 102 patients with chronic LBP, aged between 18 and 80 years, and with the ability to read and write in the Brazilian-Portuguese language. Exclusion criteria were patients with serious spinal conditions, cognitive impairment, pregnant women, and patients who had undergone lumbar surgery within the past six months. The PROMIS-29 questionnaire, the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire were applied. The PROMIS-29 questionnaire was reapplied after 24 hours and 4 weeks., Results: The PROMIS-29 questionnaire showed Cronbach's Alpha values between 0.81 (anxiety) and 0.91 (depression). The ICC 2.1 ranged from 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77 to 0.89) to 0,97 (CI 95%: 0.95 to 0.98). The SEM values ranged between 0.85 (physical function) and 2.62 (ability to participate in social roles and activities). The Impact Score showed Cronbach's Alpha, ICC 2.1 and SEM values of 0.91, 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95 to 0.98) and 0.56, respectively. The PROMIS-29 questionnaire and the Impact Score showed sufficient construct validity. The PROMIS-29 questionnaire showed moderate responsiveness, while the Impact Score showed sufficient responsiveness., Conclusions: Both the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the PROMIS-29 questionnaire and the Impact Score showed sufficient internal consistency, reliability, construct validity and responsiveness in Brazilian patients with chronic LBP. The results support the US National Institutes of Health's recommendation to use the PROMIS-29 questionnaire and the Impact Score in patients with chronic LBP. We suggest that future studies evaluate the structural validity of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the PROMIS-29 questionnaire., Clinical Trial Number: Not applicable., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

BACKGROUND: The Lancet Low Back Pain (LBP) Series highlighted the lack of LBP data from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The study aimed to describe (1) what LBP care is currently delivered in LMICs and (2) how that care is delivered. DESIGN: An online mixed-methods study. METHODS: A Consortium for LBP in LMICs (n = 65) was developed with an expert panel of leading LBP researchers (>2 publications on LBP) and multidisciplinary clinicians and patient partners with 5 years of clinical/lived LBP experience in LMICs. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Two researchers independently analyzed qualitative data using inductive and deductive coding and developed a thematic framework. RESULTS: Forty-seven (85%) of 55 invited panel members representing 32 LMICs completed the survey (38% women, 62% men). The panel included clinicians (34%), researchers (28%), educators (6%), and people with lived experience (4%). Pharmacotherapies and electrophysiological agents were the most used LBP treatments. The thematic framework comprised 8 themes: (1) self-management is ubiquitous, (2) medicines are the cornerstone, (3) traditional therapies have a place, (4) society plays an important role, (5) imaging use is very common, (6) reliance on passive approaches, (7) social determinants influence LBP care pathway, and (8) health systems are ill-prepared to address LBP burden. CONCLUSION: LBP care in LMICs did not consistently align with the best available evidence. Findings will help research prioritization in LMICs and guide global LBP clinical guidelines. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(8):560-572. Epub 11 April 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12406 .

Clinical care indicators for low back pain can be used to monitor healthcare practices and consequently be used to evaluate success of strategies to improve care quality. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical care indicators that have been used to measure appropriateness of health care for patients with low back pain. We conducted a systematic search of five electronic databases and Google to identify clinical care indicators that have been used to measure any aspect of care for people with low back pain. Care indicators were narratively described according to their type (i.e. structure, process, or outcomes) and categorized by their purpose (e.g. to measure aspects related to assessment, imaging requests, treatment/prevention, and outcomes). A total of 3562 and 2180 records were retrieved from electronic databases and Google searches, respectively. We identified 280 indicators related to low back pain care from 40 documents and publications. Most quality indicators were process indicators (n = 213, 76%), followed by structure (n = 41, 15%) and outcome indicators (n = 26, 9%). The most common indicators were related to imaging requests (n = 41, 15%), referral to healthcare providers (n = 30, 11%), and shared decision-making (n = 21, 7%). Our review identified a range of clinical care indicators that have been used to measure the quality of health care for people with low back pain. Our findings will support a Delphi study to reach international consensus on what would be the most important and feasible indicators for a minimum dataset to be collected globally., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site–for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: There are no studies investigating the methodological and report quality of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions for musculoskeletal pain management among children and adolescents., Objective: To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews on conservative non-pharmacological pain management in children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain., Methods: Searches were conducted on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline, Embase, and three other databases. Two pairs of reviewers independently assessed each article according to the predetermined selection criteria. We assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews, using the AMSTAR 2 checklist and the quality of reporting, using PRISMA checklist. Descriptive analysis was used to summarise the characteristics of all included systematic