Search

Systematic reviews are necessary to synthesize available evidence and inform clinical practice and health policy decisions. There has been an explosion of evidence available in many fields; this makes it challenging to keep evidence syntheses up to date and useful. Comparative effectiveness systematic reviews are informative; however, producing these often-large reviews bring intense time and resource demands. This commentary describes the implementation of a systematic review using a collaborative model of evidence synthesis. We are implementing the collaborative review model to update a large Cochrane review investigating the efficacy and comparative effectiveness of the design, delivery, and type of exercise treatment for people with chronic low-back pain. Three key benefits of the collaborative review model for evidence synthesis are (1) team coordination and collaboration, (2) quality control measures, and (3) advanced comparative and other analyses. This new collaborative review model is developed and implemented to produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently while building capacity and community within a research field.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of motor control training (MCT) compared with other physical therapist-led interventions, minimal/no intervention or surgery in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesEight databases and the ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to April 2021.Eligibility criteriaWe included clinical trial studies with concurrent comparison groups which examined the effectiveness of MCT in patients with symptomatic LDH. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and functional status which were expressed as mean difference (MD) and standardised mean difference (SMD), respectively.ResultsWe screened 6695 articles, of which 16 clinical trials (861 participants) were eligible. Fourteen studies were judged to have high risk of bias and two studies had some risk of bias. In patients who did not undergo surgery, MCT resulted in clinically meaningful pain reduction compared with other physical therapist-led interventions (ie, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)) at short-term (MD –28.85, –40.04 to −17.66, n=69, studies=2). However, the robustness of the finding was poor. For functional status, a large and statistically significant treatment effect was found in favour of MCT compared with traditional/classic general exercises at long-term (SMD −0.83 to –1.35 to −0.31, n=63, studies=1) and other physical therapist-led interventions (ie, TENS) at short-term (SMD −1.43 to –2.41 to −0.46, n=69, studies=2). No studies compared MCT with surgery. In patients who had undergone surgery, large SMDs were seen. In favour of MCT compared with traditional/classic general exercises (SMD −0.95 to –1.32 to −0.58, n=124, studies=3), other physical therapist-led interventions (ie, conventional treatments; SMD −2.30 to –2.96 to −1.64, n=60, studies=1), and minimal intervention (SMD −1.34 to –1.87 to −0.81, n=68, studies=2) for functional improvement at short-term. The overall certainty of evidence was very low to low.ConclusionAt short-term, MCT improved pain and function compared with TENS in patients with symptomatic LDH who did not have surgery. MCT improved function compared with traditional/classic general exercises at long-term in patients who had undergone surgery. However, the results should be interpreted with caution because of the high risk of bias in the majority of studies.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016038166.

Purpose Low back pain is associated with disability and lost productivity due to inability of workers to return to work. Personal recovery expectation beliefs may be associated with return to work outcomes in those with low back pain at high risk for chronic disability. We aimed to (1) assess whether workers' expectations for return to work, following a low back pain episode, are associated with subsequent return to work; and (2) explore the relationships between return to work expectations and other prognostic factors in their association with work outcomes.Methods We conducted an Individual Participant Data (IPD) meta-analysis using data from five prospective cohort studies identified by a Cochrane prognostic factor review. A one-stage IPD meta-analysis approach was applied. Multi-level mixed effects models were used to determine the unadjusted and adjusted associations between expectations and return to work (logistic regression) and time to return to work (parametric survival models with Weibull distribution).Results The final dataset included 2302 participants. Positive expectations for return to work were associated with return to work at follow-up in both unadjusted (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.95; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.21, 3.95) (n = 2071) and comprehensively adjusted (OR 2.01; 95% CI 1.46, 2.77) (n = 1109) models. Similar findings were identified for shorter length of time to return to work in both unadjusted (HR 2.40; 95% CI 2.09, 2.75) (n = 1156) and minimally adjusted (HR 2.43; 95% CI 2.12, 2.79) (n = 1154) models.Conclusions Results suggest workers with low expectations for return to work are at increased risk for long-term work disability.

