Search

Objective: The objective was to explore for universal prognostic variables, or predictors, across three different outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). We hypothesized that selected prognostic variables would be 'universal' prognostic variables, regardless of the outcome measures used. Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of data from a previous randomized controlled trial comparing the McKenzie treatment approach with placebo in patients with chronic LBP. Ten baseline prognostic variables were explored in predictive models for three outcomes: pain intensity, disability, and global perceived effect, at 6 and 12 months. Predictive models were created using backward stepwise logistic and linear multivariate regression analyses. Results: Several predictors were present including age, expectancy of improvement, global perceived effect; however, we only identified baseline disability as a universal predictor of outcomes at 6 months. The second most represented universal predictor was baseline pain intensity for outcomes at 12 months. Discussion: Only two predictors demonstrated an association with more than one outcome measure. High baseline disability predicts multidimensional outcome measures at 6 months in patients with chronic LBP while baseline pain intensity can best predict the outcome at 12 months. Nevertheless, other predictors seem to be unique to the outcome used. Level of evidence: 2c. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To systematically review the available evidence on the efficacy of the Pilates method in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Method: Searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, SciELO, LILACS, CINAHL and CENTRAL in March 2013. Randomized controlled trials that tested the effectiveness of the Pilates method (against a nontreatment group, minimal intervention or other types of interventions) in adults with chronic low back pain were included regardless the language of publication. The outcome data were extracted from the eligible studies and were combined using a meta-analysis approach. Results: The searches identified a total of 1,545 articles. From these, eight trials were considered eligible, and seven trials were combined in the meta-analysis. The comparison groups were as follows: Pilates versus other types of exercises (n=2 trials), and Pilates versus no treatment group or minimal intervention (n=4 trials) for short term pain; Pilates versus minimal intervention for short-term disability (n=4). We determined that Pilates was not better than other types of exercises for reducing pain intensity. However, Pilates was better than a minimal intervention for reducing short-term pain and disability (pain: pooled mean difference=1.6 points; 95% CI 1.4 to 1.8; disability: pooled mean difference=5.2 points; 95% CI 4.3 to 6.1). Conclusions: Pilates was better than a minimal intervention for reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain. Pilates was not better than other types of exercise for short-term pain reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most of the available instruments aimed to assess risk exposure associated with work-related musculoskeletal disorders were originally developed in English, which makes their use difficult in countries such as Brazil. Objective: To test the clinimetric properties of the Quick Exposure Check (QEC) instrument previously adapted into Brazilian-Portuguese. Method: The original version of the QEC was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Brazilian-Portuguese and tested with 107 workers in two sectors of a textile factory. The internal consistency and construct validity were tested using only baseline values from the participants while reproducibility (reliability and agreement) was evaluated in a test-retest design with a seven-day interval. Results: The adapted version presented appropriate levels of internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.76); moderate intra-observer reliability (ICCs ranging from 0.41 to 0.60); moderate to substantial inter-observer reliability (ICCs ranging between 0.62 and 0.86). The standard error of the measurement (SEM) ranged from 8.3 to 11.2 points. Moderate levels of construct validity (Pearson's r=0.38) were observed. Conclusions: The Brazilian version of the QEC has appropriate clinimetric properties for measuring different levels of exposure to ergonomics risk factors and can now be used by Brazilian researchers and Occupational Health professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most of the available instruments aimed to assess risk exposure associated with work-related musculoskeletal disorders were originally developed in English, which makes their use difficult in countries such as Brazil. Objective: To test the clinimetric properties of the Quick Exposure Check (QEC) instrument previously adapted into Brazilian-Portuguese. Method: The original version of the QEC was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Brazilian-Portuguese and tested with 107 workers in two sectors of a textile factory. The internal consistency and construct validity were tested using only baseline values from the participants while reproducibility (reliability and agreement) was evaluated in a test-retest design with a seven-day interval. Results: The adapted version presented appropriate levels of internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.76); moderate intra-observer reliability (ICCs ranging from 0.41 to 0.60); moderate to substantial inter-observer reliability (ICCs ranging between 0.62 and 0.86). The standard error of the measurement (SEM) ranged from 8.3 to 11.2 points. Moderate levels of construct validity (Pearson's r=0.38) were observed. Conclusions: The Brazilian version of the QEC has appropriate clinimetric properties for measuring different levels of exposure to ergonomics risk factors and can now be used by Brazilian researchers and Occupational Health professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the recent recommendations by the International Society of Physiotherapy Journal Editors with respect to clinical trial registration in physical therapy journals, for placing the protocol for a clinical trial on a free, publicly available and electronically searchable register. The advantages of registration include tackling the main problems of selective reporting and publication bias. It also suggests that the procedure to be followed for trial registration is included.