reviews. The percentage of systematic reviews achieving each item from the AMSTAR 2, PRISMA checklist and the overall confidence in the results were described., Results: We included 17 systematic reviews of conservative non-pharmacological pain management for musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents. Of the 17 systematic reviews included, nine (53%) were rated as "critically low", seven (41%) were rated as "low", and one (6%) was rated as "high" methodological quality by AMSTAR-2. The reporting quality by items from PRISMA range from 17.6% (95% CI 6.2 to 41) to 100% (95% CI 81.6 to 100)., Conclusion: This systematic review of physical interventions in children and adolescents showed overall 'very low' to 'high' methodological quality and usually poor reporting quality., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Understanding the clinical course of low back pain is essential to informing treatment recommendations and patient stratification. Our aim was to update our previous systematic review and meta-analysis to gain a better understanding of the clinical course of acute, subacute and persistent low back pain., Methods: To update our 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the Embase, MEDLINE and CINAHL databases from 2011 until January 2023, using our previous search strategy. We included prospective inception cohort studies if they reported on participants with acute (< 6 wk), subacute (6 to less than 12 wk) or persistent (12 to less than 52 wk) nonspecific low back pain at study entry. Primary outcome measures included pain and disability (0-100 scale). We assessed risk of bias of included studies using a modified tool and assessed the level of confidence in pooled estimates using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. We used a mixed model design to calculate pooled estimates (mean, 95% confidence interval [CI]) of pain and disability at 0, 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. We treated time in 2 ways: time since study entry (inception time uncorrected) and time since pain onset (inception time corrected). We transformed the latter by adding the mean inception time to the time of study entry., Results: We included 95 studies, with 60 separate cohorts in the systematic review ( n = 17 974) and 47 cohorts ( n = 9224) in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias of included studies was variable, with poor study attrition and follow-up, and most studies did not select participants as consecutive cases. For the acute pain cohort, the estimated mean pain score with inception time uncorrected was 56 (95% CI 49-62) at baseline, 26 (95% CI 21-31) at 6 weeks, 22 (95% CI 18-26) at 26 weeks and 21 (95% CI 17-25) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the subacute pain cohort, the mean pain score was 63 (95% CI 55-71) at baseline, 29 (95% CI 22-37) at 6 weeks, 29 (95% CI 22-36) at 26 weeks and 31 (95% 23-39) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the persistent pain cohort, the mean pain score was 56 (95% CI 37-74) at baseline, 48 (95% CI 32-64) at 6 weeks, 43 (95% CI 29-57) at 26 weeks and 40 (95% CI 27-54) at 52 weeks (very low-certainty evidence). The clinical course of disability was slightly more favourable than the clinical course of pain., Interpretation: Participants with acute and subacute low back pain had substantial improvements in levels of pain and disability within the first 6 weeks ( moderate-certainty evidence); however, participants with persistent low back pain had high levels of pain and disability with minimal improvements over time (very low-certainty evidence). Identifying and escalating care in individuals with subacute low back pain who are recovering slowly could be a focus of intervention to reduce the likelihood of transition into persistent low back pain., Protocol Registration: PROSPERO - CRD42020207442., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Sarah Wallwork has received speaker fees from the Neuro Orthopaedic Institute and Exercise and Sport Science Australia. Felicity Braithwaite has received speaker fees from the Neuro Orthopaedic Institute, San Diego Pain Summit, Medicine Education Science and Health (MESH) . Mary O’Keeffe reports consulting fees from the European Pain Federation EFIC, honoraria from the Physio Network and travel support from INTERACT-EUROPE, PANACEA and Happy. Mervyn Travers has received speaker fees from Aalborg University, Australian Physiotherapy Association, Australian Podiatry Association, Life Ready Physiotherapy, Physio-Formation, Smart Education, O2 Academy, Healthia, Queensland Health, The University of Western Australia, Hemophilia Association Australia, Icelandic Physiotherapy Association and Rural Health West. Belinda Lange is a nonexecutive director of the Australian Physiotherapy Council and the Australasian Institute of Digital Health. G. Lorimer Moseley has received support from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Medical Research Future Fund, Reality Health, Connect Health UK, Institutes of Health California, American International Assurance Australia, Workers’ Compensation Boards and professional sporting organisations (International Olympic Committee, English Premier League, La Liga, Australian Football League Clubs, National Basketball League, Athletics Australia, Cricket Australia). Professional and scientific bodies have reimbursed him for travel costs related to presentations of research on pain. He has received speaker fees for lectures on pain and rehabilitation from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Noigroup Australia and MasterSessions. He receives royalties from Noigroup Publications, Orthopedic Physical Therapy Products and Dancing Giraffe Press. He sits on boards with Painaustralia and National Pain Solutions Research Alliance, and is chief executive officer with Pain Revolution. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2024 CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: Estimates of prevalence of musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents vary considerably and the impact of pain on children's life is often not considered., Objective: To determine the one-month prevalence of disabling musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents. The secondary aims are to: 1) determine the body region with the highest prevalence; 2) understand the characteristics of the children with disabling musculoskeletal pain; and 3) describe the parents' perception of the prevalence., Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in public and private schools in the states of São Paulo and Ceará, Brazil. Children self-reported presence and impact of pain, pain intensity, psychosomatic symptoms, and quality of life. Parents completed parent-proxy versions and perception of the child's sleep quality. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the data., Results: A total of 2,688 children and adolescents were included in this study. The prevalence of disabling musculoskeletal pain in the previous month was 27.1%. The back was the region most often affected (51.8%). Children with disabling musculoskeletal pain were older, heavier, had worse relationships with their family, perceived their backpacks as heavy, carried their backpacks more with one shoulder, had more negative psychosomatic symptoms, had poorer quality of life, and had higher pain intensity. Parents tended to underestimate the presence of pain in their children., Conclusion: The one-month prevalence of activity limiting musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents was 27.1% with the back being the most often affected body region. Parents tended to underestimate the presence of pain in their children., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest All authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is no systematic review assessing the effectiveness of interferential current (IC) in patients with low back pain., Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of IC in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain., Methods: The databases PUBMED, EMBASE, PEDro, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and SCIELO were searched. Randomized controlled trials reporting pain intensity and disability in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain, in which IC was applied were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the quality of evidence., Results: Thirteen RCTs were considered eligible for this systematic review (pooled n = 1367). Main results showed moderate-quality evidence and moderate effect sizes that IC probably reduces pain intensity and disability compared to placebo immediately post-treatment (Pain: MD = -1.57 points; 95% CI -2.17, -0.98; Disability: MD = -1.51 points; 95% CI -2.57, -0.46), but not at intermediate-term follow-up. Low-quality evidence with small effect size showed that IC may reduce pain intensity (SMD = -0.32; 95% CI -0.61, -0.03, p = 0.03) compared to TENS immediately post-treatment, but not for disability. There is very low-quality evidence that IC combined with other interventions (massage or exercises) may not further reduce pain intensity and disability compared to the other interventions provided in isolation immediately post-treatment., Conclusion: Moderate-quality evidence shows that IC is probably better than placebo for reducing pain intensity and disability immediately post-treatment in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Richard Eloin Liebano is co-author of studies included in the present review. All other authors have no conflict of interests to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: It is unclear why patients with low back pain seek care in emergency departments., Objectives: We aim to describe the demographic, physical, and psychological characteristics, and reasons for seeking care at emergency departments due to an episode of low back pain., Methods: This is a cross-sectional study conducted in an emergency department of a public hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, from September 2018 to May 2019. All patients who presented with a new episode of low back pain as the main complaint for seeking care at the emergency department on regular weekdays were invited to participate. We collected data on sociodemographic characteristics, general health characteristics, psychosocial risk factors, and reasons for visiting the emergency department., Results: A total of 200 patients participated. We observed that most patients (68%) were women, with a mean age of 55 years, and who had previous episodes of low back pain (86%). Most patients went to the emergency department because they were worried about their pain (78%) and because they could not control their pain (73%). Patients also choose the emergency department because it is always available, it is free, and provided them good care., Conclusions: Most patients with low back pain seek care at emergency departments because they were worried about their pain and because the department is always open and does not require appointment. Understanding these reasons is an important step for the implementation of future public policies to make health care more efficient, to reduce unnecessary expenses and to avoid low-value care., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest None., (Copyright © 2022 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: Internet-based self-management programs and telerehabilitation initiatives have increased and have been extensively used for delivering health care in many areas. These programs overcome common barriers that patients face with traditional face-to-face health care, such as travel expenditures, lack of time, and high demand on the public health system. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this mode of web-based health care delivery had become more popular. However, there is still a lack of studies testing this mode of delivery in low- and middle-income countries. To gain a better understanding of the context, feasibility, and factors involved in the implementation of a web-based program, pilot and implementation studies are necessary. These studies can better inform whether a strategy is feasible, acceptable, and adequate for its purposes and for optimizing resource allocation., Objective: This study aims to evaluate the feasibility, usability, and implementation context of a self-management internet-based program based on exercises and pain education (ReabilitaDOR) in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain and to compare this program with a program using only a web-based self-management booklet., Methods: The study design was a parallel pilot study of a prospectively registered, assessor-blinded, 2-arm randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation. This study was performed using waiting lists of physiotherapy and rehabilitation centers and advertisements on social media networks. The participants were 65 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain aged between 18 and 60 years. The effects of an 8-week telerehabilitation program based on exercises and pain education (intervention group) were compared with those of a program based only on a web-based self-management booklet (control group). The main outcome measures were implementation outcomes of patients' perceptions of acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and usability of the program and the societal costs and feasibility of the main trial at 8-week posttreatment follow-up. Adverse events were also analyzed., Results: In total, 56 participants were analyzed at the 8-week follow-up. The intervention group showed responses with a mean of 4.5 (SD 0.6) points for acceptability, 4.5 (SD 0.5) points for appropriateness, and 4.5 (SD 0.6) points for feasibility measured on a 1 to 5 scale. All patients in the intervention group showed satisfactory responses to the system usability outcome. There is satisfactory evidence for the feasibility of the main trial. For costs related to the interventions, health care, patients, and loss of productivity at 8 weeks, we found a total expenditure of US $278.30 per patient in the intervention group and US $141.52 per patient in the control group. No adverse events were reported during the intervention period., Conclusions: We found that the ReabilitaDOR program is feasible, appropriate, and acceptable from the users' implementation perspective. This system was considered usable by all the participants, and the main trial seemed feasible. Cost data were viable to be collected, and the program is likely to be safe., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04274439; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04274439., (©Iuri Fioratti, Gisela Cristiane Miyamoto, Junior Vitorino Fandim, Camila Pereira Pontes Ribeiro, Geovana Domingues Batista, Gabriella Evangelista Freitas, Andressa Santos Palomo, Felipe José Jandré dos Reis, Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa, Christopher G Maher, Bruno Tirotti Saragiotto. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 30.08.2022.)

Objective: To systematically review the effects of treatment-based classification (TBC) in patients with specific and nonspecific acute, subacute and chronic low back pain., Methods: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Global Health, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro and WHO from inception up to December 2021. We used the PEDro scale, the TIDieR checklist and the GRADE approach to evaluate the risk of bias, quality on reporting and the certainty of the evidence, respectively., Results: Twenty-three trials (pooled n = 2,649) met the inclusion criteria. We have identified a total of 22 comparisons and 134 estimates of treatment effects. There was a very large heterogeneity with regards to the comparison groups. Most of individual trials had low risk of bias with a mean score of 6.8 (SD = 1.3) on a 0-10 scale. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons was low, which indicates that more high quality and robust trials are needed. We were able to pool the data using a meta-analysis approach for only two comparisons (TBC versus mobility exercises in patients with acute low back pain and traction for patients with sciatica). In general, the TBC approach seems to be useful for patients with acute low back pain, sciatica and with spinal stenosis. We strongly suggest readers to carefully read our summary of findings table for further details on each comparison., Conclusion: The TBC approach seems to be useful for patients with acute low back pain, sciatica and with spinal stenosis.

Objectives: To (1) determine the 1-year estimate of recurrence of low back pain (LBP) in a cohort of people presenting to emergency departments who have recently recovered from an episode of acute LBP in a middle-income country, (2) estimate a recurrence of LBP stratified by the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST), and (3) determine prognostic factors for the recurrence of LBP., Design: Prospective inception cohort study., Methods: We included 238 patients who presented to emergency departments with recent-onset nonspecific LBP in São Paulo, Brazil. The outcome was the recurrence of an episode of LBP, assessed using 2 definitions: (1) 12-month recall alone and (2) pain measurements at follow-up. Prognostic factors were determined by logistic regression., Results: Within 1 year, the estimated recurrence of an episode of LBP ranged from 35% (79/225 events) (first definition) to 44% (100/226 events) (second definition). When patients were stratified by the SBST, the estimate of recurrence ranged from 29% to 37% (21-27/73 events) for low-risk patients, from 33% to 39% (24-28/72 events) for medium-risk patients, and from 43% to 56% (34-45/80 events) for high-risk patients. Age, perceived risk of persistent LBP, and disability were independent prognostic factors associated with LBP recurrence within 1 year., Conclusion: After recovering from a previous episode of acute LBP, 4 in every 10 patients experienced a recurrence within 1 year. This estimate varied depending on the classification used in the SBST. Within 1 year, age, perceived risk of persistent LBP, and baseline disability were predictors of recurrence. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(7):484-492. Epub: 18 May 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10775 .