Background Despite international guideline recommendations, low back pain (LBP) imaging rates have been increasing over the last 20 years. Previous systematic reviews report limited effectiveness of implementation interventions aimed at reducing unnecessary LBP imaging. No previous reviews have analysed these implementation interventions to ascertain what behaviour change techniques (BCTs) have been used in this field. Understanding what techniques have been implemented in this field is an essential first step before exploring intervention effectiveness. Methods We searched EMBASE, Ovid (Medline), CINAHL and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to February 1, 2021, as well as and hand-searched 6 relevant systematic reviews and conducted citation tracking of included studies. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extracted data on study and intervention characteristics. Study interventions were qualitatively analysed by three coders to identify BCTs, which were mapped to mechanisms of action from the theoretical domains framework (TDF) using the Theory and Techniques Tool. Results We identified 36 eligible studies from 1984 citations in our electronic search and a further 2 studies from hand-searching resulting in 38 studies that targeted physician behaviour to reduce unnecessary LBP imaging. The studies were conducted in 6 countries in primary (n = 31) or emergency care (n = 7) settings. Thirty-four studies were included in our BCT synthesis which found the most frequently used BCTs were ‘4.1 instruction on how to perform the behaviour’ (e.g. Active/passive guideline dissemination and/or educational seminars/workshops), followed by ‘9.1 credible source’, ‘2.2 feedback on behaviour’ (e.g. electronic feedback reports on physicians’ image ordering) and 7.1 prompts and cues (electronic decision support or hard-copy posters/booklets for the office). This review highlighted that the majority of studies used education and/or feedback on behaviour to target the domains of knowledge and in some cases also skills and beliefs about capabilities to bring about a change in LBP imaging behaviour. Additionally, we found there to be a growing use of electronic or hard copy reminders to target the domains of memory and environmental context and resources. Conclusions This is the first study to identify what BCTs have been used to target a reduction in physician image ordering behaviour. The majority of included studies lacked the use of theory to inform their intervention design and failed to target known physician-reported barriers to following LBP imaging guidelines. Protocol Registation PROSPERO CRD42017072518

Objective To comprehensively describe the quality of conduct, reporting, and publication integrity characteristics for all trials included in a large Cochrane review, comparing those published by presumed predatory publishers with those published by nonpredatory publishers. Design Cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study. Study selection Two hundred seventy-nine studies (25,704 participants) eligible for the recent update of the “Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain” Cochrane review were included. Data extraction Study and manuscript characteristics, including predatory publication status and other quality and integrity characteristics were extracted along with treatment effect. Results Nine percent of trials included were in presumed predatory publications; 12% in the period since 2010. We found frequency of other concerning characteristics to range from low (eg, plagiarism, 5%) to common (eg, lack of evidence of trial registration or protocol publication [75%]; insufficient sample size [84%]) in included studies. Studies published by presumed predatory publishers consistently had inferior conduct, reporting and publication integrity characteristics. Presumed predatory publication was associated with missing conflict of interest statement (OR 7.6, 95% CI 3.0–19.1), inadequate follow-up duration (OR 11.2, 95% CI 3.7–33.7), incomplete study methods (OR 12.1, 95% CI 2.8–52.2) and baseline reporting (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.6–11.7), and high risk of bias (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2–6.3). All (100%) presumed predatory publications were missing trial registrations (vs. 72%) and had inadequate sample sizes (vs. 82%). Trials published in presumed predatory journals did not appear to have inflated effect sizes. Conclusions Predatory publishers pose a distinct challenge to the consumption and synthesis of randomized controlled trials. More work is needed in other clinical areas to understand the potential impact of randomized controlled trials published in predatory publications, and as a result, the potential impact on evidence from systematic reviews that include these studies.