Objectives: To measure the attitudes and beliefs of Brazilian physical therapists about chronic low back pain and to identify the sociodemographic characteristics that are more likely to influence these attitudes and beliefs. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study with 100 Brazilian physical therapists who routinely work with chronic low back pain patients. The attitudes and beliefs were measured by the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS.PT) and the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS). Multivariate linear regression models were built to identify sociodemographic characteristics that could be associated with physical therapists' attitudes and beliefs. Results: Mean scores on the biomedical and biopsychosocial factors of PABS.PT were 27.06 (SD 7.19) and 24.34 (SD 6.31), respectively, and the mean score on HC-PAIRS was 45.45 (SD 10.45). The score on PABS.PTbiomedical was associated with gender and years of professional experience. No variable was associated with the score on PABS.PTbiopsychosocial. The score on HC-PAIRS was significantly associated with the number of back pain patients seen by the physical therapist each month. These results indicate that male and less experienced physical therapists tend to follow a biomedical approach to the treatment of chronic low back pain patients, and that the lower the professional experience the stronger the belief in the relationship between pain and disability. Conclusions: Brazilian physical therapists are uncertain of the factors involved in the development and maintenance of chronic low back pain and about the relationship between pain and disability in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To measure the attitudes and beliefs of Brazilian physical therapists about chronic low back pain and to identify the sociodemographic characteristics that are more likely to influence these attitudes and beliefs. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study with 100 Brazilian physical therapists who routinely work with chronic low back pain patients. The attitudes and beliefs were measured by the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS.PT) and the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS). Multivariate linear regression models were built to identify sociodemographic characteristics that could be associated with physical therapists' attitudes and beliefs. Results: Mean scores on the biomedical and biopsychosocial factors of PABS.PT were 27.06 (SD 7.19) and 24.34 (SD 6.31), respectively, and the mean score on HC-PAIRS was 45.45 (SD 10.45). The score on PABS.PTbiomedical was associated with gender and years of professional experience. No variable was associated with the score on PABS.PTbiopsychosocial. The score on HC-PAIRS was significantly associated with the number of back pain patients seen by the physical therapist each month. These results indicate that male and less experienced physical therapists tend to follow a biomedical approach to the treatment of chronic low back pain patients, and that the lower the professional experience the stronger the belief in the relationship between pain and disability. Conclusions: Brazilian physical therapists are uncertain of the factors involved in the development and maintenance of chronic low back pain and about the relationship between pain and disability in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Running is one of the most popular physical activities in the world and the number of runners has increased over the past 40 years. One of the consequences of the growing running popularity is the increase of musculoskeletal injuries. Objectives: To describe the routines, training characteristics and history of injury in recreational runners and to evaluate possible associations between the routines and training characteristics with previous musculoskeletal running-related injuries. Methods: A total of 200 runners participated in this study. The participants completed an electronic form containing questions about personal characteristics, running experience, training characteristics, type of running shoes, foot type and previous injuries history over the last 12 months. The data were analyzed descriptively as well as by using logistic regression models. Results: The majority of the runners was male, aged 43.0 (SD=10.5) years-old, have a body mass index of 24.2 (IQR=4.3) kg/m2, and had training volume of 35.0 (IQR=28.0) kilometers per week. Fifty-five percent of runners had injuries over the last 12 months. The most prevalent injuries observed were tendinopathies and muscle injuries. The variable that showed an association with previous running-related injuries was running experience from 5 to 15 years (Odds Ratio (OR)=0.2; 95%CI=0.1 to 0.9). Conclusions: The prevalence of running-related injuries over the last 12 months was 55%. The variable running experience was associated with the absence of previous musculoskeletal running-related injuries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There was a clear grow, in the last 2 decades, of up to 6 fold in scientific articles that are directly relevant to physical therapy practice. However, along with this fast grow; little attention has been given to transparency when reporting research methods and results. More recently, groups of researchers around the world have made successful attempts to address this issue by creating guidelines that will help researchers not only on the preparation of manuscripts but also on making sure that important details related to design and methodology are controlled and reported. Objective: To present four specific reporting guidelines, which are best known as "statements". Discussion: A network named EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) was created with the main mission of providing basic principles for responsible and transparent reporting. The EQUATOR network encompasses, among others, the CONSORT statement which is related to randomized controlled trials; the PRISMA statement, which is related to systematic reviews and meta-analysis; the STROBE Statement, which is related to observational studies; and the STARD statement, which is related to reporting of accuracy of diagnostic tests. Some journals have recommended the use of these statements, while in others their use is mandatory. The goal of the use of these statements by journals is to guarantee fast decisions regarding publication and the best possible quality of reporting. Ultimately, it will help readers, including physical therapists, to make better decisions in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There was a clear grow, in the last 2 decades, of up to 6 fold in scientific articles that are directly relevant to physical therapy practice. However, along with this fast grow; little attention has been given to transparency when reporting research methods and results. More recently, groups of researchers around the world have made successful attempts to address this issue by creating guidelines that will help researchers not only on the preparation of manuscripts but also on making sure that important details related to design and methodology are controlled and reported. Objective: To present four specific reporting guidelines, which are best known as "statements". Discussion: A network named EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) was created with the main mission of providing basic principles for responsible and transparent reporting. The EQUATOR network encompasses, among others, the CONSORT statement which is related to randomized controlled trials; the PRISMA statement, which is related to systematic reviews and meta-analysis; the STROBE Statement, which is related to observational studies; and the STARD statement, which is related to reporting of accuracy of diagnostic tests. Some journals have recommended the use of these statements, while in others their use is mandatory. The goal of the use of these statements by journals is to guarantee fast decisions regarding publication and the best possible quality of reporting. Ultimately, it will help readers, including