Background: Psychosomatic symptoms seem to influence both the onset and development of pain. There is lack of Brazilian-Portuguese questionnaires that measure psychosomatic symptoms in children and adolescents., Objective: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Psychosomatic Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents into Brazilian-Portuguese and English and test the measurement properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese version., Methods: The translation and cross-cultural adaptation (from Dutch to Brazilian-Portuguese and English) followed six steps. Interviews were conducted in 33 Brazilian children and adolescents. We also recruited 107 children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain from schools to test the measurement properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese version. The questionnaire was completed twice with a 7-day interval. Ceiling and floor effects, missing data, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error and construct validity were assessed., Results: We recruited 140 children and adolescents from public and private schools. During the cross-cultural adaptation process, no major difficulty answering and understanding the questionnaire were reported by children and adolescents. The questionnaire did not show ceiling or floor effects and had minimal missing data (0.37%). Internal consistency by the Cronbach's Alpha was 0.69. Test-retest reliability by the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.84). The smallest detectable change was 6.5 points out of 18 points. We observed a moderate correlation of 0.54 (p<0.01) with the Spence Children's Anxiety Scale, consistent with our a-priori hypothesis., Conclusion: The Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Psychosomatic Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents has acceptable measurement properties and is a good option for assessing psychosomatic symptoms in clinical practice and research., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Background: Olfactory impairment is common in Parkinson's disease (PD). The authors aimed to identify the clinical tests used to assess olfactory function and examine their ability to distinguish PD with different disease duration from healthy individuals with physiological aging., Methods: Cross-sectional studies published until May 2020 that assessed the olfaction of individuals with PD using search terms related to PD, olfactory function, and assessment were searched on PubMed, PsycInfo, Cinahl, and Web of Science databases., Results: Twelve smell tests were identified from the reviewed studies (n = 125) that assessed 8776 individuals with PD. Data of 6593 individuals with PD and 8731 healthy individuals were included in the meta-analyses. Individuals with PD presented worse performance than healthy individuals, regardless of the smell test used. The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) was used by most studies (n = 2310 individuals with PD) and presented smaller heterogeneity. When the studies were subclassified according to the years of PD duration, there were no significant differences., Conclusion: All smell tests were able to discriminate the olfactory function of PD from that of healthy individuals, although the UPSIT was widely used. The abnormal olfaction was not related to the disease duration. Systematic review protocol registration (PROSPERO/2020-CRD42020160878)., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide, and the burden of LBP is expected to increase in coming decades, particularly in middle-income countries. There is a lack of large and high-quality studies investigating the prevalence of LBP in Brazil., Objective: To estimate the point, one-year, and lifetime prevalence of non-specific LBP in adults from the city of São Paulo, Brazil., Methods: This community-based, cross-sectional study recruited 3000 participants in flow point locations randomly selected from census sectors of São Paulo. Interviews and self-administered questionnaires were used to estimate point prevalence, one-year prevalence, and lifetime prevalence of LBP., Results: The estimate of point prevalence was 9.8% (95% CI: 8.8, 11.0), one-year prevalence was 48.1% (95% CI: 46.3, 49.9), and lifetime prevalence was 62.6% (95% CI: 60.8, 64.3). One-year and lifetime prevalence were higher in females, obese people, people insufficiently active and sedentary, current smokers, people who are exposed to repetitive movements, crouched or kneeling position, people dissatisfied with their job, people a little bit or very stressed, a little bit or very anxious, and a little bit depressed, and people with good and fair or poor general health. Lifetime prevalence was also higher in people exposed to standing positions and exposure to carrying weight., Conclusions: The high point, one-year, and lifetime prevalence of LBP in Brazil indicates that there is a need for coordinated efforts from government, the private sector, universities, health workers, and civil society to deliver appropriate management of LBP in middle-income countries., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest None., (Copyright © 2021 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Most studies investigating the course of recent-onset low back pain (LBP) included patients from primary care. We aimed to describe the prognosis in people with recent-onset LBP presenting to emergency departments (EDs) and to identify prognostic factors for nonrecovery. This inception cohort study with a 1-year follow-up recruited 600 consecutive acute LBP patients presenting to 4 EDs. The outcomes measured the days to recover from pain, recover from disability, return to previous work hours and duties, and complete recovery. Within 12 months, 73% of participants (95% confidence interval [CI] = 69-77) recovered from pain, 86% (95% CI = 82-90) recovered from disability, 79% (95% CI = 71-87) returned to previous work hours and duties, and 70% (95% CI = 66-74) completely recovered. The median recovery times were 67 days (95% CI = 54-80) to recover from pain, 37 days (95% CI = 31-43) to recover from disability, 37 days (95% CI = 25-49) to return to previous work hours and duties, and 70 days (95% CI = 57-83) to recover completely. Higher pain levels, a higher perceived risk of persistent LBP, more days of reduced activity due to LBP, more pain sites, and higher duration of LBP were associated with complete