Background: Low back pain is a leading cause of disability worldwide and results in enormous healthcare and lost productivity costs. Guidelines exist to guide the management of low back pain, but guideline adherence varies.Objective: This study assessed whether initial presentation to the emergency department for non-specific low back pain with a Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia claim was associated with different diagnostic management from non-claimants.Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed administrative data from four emergency departments in Nova Scotia on 18,337 adult patients who presented for non-specific low back pain between July 15, 2009 and May 1, 2019. All data were retrieved from the Nova Scotia Health Authority Emergency Department Information System.Results: Patients had a mean age of 43 years and 51.3% were female. Most patients were assigned a Canadian Triage Acuity Scale score of 3 (51.9%) and reported moderate (51.2%) to severe pain (41.5%). Occupational injuries consisted of 11.6% of visits. More than 37% of patients received one or more diagnostic test. Patients with occupational injuries were less likely to receive diagnostic tests (odds ratio [OR] = 0.52, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.58), imaging (OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.67), and laboratory tests (OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.43). These results remained consistent when controlling for covariates.Conclusion: Patients who presented to the emergency department for occupational non-specific low back pain were less likely to receive diagnostic tests compared to non-occupational non-specific low back pain patients.

Background and ObjectivesRisk of bias is a critical issue to consider when appraising studies. Generally, the higher the risk of bias of a study, the less confidence there will be that the results are valid. Considering that low back pain is recognized to have an extremely high disease burden; exercise therapy is one of the most frequently prescribed interventions for chronic low back pain (CLBP) and that most low back pain trials have methodological limitations that could bias treatment effect estimates; the objective of this study is to explore causal pathways between the sources of risk of bias and estimates of the treatment effect of exercise therapy interventions in CLBP trials.MethodsThe 249 RCTs included in the 2021 Cochrane review publication “Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain” will be included. The risk of bias will be evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (ROB 2). Causal pathways between the exposure (risk of bias domains) and our outcomes of interest (effect sizes for pain and functional limitations) will be explored through univariable and multivariable meta-regression models. These models will be adjusted for potential confounders (sample size, trial registration, incomplete flow chart information and treatment comparisons), exploring relevant interactions within each model. Additional and sensitivity analyses will be performed to explore and test the robustness of the primary analyses.Ethics and disseminationA manuscript will be prepared and submitted for publication in an appropriate peer-reviewed journal upon study completion. We believe that the results of this investigation will be relevant to researchers paying more attention to the synthesis of the evidence to translate clinical implications to key stakeholders (healthcare providers and patients).

Low back pain is a major cause of disability in older adults, and results in many emergency department visits each year. Characteristics of the older back pain population are largely unknown. We conducted a retrospective study to examine the prevalence and patient characteristics for older (≥ 65 years of age) and younger (16–64 years of age) adults presenting with back pain. Study objectives were to describe the characteristics of older adults with back pain presenting to an emergency department and to identify age-group-based differences in management. Older adults were most commonly diagnosed with non-specific low back pain (49%). For older adults with this diagnosis, the length of stay was 2.1 times longer (p < 0.001), and odds of being admitted to the hospital were 5.1 times higher (p < 0.001) than for younger adults. Patterns of management are different for younger and older adults with low back pain; this information can be used to direct future resource planning.

Objective To synthesize the literature on the proportion of health care providers who access and use prescription monitoring program data in their practice, as well as associated barriers to the use of such data. Design We performed a systematic review using a standard systematic review method with meta-analysis and qualitative meta-summary. We included full-published peer-reviewed reports of study data, as well as theses and dissertations. Methods We identified relevant quantitative and qualitative studies. We synthesized outcomes related to prescription monitoring program data use (i.e., ever used, frequency of use). We pooled the proportion of health care providers who had ever used prescription monitoring program data by using random effects models, and we used meta-summary methodology to identify prescription monitoring program use barriers. Results Fifty-three studies were included in our review, all from the United States. Of these, 46 reported on prescription monitoring program use and 32 reported on barriers. The pooled proportion of health care providers who had ever used prescription monitoring program data was 0.57 (95% confidence interval: 0.48–0.66). Common barriers to prescription monitoring program data use included time constraints and administrative burdens, low perceived value of prescription monitoring program data, and problems with prescription monitoring program system usability. Conclusions Our study found that health care providers underutilize prescription monitoring program data and that many barriers exist to prescription monitoring program data use.