physical therapists, to make better decisions in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are no clinimetrically tested instruments for measuring attitudes and beliefs of health care providers with regards to chronic low back pain in Brazil. Objectives: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS.PT) into Brazilian-Portuguese and to test the clinimetric properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese versions of the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS) and the PABS.PT. Methods: The PABS.PT was crossculturally adapted following the recommendations of current guidelines. The PABS.PT and the HC-PAIRS were clinimetrically tested in 100 physical therapists who routinely treat patients with low back pain in their clinical practice. The internal consistency, construct validity and ceiling and floor effects were tested using only baseline values from the participants while reproducibility was evaluated in a test-retest design with a seven-day interval. Results: Both scales demonstrated adequate levels of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.67 to 0.74). Their reproducibility ranged from moderate to substantial (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient2,1 ranging from 0.70 to 0.84; Standard Error of the Measurement ranging from 3.48 to 5.06). The validity coefficients of the scales ranged from weak to moderate (Pearson's correlation coefficient ranging from 0.19 to 0.62). No ceiling or floor effects were detected. Conclusions: The results of the present study indicate that both PABS.PT and HC-PAIRS are reproducible scales for the measurement of attitudes and beliefs towards chronic low back pain in Brazilian physical therapists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are no clinimetrically tested instruments for measuring attitudes and beliefs of health care providers with regards to chronic low back pain in Brazil. Objectives: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS.PT) into Brazilian-Portuguese and to test the clinimetric properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese versions of the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS) and the PABS.PT. Methods: The PABS.PT was crossculturally adapted following the recommendations of current guidelines. The PABS.PT and the HC-PAIRS were clinimetrically tested in 100 physical therapists who routinely treat patients with low back pain in their clinical practice. The internal consistency, construct validity and ceiling and floor effects were tested using only baseline values from the participants while reproducibility was evaluated in a test-retest design with a seven-day interval. Results: Both scales demonstrated adequate levels of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.67 to 0.74). Their reproducibility ranged from moderate to substantial (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient2,1 ranging from 0.70 to 0.84; Standard Error of the Measurement ranging from 3.48 to 5.06). The validity coefficients of the scales ranged from weak to moderate (Pearson's correlation coefficient ranging from 0.19 to 0.62). No ceiling or floor effects were detected. Conclusions: The results of the present study indicate that both PABS.PT and HC-PAIRS are reproducible scales for the measurement of attitudes and beliefs towards chronic low back pain in Brazilian physical therapists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Many bibliographic databases index research studies evaluating the effects of health care interventions. One study has concluded that the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) has the most complete indexing of reports of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions, but the design of that study may have exaggerated estimates of the completeness of indexing by PEDro. Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare the completeness of indexing of reports of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions by 8 bibliographic databases. Design. This study was an audit of bibliographic databases. Methods. Prespecified criteria were used to identify 400 reports of randomized controlled trials from the reference lists of systematic reviews published in 2008 that evaluated physical therapy interventions. Eight databases (AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO, and PubMed) were searched for each trial report. The proportion of the 400 trial reports indexed by each database was calculated. Results. The proportions of the 400 trial reports indexed by the databases were as follows: CENTRAL, 95%; PEDro, 92%; PubMed, 89%; EMBASE, 88%; CINAHL, 53%; AMED, 50%; Hooked on Evidence, 45%; and PsycINFO, 6%. Almost all of the trial reports (99%) were found in at least 1 database, and 88% were indexed by 4 or more databases. Four trial reports were uniquely indexed by a single database only (2 in CENTRAL and 1 each in PEDro and PubMed). Limitations. The results are only applicable to searching for English-language published reports of randomized controlled trials evaluating physical therapy interventions. Conclusions. The 4 most comprehensive databases of trial reports evaluating physical therapy interventions were CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE. Clinicians seeking quick answers to clinical questions could search any of these databases knowing that all are reasonably comprehensive. PEDro, unlike the other 3 most complete databases, is specific to physical therapy, so studies not relevant to physical therapy are less likely to be retrieved. Researchers could use CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE in combination to conduct exhaustive searches for randomized trials in physical therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. The evidence that exercise intervention is effective for treatment of chronic low back pain comes from trials that are not placebo-controlled. Objective. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of motor control exercise for people with chronic low back pain. Design. This was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Setting. The study was conducted in an outpatient physical therapy department in Australia. Patients. The participants were 154 patients with chronic low back pain of more than 12 weeks' duration. Intervention. Twelve sessions of motor control exercise (ie, exercises designed to improve function of specific muscles of the low back region and the control of posture and movement) or placebo (ie, detuned ultrasound therapy and detuned short-wave therapy) were conducted over 8 weeks. Measurements. Primary outcomes were pain intensity, activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale), and patient's global impression of recovery measured at 2 months. Secondary outcomes were pain; activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale); patient's global impression of recovery measured at 6 and 12 months; activity limitation (measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 2, 6, and 12 months; and risk of persistent or recurrent pain at 12 months. Results. The exercise intervention improved activity and patient's global impression of recovery but did not clearly reduce pain at 2 months. The mean effect of exercise on activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale) was 1.1 points (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.3 to 1.8), the mean effect on global impression of recovery was 1.5 points (95% CI=0.4 to 2.5), and the mean effect on pain was 0.9 points (95% CI=-0.01 to 1.8), all measured on 11-point scales. Secondary outcomes also favored motor control exercise. Limitation. Clinicians could not be blinded to the intervention they provided. Conclusions. Motor control exercise produced short-term improvements in global impression of recovery and activity, but not pain, for people with chronic low back pain. Most of the effects observed in the short term were maintained at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "PEDro's Bias: Summary Quality Scores Should Not Be Used in Meta-Analysis" by B. R. da Costa and colleagues in the 2013 issue.