nonrecovery within 6 months. PERSPECTIVE: This information relates to prognosis and to likely recovery times for patients with recent-onset LBP in EDs. The findings also confirm previous factors associated with poor outcomes in patients with recent-onset LBP., (Copyright © 2021 United States Association for the Study of Pain, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Healthcare professionals need to take into account their knowledge, skills and attitudes to develop a focused clinical question, perform an effective search of the literature, critically appraise the evidence, and apply to the clinical context and evaluate the effectiveness of the process. To date, there is a lack of consensus on evidence-based medicine (EBM) curriculum for undergraduate healthcare students in Brazil. The aim of this study was to develop a consensus on EBM curriculum contents for healthcare schools in Brazil considering expert opinion., Design: Modified three-round Delphi methodology., Setting: Online survey., Participants: The expert panel was composed of 40 healthcare professionals from different specialties. Most of the participants (n=24; 60%) were female with the age between 30 and 44 years. Participants were also experts in the field of epidemiology, biostatistics or public health. The mean experience of experts in teaching EBM was 9.5 years., Main Outcome Measures: An online questionnaire consisting of 89 items related to EBM was sent to the experts. The experts ranked each item of EBM curriculum considering the importance of each item as omitted, mentioned, explained or practised. The last section of the questionnaire was composed of 'additional content' where the experts evaluated only if an item should be included or not, the form of offering the EBM contents and the total workload (in hours/semester). Open-ended questions were present in each section to give the opportunity to experts to insert suggestions. Items that reached values greater than or equal to 70% of agreement among experts was considered definitive for the curriculum. Items between 51% and 69% of agreement were included for the next round and those items with less than or equal to 50% of agreement were considered unnecessary and were excluded. In the third round, the EBM contents were classified according to the degree of consensus as follow: strong (≥70% of agreement), moderate (51%-69% of agreement) and weak (50% of agreement) based on the maximum consensus reached., Results: Of the 89 initial contents, 32 (35.9%) reached a strong degree of consensus, 23 (25.8%) moderate degree of consensus, two (2.2%) weak degree of consensus and 35 items were not recommended (≤50% of agreement). The workload suggested by experts should be between 61 and 90 hour/semester and an EBM curriculum should be offered with epidemiology and biostatistics as prerequisites. Regarding the importance of each item, 29 (72.5%) should be explained and 25 (27.5%) should be practised with exercises., Conclusions: The consensus on an EBM curriculum for Brazilian healthcare schools consists of 54 items. This EBM curriculum also presents the degree of consensus (strong, moderate and weak), the importance of each item (mentioned, explained and practised with exercises). A total workload of between 60 and 90 hours per semester was suggested and the EBM curriculum should be offered with epidemiology and biostatistics as prerequisites, but also EBM contents should be included within other disciplines throughout the entire undergraduate course., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Pain catastrophizing underpins several psychosocial theories of pain, but there is limited evidence to support the proposal that changes in pain catastrophizing cause changes in pain. Results from mediation analyses have conflicting results, and one reason for these might be the timing of the assessment of pain catastrophizing. This study aimed to test the effect of the timing of the assessment of pain catastrophizing on its mediating role on pain intensity., Methods: Causal mediation analysis using data from a randomized controlled trial which included 100 participants with chronic low back pain. The trial found that clinical hypnosis, compared to pain education, reduced worst pain intensity and pain catastrophizing. In model 1, we used data from 2-week follow-up for pain catastrophizing and 3-month follow-up for pain. In model 2, we used data from 3-month follow-up for both pain catastrophizing and pain., Results: The intervention had a significant average total effect on pain (-1.34 points, 95% CI -2.50 to -0.13). The average causal mediation effect was significant when pain catastrophizing, and pain were measured at the same time (-0.62 points, 95% CI -1.30 to -0.11) but not significant when pain catastrophizing and pain intensity were measured at different times (-0.10 points, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.09)., Conclusions: The timing of the assessment influenced the mediating role of pain catastrophizing on pain intensity. These results raise questions on the casual role that pain catastrophizing has on pain intensity. Psychosocial interventions such as clinical hypnosis can reduce pain intensity even when there has been no change in pain catastrophizing., (© 2021 European Pain Federation - EFIC®.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of web-based pain education programs without clinical support in patients with musculoskeletal pain., Methods: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to February 2020. Included studies were randomized clinical trials in which people with musculoskeletal pain were allocated to an experimental group that received web-based pain education as a standalone approach. Three review authors performed data extraction. The PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability., Results: Six trials with a total of 1664 participants were included. There is moderate-quality evidence with a small effect size that web-based pain education programs, as a standalone approach, are better than minimal intervention (no intervention or booklets) for pain intensity (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.23; 95% CI = -0.43 to -0.04) in the short term and intermediate term (SMD = -0.26; 95% CI = -0.42 to -0.10). Regarding disability, there is low-quality evidence that web-based pain education programs are better than minimal intervention (SMD = -0.36; 95% CI = -0.64 to -0.07) in the short term. Web-based