Prescription monitoring programs (PMPs) house and monitor data about the prescribing practices of health care providers, as well as medications received by patients. PMPs aim to promote the appropriate use of prescription opioids by providing this information to prescribers and dispensers. Our objective in this systematic review was to comprehensively identify and assess the available evidence about the impact of PMPs on opioid prescribing and dispensing, multiple provider use for obtaining opioids, inappropriate opioid prescribing, and the extent of nonmedical prescription opioid use. We used a comprehensive search strategy and included study designs that could determine changes in outcomes with the implementation of a PMP. We included 24 studies; 75% of studies were conducted in the United States, and studies encompassed data years from 1993 to 2014. Overall, we did not find evidence to support an association between PMPs and decreased opioid prescribing and dispensing. We found limited, but inconsistent, evidence that PMPs were associated with reduced schedule II opioid prescribing and dispensing, as well as multiple provider use. Covariate adjustment was often inadequate in analyses, as was the timing of outcome and PMP measurement. Future studies should broaden their geographic scope to other countries and use more recent data with standard measurement. PERSPECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to determine the effectiveness of PMPs in changing prescribing practices and prescription opioid use. The findings from this review will inform policymakers and PMP administrators about the current state of the evidence on program effectiveness.

Background Cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is associated with a systemic inflammatory syndrome that adversely impacts cardiopulmonary function and can contribute to prolonged postoperative recovery. Intra-operative ultrafiltration during CPB is a strategy developed by pediatric cardiac specialists, aiming to dampen the inflammatory syndrome by removing circulating cytokines and improving coagulation profiles during the cardiac operation. Although ultrafiltration is commonly used in the pediatric population, it is not routinely used in the adult population. This study aims to evaluate if randomized evidence supports the use of continuous intra-operative ultrafiltration to enhance recovery for adults undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis will include randomized controlled trials (RCT) that feature continuous forms of ultrafiltration during adult cardiac surgery with CPB, specifically assessing for benefit in mortality rates, invasive ventilation time and intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS). Relevant RCTs will be retrieved from databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and Scopus, by a pre-defined search strategy. Search results will be screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria by two independent persons with consensus. Selected RCTs will have study demographics and outcome data extracted by two independent persons and transferred into RevMan. Risk of bias will be independently assessed by the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias (RoB2) tool and studies rated as low-, some-, or high- risk of bias. Meta-analyses will compare the intervention of continuous ultrafiltration against comparators in terms of mortality, ventilation time, ICU LOS, and renal failure. Heterogeneity will be measured by the χ2 test and described by the I2 statistic. A sensitivity analysis will be completed by excluding included studies judged to have a high risk of bias. Summary of findings and certainty of the evidence, determined by the GRADE approach, will display the analysis findings. Discussion The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis will summarize the evidence to date of continuous forms of ultrafiltration in adult cardiac surgery with CPB, to both inform adult cardiac specialists about this technique and identify critical questions for future research in this subject area. Systematic review registration This systematic review and meta-analysis is registered in PROSPERO CRD42020219309 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020219309).

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

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text This individual participant data meta-analysis assessed the effect of spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain (LBP). Based on this review, there is no evidence to suggest that specific patients’ characteristics are associated with a clinically better response to spinal manipulative therapy as compared with other recommended treatments for chronic LBP., Study Design. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. Objective. The aim of this study was to identify which participant characteristics moderate the effect of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) on pain and functioning in chronic LBP. Summary of Background. The effects of SMT are comparable to other interventions recommended in guidelines for chronic low back pain (LBP); however, it is unclear which patients are more likely to benefit from SMT compared to other therapies. Methods. IPD were requested from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of SMT in adults with chronic LBP for pain and function compared to various other therapies (stratified by comparison). Potential patient moderators (n = 23) were a priori based on their clinical relevance. We investigated each moderator using a one-stage approach with IPD and investigated this interaction with the intervention for each time point (1, 3, 6, and 12 months). Results. We received IPD from 21 of 46 RCTs (n = 4223). The majority (12 RCTs, n = 2249) compared SMT to recommended interventions. The duration of LBP, baseline pain (confirmatory), smoking, and previous exposure to SMT (exploratory) had a small moderating effect across outcomes and follow-up points; these estimates did not represent minimally relevant differences in effects; for example, patients with