This article discusses the editorial policy regarding the publication of randomized controlled trials in the "Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia" magazine. It requires clinical trial authors to register their trials before publication. The journal also requires authors to endorse the recommendations from the Consolidated Standards Reporting Trials statement.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Motor Control Exercise for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial," by L. O. P. Costa, C. G. Maher and J. Latimer in a previous issue.

Study Design: This was a cross-sectional observational study.Objectives: (i) to investigate whether Brazilian physical therapists make clinical decisions for patients with low back pain based upon clinical practice guidelines and (ii) to determine whether the physical therapists are able to recognize differential diagnoses of low back pain associated with red or yellow flags.Summary Of Background Data: Early adherence to clinical practice guidelines may accelerate recovery and reduce the costs associated with low back pain. It is unknown whether Brazilian physical therapists follow clinical practice guidelines to make their clinical decisions in the treatment of patients with low back pain.Methods: The sample consisted of physical therapists from two Brazilian physical therapy associations. The data were collected via electronic survey and face-to-face interviews. The survey was composed of six hypothetical clinical cases of low back pain, which served as a basis to evaluate clinical decisions and adherence to clinical practice guidelines for low back pain. The study participants had 27 possible answers for each clinical case and could choose up to five answers. The results were analyzed in three ways: full adherence, partial adherence, or no adherence to the recommendations from clinical practice guidelines.Results: A total of 530 physical therapists were invited and 189 participated in the study (response rate = 35.6%). Full adherence to the guidelines was low for all six cases (rates ranging from 5%-24%). Partial adherence to the guidelines was higher when compared with full adherence (rates ranging from 32%-75%). The participants were more likely to identify differential diagnoses associated with yellow flags than with red flags.Conclusion: Brazilian physical therapists are not using the best available evidence in their clinical decision making for patients with low back pain. Wider dissemination of clinical practice guidelines should be urgently undertaken.Level Of Evidence: 2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ear Acupuncture (EA) is a form of acupuncture in which needles are applied to the external ear and has been used in multiple painful conditions. Low back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent in active individuals and causes high economic burden to health systems worldwide. LBP affects the person's ability to keep balance, especially in challenging conditions. Objective: The aim of the study was to examine the effects of a single session of EA on pain intensity and body sway during postural tasks. Method: Eighty adults with LBP and pain intensity equal to or greater than 4 (0-10 scale) were randomly allocated (1:1) to EA group (EAG) or placebo group (PG). Initially, the level of pain intensity was assessed. Next, participants stood still on a force plate either with feet in parallel or in semi-tandem and with eyes open or closed. Then, the EAG was treated with EA for 20 min and the PG was treated with detuned ultrasound. After the treatment, pain intensity was assessed again and the postural test was repeated. Pain intensity was the primary outcome and center of pressure sway area and speed were the secondary outcomes measured. Results: Results revealed that pain intensity decreased in both groups after treatment, but decreased more in the EAG. For postural control, no effect of treatment and no interaction between treatment and postural condition on body sway were found. Conclusion: Those findings indicate that EA is better than placebo to reduce pain, but neither treatment has any effect on postural control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) has been widely used by health professionals. However, no study in Brazil has investigated the data regarding the knowledge and difficulties related to EBP from a representative sample of physical therapists. Objective: To identify behavior, knowledge, skills, resources, opinions and perceived barriers of Brazilian physical therapists from the state of São Paulo regarding EBP. Method: A customized questionnaire about behavior, knowledge, skills, resources, opinions and perceived barriers regarding EBP was sent by email to a sample of 490 physical therapists registered by the Registration Board of São Paulo, Brazil. Physical therapists who did not respond to the questionnaire were contacted by telephone and/or letter. The data were analyzed descriptively. Results: The final response rate was 64.4% (316/490). Because 60 physical therapists were no longer practicing, 256 answers were analyzed. The physical therapists reported that they routinely read scientific papers (89.5%) as a resource for professional development, followed by continuing education courses (88.3%) and books (86.3%). Approximately 35% of the respondents reported a clear understanding of the implementation of research findings in their practice; approximately 37% reported no difficulties in critically appraising scientific papers; and 67.2% strongly agreed that EBP is important for their practice. The most commonly reported barriers were related to difficulties in obtaining full-text papers (80.1%), using EBP may represent higher cost (80.1%) and the language of publication of the papers (70.3%). Conclusion: Physical therapists from São Paulo state believe that they have knowledge and skills to use EBP. Although they have favorable opinions regarding its implementation, they still encounter difficulties in implementing EBP successfully. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the quality of the adaptation procedures as well as the clinimetric testing of the shoulder disability questionnaires available in Portuguese that has occurred for each adaptation. Methods: Systematic literature searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCIELO and LILACS were performed to identify relevant studies. Data on the quality of the cross-cultural adaptation procedures and clinimetric testing were extracted. All studies were evaluated according to the current guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties. Results: Seven different questionnaires adapted into Brazilian-Portuguese (DASH, WORC, SPADI, PSS, ASORS, ASES and UCLA) were indentified from eleven studies. Most of the studies performed the cross-cultural adaptation procedures following the recommendations from the guidelines. From a total of seven instruments, two were not tested for any measurement property (PSS and ASES) and two questionnaires (DASH and WORC) were evaluated for almost all of properties. None of the questionnaires were fully tested for their measurement