pain education added to usual care was no better than usual care alone in the intermediate or long term for primary outcomes., Conclusions: Web-based pain education for adults with musculoskeletal pain, as a standalone approach, was better than minimal intervention for pain intensity and disability in the short term, and for pain intensity in the intermediate term. Web-based pain education added to usual care did not provide additional benefits for primary outcomes in the intermediate or long term., Impact: Web-based pain education as a standalone intervention provided small improvements in pain intensity and disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Poorly resourced settings and overburdened health systems should consider this delivery method in the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain., Lay Summary: If you have chronic musculoskeletal pain, your physical therapist might recommend web-based pain education as treatment to help you reduce pain intensity and disability., (© The Author(s) 2021. 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: We aim to determine the effectiveness of meditation for adults with non-specific low back pain., Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO databases for randomized controlled trials that investigated the effectiveness of meditation in adults with non-specific low back pain. Two reviewers rated risk of bias using the PEDro scale and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability., Results: We included eight trials with a total of 1,234 participants. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that meditation is better than usual care for disability at short-term (SMD = -0.22; 95% CI = -0.42 to -0.02). We also found that meditation is better than usual care for pain intensity at long-term (SMD = -0.28; 95% CI = -0.54 to -0.02). There is no significant difference for pain intensity between meditation and minimal intervention or usual care at short and intermediate-term. We did not find differences between meditation and minimal intervention for disability at intermediate-term or usual care in any follow-up period., Conclusions: We found small effect sizes and moderate-certainty evidence that meditation is slightly better than minimal intervention in the short-term for disability. Low-certainty of evidence suggests that meditation is slightly better than usual care for pain in the long-term. Meditation appears to be safe with most trials reporting no serious adverse events., (© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.)

Background: Social media has been used to disseminate the contents of scientific articles. To measure the impact of this, a new tool called Altmetric was created. Altmetric aims to quantify the impact of each article through online media. This systematic review aims to describe the associations between the publishing journal and published article variables and Altmetric scores., Methods: Searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Cochrane Library were conducted. We extracted data related to both the publishing article and the publishing journal associated with Altmetric scores. The methodological quality of included articles was analyzed by the Appraisal Tool for Cross-sectional Studies., Results: A total of 19 articles were considered eligible. These articles summarized a total of 573,842 studies. Citation counts, journal impact factor, access counts, papers published as open access, and press releases generated by the publishing journal were associated with Altmetric scores. The magnitude of these associations ranged from weak to strong., Conclusion: Citation counts and journal impact factor are the most common variables associated with Altmetric scores. Other variables such as access counts, papers published in open access journals, and the use of press releases are also likely to be associated with online media attention., Systematic Review Registration: This review does not contain health-related outcomes. Therefore, it is not eligible for registration.

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: The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) is used to stratify care. It is unclear if the SBST approach works as well for patients in low- and medium-income countries as for patients from high-income countries., Objectives: (1) To investigate whether patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) stratified by the SBST are different at baseline; (2) to describe the clinical course for each SBST subgroup; (3) to investigate the SBST utility to predict clinical outcomes; and (4) to determine which SBST subgroup show greater clinical improvement., Design: This is a secondary analysis of data derived from a previously published clinical trial., Methods: 148 patients with chronic nonspecific LBP were included. Pain intensity, disability, global perceived effect, and the SBST were assessed at baseline and at 5, 12, and 24 weeks after baseline. Descriptive data were provided and ANOVA, unadjusted and adjusted regression models, and linear mixed models were used for data analysis., Results: Duration of symptoms, use of medication, pain, disability, and global perceived effect were different between SBST subgroups. Clinical improvements over a 6-month period were consistently greater in patients classified as high risk. The SBST was able to predict disability but this predictability decreased when the analysis was adjusted for possible confounders., Conclusion: Clinical outcomes were different between SBST subgroups over 6 months. Adjusting for confounders influenced the predictability of SBST. Patients classified as high risk presented higher improvements in terms of disability., (Copyright © 2020 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To summarize the reporting quality of healthcare abstracts and inconsistencies between abstracts and full texts., Study Design and Setting: This systematic review included overviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) that summarized data of healthcare abstracts on reporting of abstracts and consistency of abstracts with the full text. Searches were performed in PubMed, CENTRAL, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases from 1900 to February 2019. Two authors screened the overviews and extracted the data. All analyses were descriptive and divided into two main groups: abstracts' reporting quality and abstracts' consistency with the full text. Abstracts