Objectives Despite several hundred previous randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the key treatment targets of exercise for persistent nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) remain unclear. This study aimed to generate consensus about the key treatment targets of exercise interventions for patients with NSLBP. Design Consensus was generated using modified nominal group technique in two, sequential, workshops. The results of a previous systematic review informed the first, national, workshop idea generation and the results of this workshop informed the second, international, workshop. The authors generated a starting list of 30 treatment targets from the systematic review. A pre-specified consensus threshold of 75% was used in the voting stage. Participants Workshop participants included people with experience of using exercise to manage their persistent NSLBP, clinicians who prescribe exercise for persistent NSLBP, and researchers who design and evaluate exercise interventions in RCTs. All participants generated, voted and ranked the treatment targets in each workshop using an online platform. Results A total of 39 participants contributed to the consensus (15 in the national workshop and 24 in the international workshop), comprising two people with NSLBP, six clinicians and 31 researchers/clinicians. A total of 40 exercise treatment targets were generated, and 25 were retained after voting and ranking. The prioritised targets of exercise for persistent NSLBP were: improving function, improving quality of life, reducing pain, meeting patient-specific goals and reducing fear of movement. Conclusions Future RCTs of exercise should specify the targets of their exercise intervention and consider assessing these treatment targets as well as including mediation analyses. (c) 2021 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Objective: The present systematic review aimed to evaluate the association between childhood maltreatment and chronic pain, with specific attention to the temporal nature of the relationship and putative moderators, including, the nature (type), timing of occurrence, and magnitude of maltreatment; whether physical harm or injury occurred; and whether post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) subsequently developed. Method: We included studies that measured the prospective relationship between child maltreatment and pain. Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched electronically up to 28 July 2019. We used accepted methodological procedures common to prognosis studies and preregistered our review (PROSPERO record ID 142169) as per Cochrane review recommendations. Results: Nine studies (17,340 participants) were included in the present review. Baseline participant age ranged from 2 years to more than 65 years. Follow-up intervals ranged from one year to 16 years. Of the nine studies included, three were deemed to have a high risk of bias. With the exception of one meta-analysis of three studies, results were combined using narrative synthesis. Results showed low to very low quality and conflicting evidence across the various types of maltreatment, with the higher quality studies pointing to the absence of direct (non-moderated and non-mediated) associations between maltreatment and pain. PTSD was revealed to be a potential mediator and/or moderator. Evidence was not found for other proposed moderators. Conclusions: Overall, there is an absence of evidence from high quality studies of an association between maltreatment and pain. Our results are limited by the small number of studies reporting the relationship between child maltreatment and pain using a prospective design. High quality studies, including prospective cohort studies and those that assess and report on the moderators described above, are needed to advance the literature.

'Editorial Material'