properties. Conclusions: Although most of the shoulder disability questionnaires have been properly adapted into Brazilian-Portuguese, some of them were either inadequately tested or not tested at all. It is recommended that only tested instruments can be used in clinical practice, as well as in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the quality of the adaptation procedures as well as the clinimetric testing of the shoulder disability questionnaires available in Portuguese that has occurred for each adaptation. Methods: Systematic literature searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCIELO and LILACS were performed to identify relevant studies. Data on the quality of the cross-cultural adaptation procedures and clinimetric testing were extracted. All studies were evaluated according to the current guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties. Results: Seven different questionnaires adapted into Brazilian-Portuguese (DASH, WORC, SPADI, PSS, ASORS, ASES and UCLA) were indentified from eleven studies. Most of the studies performed the cross-cultural adaptation procedures following the recommendations from the guidelines. From a total of seven instruments, two were not tested for any measurement property (PSS and ASES) and two questionnaires (DASH and WORC) were evaluated for almost all of properties. None of the questionnaires were fully tested for their measurement properties. Conclusions: Although most of the shoulder disability questionnaires have been properly adapted into Brazilian-Portuguese, some of them were either inadequately tested or not tested at all. It is recommended that only tested instruments can be used in clinical practice, as well as in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Motor Control Exercise for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial," by L. O. P. Costa, C. G. Maher and J. Latimer in a previous issue.

Background: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is one of the main causes of years lived with disability and generates the highest cost of health care among chronic pain conditions. Internet-based treatments have been shown to be an alternative for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions, in addition to reducing barriers such as travel, high demands on the public health system, lack of time, lack of insurance coverage for private care, and high costs for long-term treatment. The aim of this clinical trial is to develop and test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of, an internet-based self-management program based on pain education and exercise for people with chronic musculoskeletal pain.Methods: This is a prospectively registered, assessor-blinded, two-arm randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation comparing the Internet-based pain education and exercise intervention with a control group that will receive an online booklet. One hundred and sixty patients will be recruited from Sao Paulo, Brazil. Follow-ups will be conducted in post-treatment, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The conduct of the study, as well as the evaluations and follow-ups will be carried out entirely remotely, through online platforms and telephone calls. The primary outcome will be pain intensity at post-treatment (8 weeks) measured using the 11-item Pain Numerical Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes will be biopsychosocial factors presents in the chronic musculoskeletal pain condition. Costs due to chronic musculoskeletal pain will be also measured, and cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective will performed.Discussion: Our hypothesis is that internet-based pain education and exercise will be better than an online booklet in reducing pain and improving biopsychosocial outcomes in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. In addition, we believe that there will be good acceptance of patients for the internet-based intervention and that internet-based intervention will be more cost effective than the online booklet.Trial Registration: The study was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04274439 , registered 18 February 2020). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare the responsiveness of disability measures with physical activity measures in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) undergoing a course of physical therapy treatment. Design: This is a prospective cohort study with two-month follow-up. Subjects: A total of 106 patients presenting with non-specific CLBP of more than three months duration were recruited. Main measures: Disability measures investigated were Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Physical activity measures analyzed include the Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire and objective measures derived from an accelerometer (i.e. total time spent in moderate-to-vigorous and light physical activity, number of steps and counts per minute). Disability and physical activity measures were collected at the baseline and after eight weeks of treatment. For the responsiveness analyses, effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM) were calculated. Correlations between the change in disability and physical activity measures were calculated. Results: Responsiveness for disability measures was considered to be large with ESs ranging from −1.03 to −1.45 and SRMs ranging from −0.99 to −1.34, whereas all physical activity measures showed values lower than 0.20. Changes in disability measures did not correlate with changes in physical activity measures (correlation coefficients ranged from −0.10 to 0.09). Conclusion: Disability measures were responsive after a course of physical therapy treatment in patients with CLBP. The lack of responsiveness in the physical activity measures might be due to the inability of these measures to detect change over time or the use of an intervention not designed to increase physical activity levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: A systematic review.Objective: The aim of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of motor control exercise (MCE) in patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP).Summary Of Background Data: MCE is a common form of exercise used for managing LBP. MCE focuses on the activation of the deep trunk muscles and targets the restoration of control and coordination of these muscles, progressing to more complex and functional tasks integrating the activation of deep and global trunk muscles.Methods: We conducted electronic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases, and two trials registers from their inception up to April 2015. Two independent review authors screened the search results, assessed risk of bias, and extracted the data. A third reviewer resolved any disagreement. We included randomized controlled trials comparing MCE with no treatment, another treatment, or as a supplement to other interventions in patients with nonspecific LBP. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Review Group 12-item criteria. We combined results in a meta-analysis expressed as mean difference and 95% confidence interval. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.Results: We included 32 trials (n = 2628). Most included trials had a low risk of bias. For acute LBP, low to moderate quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy or other forms of exercise. There is very low-quality evidence that the addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvements. For recurrence at one year, there is very low-quality evidence that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence. For chronic LBP, there is low to moderate quality evidence that MCE is effective for reducing pain compared with minimal intervention. There is low to high-quality evidence that MCE is not clinically more effective than other exercises or manual therapy. There is very low to low quality evidence that MCE is clinically more effective than exercise and electrophysical agents (EPAs) or telerehabilitation for pain and disability.Conclusion: MCE is probably more effective than a minimal intervention for reducing pain, but probably does not have an important effect on disability, in patients with chronic LBP. There was no clinically important difference between MCE and other forms of exercises or manual therapy for acute and chronic LBP.Level Of Evidence: 1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Systematic review.Objective: To determine the effects of the Pilates method for patients with nonspecific acute, subacute, or chronic low back pain.Summary Of Background Data: The Pilates method is one of the most common forms of intervention based on exercise used for treating patients with low back pain. However, its effectiveness is not well established.Methods: We conducted searches on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus up to March 2014. We included randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness of Pilates in patients with acute, subacute, or chronic nonspecific low back pain. The outcomes evaluated were pain, disability, function, and global impression of recovery. Two independent reviewers screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted the data. We evaluated the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach and treatment effect sizes were described using mean differences and 95% confidence intervals.Results: Searches retrieved 126 trials, of which 10 were included in the review (n = 510 participants). Seven studies were considered to have low risk of bias, and three were considered at high risk of bias. When compared to minimal intervention, Pilates reduces pain at short and intermediate term with low- to moderate-quality evidence and medium effect sizes. For disability, there is also a significant difference in favor to Pilates with low- to moderate-quality evidence and small effect size for short term and medium effect size for intermediate term compared with minimal intervention. It is unclear whether Pilates is better than other exercises for short-term pain, but there is low-quality evidence that Pilates reduces pain at intermediate term. For disability, there is moderate-quality evidence that there is no significant difference between Pilates and other exercises in either the short term or the intermediate term.Conclusion: There is low- to moderate-quality evidence that Pilates is more effective than minimal intervention with most of the effect sizes being considered medium. However, there is no conclusive evidence that Pilates is superior to other forms of exercises.Level Of Evidence: 1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Kinesio Taping® has been widely used in clinical practice. However, it is unknown whether this type of tape is more effective than placebo taping in patients with chronic lower back pain. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of Kinesio Taping® in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain against a placebo tape and a control group. Method: This is a 3-arm, randomized controlled trial with a blinded assessor. Sixty patients with chronic non-specific low back pain were randomized into one of the three groups: Kinesio Taping® group (n=20), Micropore® (placebo) group (n=20) and control group (n=20). Patients allocated to both the Kinesio Taping® group and the placebo group used the different types of tape for a period of 48 hours. The control group did not receive any intervention. The outcomes measured were pain intensity (measured by an 11 -point numerical rating scale) and disability (measured by the 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire). A blinded assessor measured the outcomes at baseline, 48 hours and 7 days after randomization. Results: After 48 hours, there was a statistically significant difference between the Kinesio Taping® group versus the control group (mean between-group difference = -3.1 points, 95% CI=-5.2 to -1.1, p=0.003), but no difference when compared to the placebo group (mean between-group difference= 1.9 points, 95% CI=-0.2 to 3.9, p=0.08). For the other outcomes no differences were observed. Conclusions: The Kinesio Taping® is not better than placebo (Micropore®) in patients with chronic low back pain. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT0200766. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most disabling and costly disorders affecting modern society, and approximately 90% of patients are labelled as having non-specific LBP (NSLBP). Several interventions for patients with NSLBP have been assessed in clinical trials, but heterogeneous reporting of outcomes in these trials has hindered comparison of results and performance of meta-analyses. Moreover, there is a risk of selective outcome reporting bias. To address these issues, the development of a core outcome set (COS) that should be measured in all clinical trials for a specific health condition has been recommended. A standardized set of outcomes for LBP were proposed in 1998 however, with evolution in COS development methodology, new instruments, interventions, and understanding of measurement properties, it is appropriate to update that proposal. This protocol describes the methods used in the initial step in developing a COS for NSLBP, namely, establishing a core domain set that should be measured in all clinical trials. Methods/Design An International Steering Committee including researchers, clinicians, and patient representatives from four continents was formed to guide the development of this COS. The approach of initiatives like Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) was followed. Participants were invited to participate in a Delphi study aimed at generating a consensus-based core domain set for NSLBP. A list of potential core domains was drafted and presented to the Delphi participants who were asked to judge which domains were core. Participant suggestions about overlap, aggregation, or addition of potential core domains were addressed during the study. The patients' responses were isolated to assess whether there was substantial disagreement with the rest of the Delphi panel. A priori thresholds for consensus were established before each Delphi round. All participants' responses were analysed from a quantitative and qualitative perspective