were considered poorly reported and inconsistent with the full text if more than 5% of abstracts' information was not fully reported or not consistent with the full text., Results: 27 overviews analyzing 5,194 RCTs and 866 SRs were retrieved for reporting quality of abstracts. A total of 22 overviews analyzing 2,025 RCTs and 551 SRs were included for consistency of abstracts with the full text. Abstracts across all healthcare areas presented poor reporting quality and were inconsistent with the full texts, with results and conclusions as the most inconsistent sections., Conclusion: Abstracts of healthcare RCTs and SRs have shown a large room for improvement in reporting quality and consistency with the full text. Authors, journal editors and reviewers need to give the highest priority to this matter., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None, (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction : Olfactory impairment has been considered for differential diagnosis in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. The authors aimed to identify the tests used to assess the olfactory function in PD patients and examine these tests' ability to distinguish them from other neurological disorders. Areas covered : Cross-sectional studies published until May 2020 comparing the olfactory function of PD patients to other neurological disorders were searched on PubMed, PsycInfo, Cinahl, and Web of Science databases using search terms related to PD, olfactory function, and assessment. Five thousand three hundred and four studies were screened, and 35 were included in the systematic review. Six smell tests that evaluated a total of 1,544 PD patients were identified. Data of 1,144 patients included in the meta-analyses revealed worse smell performance than individuals with other neurological disorders, such as progressive supranuclear palsy and essential tremor, but not with idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder. Expert opinion : The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test was the most used test to assess the olfactory function of PD. Smell loss was worse in PD than in some neurological disorders. The smell tests' ability in differentiating PD from other neurological disorders still deserves more attention in future studies. Protocol register (PROSPERO/2018-CRD42018107009).

Objective: To describe all the procedures of a study that will replicate a previous case-crossover study investigating physical and psychosocial transient exposure risk factors for triggering an episode of acute non-specific low back pain (LBP) at emergency departments in an emerging country., Methods: This case-crossover study will recruit 350 patients, aged between 18 and 80 years, with a new episode of acute non-specific LBP seeking care at emergency departments from public hospitals in Brazil. We will collect information about exposure to a range of physical (eg, awkward postures, lifting children or animals, vigorous physical activity) and psychosocial triggers (eg, distraction, tiredness, alcohol consumption) that were examined in the previous study. The exposure to each trigger during the 2 hours preceding the onset of LBP (case window) will be compared with exposure in the 2-hour periods ending 24 (24-26 hours) and 48 (48-50 hours) hours before the onset of back pain (control window). Conditional logistic regression models will be built to estimate ORs expressing the magnitude of increased risk of developing LBP associated with each factor., Discussion: This study will enable the confirmation of previous findings regarding transient exposure to factors that increase risk for an episode of acute LBP in a different setting (at emergency departments of an emerging country). To minimise the potential for recall bias, the maximum time between episode onset and interview will be 7 days; we will encourage participants to use their smartphones and diaries to remember the investigated period. Also, our interview script asked participants to nominate the key aspects of each day. Despite these efforts, the retrospective study design means it is not possible to completely exclude potential for recall bias. Furthermore, participants will be blinded to the case and control periods., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics were granted by the Research Ethics Committee (#20310219.8.0000.0064). Study findings will be disseminated through publications and conference presentations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Objectives: Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is responsible for triggering increased biomarkers levels. In this way, photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) may be an interesting alternative to treat these patients. One of the possible biological mechanisms of PBMT involved to decrease pain intensity in patients with musculoskeletal disorders is modulation of the inflammatory mediators' levels. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of PBMT compared with placebo on inflammatory mediators' levels and pain intensity in patients with chronic non-specific LBP., Study Design/materials and Methods: A prospectively registered, randomized triple-blinded (volunteers, therapists, and assessors), placebo-controlled trial was performed. Eighteen patients with chronic non-specific LBP were recruited and treated with a single session of active PBMT or placebo PBMT. The primary outcome of the study was serum prostaglandin E 2 levels and the secondary outcomes were tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-6 levels, and pain intensity. All outcomes were measured before and after 15 minutes of treatment session., Results: PBMT was able to decrease prostaglandin E 2 levels at post-treatment compared with placebo, with a mean difference of -1470 pg/ml, 95% confidence interval -2906 to -33.67 in patients with LBP. There was no difference between groups in the other measured outcomes. Patients did not report any adverse events., Conclusion: Our results suggest that PBMT was able to modulate prostaglandin E 2 levels, indicating that this may be one of the mechanisms involved in the analgesic effects of PBMT in patients with LBP. Trial registration number (ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT03859505. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2020 The Authors. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2020 Authors. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)