Background At any one time, one in every five Canadians has low back pain (LBP), and LBP is one of the most common health problems in primary care. Guidelines recommend that imaging not be routinely performed in patients presenting with LBP without signs or symptoms indicating a potential pathological cause. Yet imaging rates remain high for many patients who present without such indications. Inappropriate imaging can lead to inappropriate treatments, results in worse health outcomes and causes harm from unnecessary radiation. There is a need to understand the extent of, and factors contributing to, inappropriate imaging for LBP, and to develop effective strategies that target modifiable barriers and facilitators. The primary study objectives are to determine: 1) The rate of, and factors associated with, inappropriate lumbar spine imaging (x-ray, CT scan and MRI) for people with non-specific LBP presenting to primary care clinicians in Ontario; 2) The barriers and facilitators to reduce inappropriate imaging for LBP in primary care settings. Methods The project will comprise an inception cohort study and a concurrent qualitative study. For the cohort study, we will recruit 175 primary care clinicians (50 each from physiotherapy and chiropractic; 75 from family medicine), and 3750 patients with a new episode of LBP who present to these clinicians. Clinicians will collect data in the clinic, and each participant will be tracked for 12 months using Ontario health administrative and self-reported data to measure diagnostic imaging use and other health outcomes. We will assess characteristics of the clinicians, patients and encounters to identify variables associated with inappropriate imaging. In the qualitative study we will conduct in-depth interviews with primary care clinicians and patients. Discussion This will be the first Canadian study to accurately document the extent of the overuse of imaging for LBP, and the first worldwide to include data from the main healthcare professions offering primary care for people with LBP. This study will provide robust information about rates of inappropriate imaging for LBP, along with factors associated with, and an understanding of, potential reasons for inappropriate imaging. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12891-019-2427-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Low back pain is one of the most common and disabling health problems in Canada and internationally. In most cases, low back pain is a benign, self-limiting condition that can be managed with little diagnostic investigation or treatment. Yet contrary to clinical practice guideline recommendations, diagnostic imaging (here meaning X-ray, MRI, CT) is commonly used in the assessment of low back pain. Diagnostic imaging is of limited value in most cases, exposing patients to unnecessary radiation and leading to increased health services use and worse patient health outcomes. The Choosing Wisely campaign has highlighted the need to reduce diagnostic imaging for low back pain; however, no clinical decision rules are available. Methods This project will develop a clinical decision support tool for appropriate use of diagnostic imaging for patients with low back pain in the emergency department. We will conduct a prospective cohort study at five Canadian emergency departments. The study will follow recommendations for prediction model development and testing. The study population will be 4000 patients presenting to the emergency department with low back pain. We will assess potential clinical indications of emergent-cause (i.e., “red flag” items), including clinical characteristics and past history. Our outcome, emergent-cause for low back pain such as fracture, cancer, infection, or cauda equina syndrome, will be assessed at discharge and at 1-, 3-, and 12-month follow-up periods using information from self-report and health administrative data. We will construct and assess the performance of a multivariable prediction model that has strong measurement properties, presented as a clinical decision support tool acceptable to knowledge users. Discussion Practice guidelines describe “red flags” for which diagnostic imaging is likely appropriate. However, recommendations across guidelines are discordant, and few studies have evaluated these criteria to determine which characteristics best predict emergent etiology that warrant diagnostic imaging. A clinical decision support tool, that recommends diagnostic imaging where appropriate, has the potential to improve clinical care and patient outcomes and reduce costs associated with managing low back pain patients. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s41512-019-0047-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundAs of April 2021, three SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC: B.1.1.7, B.1.351 and P.1) have been detected in over 132 countries. Increased transmissibility of VOC has implications for public health measures and health system arrangements. This rapid scoping review aims to provide a synthesis of current evidence related to public health measures and health system arrangements associated with VOC.MethodsRapid scoping review. Seven databases were searched up to April 7, 2021 for terms related to VOC, transmission, public health and health systems. A grey literature search was conducted up to April 14, 2021. Title, abstracts and full text were screened independently by two reviewers. Data were double extracted using a standardized form. Studies were included if they reported on at least one of the VOC and public health or health system outcomes.ResultsOf the 2487 articles and 59 grey literature sources retrieved, 37 studies and 21 guidance documents were included. Included studies used a wide range of designs and methods. Most of the studies and guidance documents reported on B.1.1.7, and 18 studies and 4 reports provided data for consideration in relation to public health measures. Public health measures, including lockdowns, physical distancing, testing and contact tracing, were identified as critical adjuncts to a comprehensive vaccination campaign. No studies reported on handwashing or masking procedures related to VOC. For health system arrangements, 17 studies were identified. Some studies found an increase in hospitalization due to B.1.1.7 but no difference in length of stay or ICU admission. Six studies found an increased risk of death ranging from 15-67% with B.1.1.7 compared non-B.1.1.7, but three studies reported no change. One study reported on the effectiveness of personal protective equipment in reducing VOC transmission in the hospital. No studies reported on screening staff and visitors, adjusting service provisions, or adjusting patient accommodations and shared spaces, which is a significant gap in the literature. Guidance documents did not tend to cite any evidence and were thus assumed to be based on expert opinion.ConclusionWhile the findings should be interpreted with caution as most of the sources identified were preprints, findings suggest a combination of non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g., masking, physical distancing, lockdowns, testing) should be employed alongside a vaccine strategy to improve population and health system outcomes. While the findings are mixed on the impact of VOC on health system arrangements, the evidence is trending towards increased hospitalization and death.