to ascertain that no substantial discrepancies between the two approaches emerged. Discussion We present the initial step in developing a COS for NSLBP. The next step will be to determine which measurement instruments adequately cover the domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic reviews aim to summarize all evidence using very rigorous methods in order to address a specific research question with less bias as possible. Systematic reviews are widely used in the field of physical therapy, however not all reviews have good quality. This tutorial aims to guide authors of the Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy on how systematic reviews should be conducted and reported in order to be accepted for publication. It is expected that this tutorial will help authors of systematic reviews as well as journal editors and reviewers on how to conduct, report, critically appraise and interpret this type of study design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic reviews aim to summarize all evidence using very rigorous methods in order to address a specific research question with less bias as possible. Systematic reviews are widely used in the field of physical therapy, however not all reviews have good quality. This tutorial aims to guide authors of the Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy on how systematic reviews should be conducted and reported in order to be accepted for publication. It is expected that this tutorial will help authors of systematic reviews as well as journal editors and reviewers on how to conduct, report, critically appraise and interpret this type of study design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While the research design of articles published in medical journals and in some physical therapy journals has already been evaluated, this has not been investigated in Brazilian physical therapy journals. Objective: To describe the research design used in all articles published in Brazilian scientific journals that are freely available, have high Qualis rankings, and are relevant to physical therapy over a 7-year period. Method: We extracted the bibliometric data, research design, research type (human or animal), and clinical area for all articles published. The articles were grouped into their level of evidence, and descriptive analyses were performed. We calculated the frequency, proportions of articles, and 95% confidence interval of these proportions with each research design in each journal. We cross-tabulated the clinical areas with research designs (expressed as number and percentages). Results: A total of 1,458 articles from four Brazilian journals were found: Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia, Revista Fisioterapia em Movimento, Revista Fisioterapia e Pesquisa, and Revista Acta Fisiátrica. The majority of articles were classified as level II of evidence (60%), followed by level III (29%) and level I (10%). The most prevalent research designs were cross-sectional studies (38%), single-case or case-series studies, and narrative reviews. Most articles reported human research and were in the musculoskeletal, neurologic, and cardiothoracic areas. Conclusions: Most of the research published in Brazilian physical therapy journals used levels II and III of evidence. Increasing the publication rate of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials would provide more high-quality evidence to guide evidence-based physical therapy practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Pressure biofeedback unit (PBU) is an assessment tool used in clinical practice and research aimed to indirectly analyze the transversus abdominis (TrA) muscle activity. The concurrent validity of the PBU in a clinically relevant sample is still unclear. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of the PBU in measuring TrA muscle activity in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Method: This study was performed using a validation, cross-sectional design. Fifty patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain were recruited for this study. To test the concurrent validity both PBU measures (index test) and superficial electromyographic measures (reference-standard test) were compared and collected by a physical therapist in a series of voluntary contraction maneuvers of TrA muscle. Results: Participants were on average 22 years old, weighed 63.7 kilos, 1.70 meters height and mean low back pain duration was 1.9 years. It was observed a weak and non-significant Phi coefficient (r=0.2, p<0.20). With regards to diagnostic accuracy tests, our results suggest a low sensitivity (60%) and specificity (60%) of the PBU. The positive predictive value was high (0.8) and negative predictive value was low (0.2). Conclusions: Concurrent validity of the PBU in measuring TrA muscle activity in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain is poor given the low correlation and diagnostic accuracy with superficial EMG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Pressure biofeedback unit (PBU) is an assessment tool used in clinical practice and research aimed to indirectly analyze the transversus abdominis (TrA) muscle activity. The concurrent validity of the PBU in a clinically relevant sample is still unclear. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of the PBU in measuring TrA muscle activity in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Method: This study was performed using a validation, cross-sectional design. Fifty patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain were recruited for this study. To test the concurrent validity both PBU measures (index test) and superficial electromyographic measures (reference-standard test) were compared and collected by a physical therapist in a series of voluntary contraction maneuvers of TrA muscle. Results: Participants were on average 22 years old, weighed 63.7 kilos, 1.70 meters height and mean low back pain duration was 1.9 years. It was observed a weak and non-significant Phi coefficient (r=0.2, p<0.20). With regards to diagnostic accuracy tests, our results suggest a low sensitivity (60%) and specificity (60%) of the PBU. The positive predictive value was high (0.8) and negative predictive value was low (0.2). Conclusions: Concurrent validity of the PBU in measuring TrA muscle activity in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain is poor given the low correlation and diagnostic accuracy with superficial EMG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although low-back pain is a highly prevalent condition, its clinical course remains uncertain. Our main objective was to systematically review the literature on the clinical course of pain and disability in patients with acute and persistent low-back pain. Our secondary objective was to investigate whether pain and disability have similar courses. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of inception cohort studies. We identified eligible studies by searching MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. We included prospective studies that enrolled an episode-inception cohort of patients with acute or persistent low-back pain and that measured pain, disability or recovery. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed methodologic quality. We used mixed models to determine pooled estimates of pain and disability over time. Results: Data from 33 discrete cohorts (11 166 participants) were included in the review. The variance-weighted mean pain score (out of a maximum score of 100) was 52 (95% CI 48-57) at baseline, 23 (95% CI 21--25) at 6 weeks, 12 (95% CI 9--15) at 26 weeks and 6 (95% CI 3-10) at 52 weeks after the onset of pain for cohorts with acute pain. Among cohorts with persistent pain, the variance-weighted mean pain score (out of 100) was 51 (95% CI 44--59) at baseline, 33 (95% CI 29--38) at 6 weeks, 26 (95% CI 20--33) at 26 weeks and 23 (95% CI 16--30) at 52 weeks after the onset of pain. The course of disability outcomes was similar to the time course of pain outcomes in the acute pain cohorts, but the pain outcomes were slightly worse than disability outcomes in the persistent pain cohorts. Interpretation: Patients who presented with acute or persistent low-back pain improved markedly in the first six weeks. After that time improvement slowed. Low to moderate levels of pain and disability were still present at one year, especially in the cohorts with persistent pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic non-specific low back pain is both a health and a socio-economic problem which is associated with disability as well as with emotional distress. The McKenzie and Back School's techniques have been shown to be effective in the treatment of this condition. Objectives: To perform a preliminary analysis of the effects of these treatments in patients with chronic non specific low back pain for the following outcomes: pain, disability and trunk flexion range of motion and to test the feasibility of randomized controlled trial testing these interventions on this population. Methods: The participants were assessed by a blinded assessor and randomly assigned into one of the treatment groups. The data analysis was performed in only 18 patients and the study is still ongoing, so the results are restricted to these patients, as a single group. Results: The patients improved for the outcomes pain intensity (mean difference of 2.4 points and 95% CI 0.84 to 3.93) and disability (5.2 points and 95% CI 2.55 to 7.78), but no improvement in range of motion in flexion was observed (7.2 degrees 95% CI -1.82 to 16.29). Conclusion: The McKenzie and Back School's approaches may be beneficial for the treatment of patients with chronic non specific low back pain for the outcomes pain intensity and disability. We also concluded that the study is feasible and we will continue performing the current study without any adjustments of the original research protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic non-specific low back pain is both a health and a socio-economic problem which is associated with disability as well as with emotional distress. The McKenzie and Back School's techniques have been shown to be effective in the treatment of this condition. Objectives: To perform a preliminary analysis of the effects of these treatments in patients with chronic non specific low back pain for the following outcomes: pain, disability and trunk flexion range of motion and to test the feasibility of randomized controlled trial testing these interventions on this population. Methods: The participants were assessed by a blinded assessor and randomly assigned into one of the treatment groups. The data analysis was performed in only 18 patients and the study is still ongoing, so the results are restricted to these patients, as a single group. Results: The patients improved for the outcomes pain intensity (mean difference of 2.4 points and 95% CI 0.84 to 3.93) and disability (5.2 points and 95% CI 2.55 to 7.78), but no improvement in range of motion in flexion was observed (7.2 degrees 95% CI -1.82 to 16.29). Conclusion: The McKenzie and Back School's approaches may be beneficial for the treatment of patients with chronic non specific low back pain for the outcomes pain intensity and disability. We also concluded that the study is feasible and we will continue performing the current study without any adjustments of the original research protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although clinical guidelines generally portray chronic low back pain as a condition with a poor prognosis this portrayal is based on studies of potentially unrepresentative survival cohorts. The aim of this study is to describe the prognosis of an inception cohort of people with chronic low back pain presenting for primary care. Methods/Design: The study will be an inception cohort study with one year follow-up. Participants are drawn from a cohort of consecutive patients presenting with acute low back pain (less than 2 weeks duration) to primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. Those patients who continue to experience pain at three months, and are therefore classified as having chronic back pain, are invited to participate in the current study. The cohort will be followed up by telephone at baseline, 9 months and 12 months after being diagnosed with chronic low back pain. Recovery from low back pain will be measured by sampling three different outcomes: pain intensity, interference with function due to pain, and work status. Life tables will be generated to determine the one year prognosis of chronic low back pain. Prognostic factors will be assessed using Cox regression. Discussion: This study will determine the prognosis of chronic non-specific low back pain in a representative cohort of patients sourced from primary care. The results of this study will improve understanding of chronic low back pain, allowing clinicians to provide more accurate prognostic information to their patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While one in ten Australians suffer from chronic low back pain this condition remains extremely difficult to treat. Many contemporary treatments are of unknown value. One potentially useful therapy is the use of motor control exercise. This therapy has a biologically plausible effect, is readily available in primary care and it is of modest cost. However, to date, the efficacy of motor control exercise has not been established. Methods: This paper describes the protocol for a clinical trial comparing the effects of motor control exercise versus placebo in the treatment of chronic non-specific low back pain. One hundred and fifty-four participants will be randomly allocated to receive an 8-week program of motor control exercise or placebo (detuned short wave and detuned ultrasound). Measures of outcomes will be obtained at follow-up appointments at 2, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcomes are: pain, global perceived effect and patient-generated measure of disability at 2 months and recurrence at 12 months. Discussion: This trial will be the first placebo-controlled trial of motor control exercise. The results will inform best practice for treating chronic low back pain and prevent its occurrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]