Background Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for presentation to the emergency department (ED). LBP is most commonly non-specific or mechanical in nature yet can be debilitating. Diagnostic imaging (DI) is commonly ordered contrary to guideline recommendations for patients with LBP. This study seeks to determine if physician characteristics are associated with ordering of DI for patients with non-specific or mechanical LBP in the ED. These characteristics include physician sex, age, experience level, location of residency training, and full-time status. Methodology We included all patients presenting to the ED of a Canadian tertiary care center with a diagnosis of non-specific or mechanical LBP between January 2015 and June 2018. We tracked the use of DI for physicians caring for patients presenting to the ED over this period. Simple and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed, controlling for patient characteristics, to identify provider characteristics that were independently associated with DI use. Results Internationally trained physicians were less likely to order diagnostic radiographs than Canadian trained physicians (odds ratio [OR], 0.625; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.95), while middle-aged physicians ordered more computed tomography scans (OR, 6.34; 95% CI, 1.52-26.52) compared to younger physicians; there was no significant difference between younger and older physicians. Conclusions Few physician characteristics were associated with any DI ordering for non-specific or mechanical LBP. The likelihood of receiving DI for non-specific or mechanical LBP may be more strongly related to unmeasured patient characteristics, settings, or logistical factors.

Objective: This study retroactively investigated the search methods used in the 2019 Hayden et al. study, one of the first systematic reviews of prognostic factors that was published in the Cochrane Library. The review was designed to address recognized weaknesses in reviews of prognosis by using multiple supplementary search methods in addition to traditional electronic database searching.Methods: The authors used four approaches to comprehensively assess aspects of systematic review literature searching for prognostic factor studies: (1) comparison of search recall of broad versus focused electronic search strategies, (2) linking of search methods of origin for eligible studies, (3) analysis of impact of supplementary search methods on meta-analysis conclusions, and (4) analysis of prognosis filter performance.Results: The review’s focused electronic search strategy resulted in a 91% reduction in recall, compared to a broader version. Had the team relied on the focused search strategy without using supplementary search methods, they would have missed 23 of 58 eligible studies that were indexed in MEDLINE; additionally, the number of included studies in 2 of the review’s primary outcome meta-analyses would have changed. Using a broader strategy without supplementary searches would still have missed 5 studies. The prognosis filter used in the review demonstrated the highest sensitivity of any of the filters tested.Conclusions: Our study results support recommendations for supplementary search methods made by prominent systematic review methodologists. Leaving out any supplemental search methods would have resulted in missed studies, and these omissions would not have been prevented by using a broader search strategy or any of the other prognosis filters tested.

ObjectiveTo determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of psychological interventions for chronic low back pain.DesignSystematic review with network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and CINAHL from database inception to 31 January 2021.Eligibility criteria for study selectionRandomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions with any comparison intervention in adults with chronic, non-specific low back pain. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and confidence in the evidence. Primary outcomes were physical function and pain intensity. A random effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach was performed at post-intervention (from the end of treatment to Results97 randomised controlled trials involving 13 136 participants and 17 treatment nodes were included. Inconsistency was detected at short term and mid-term follow-up for physical function, and short term follow-up for pain intensity, and were resolved through sensitivity analyses. For physical function, cognitive behavioural therapy (standardised mean difference 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.44), and pain education (0.62, 0.08 to 1.17), delivered with physiotherapy care, resulted in clinically important improvements at post-intervention (moderate quality evidence). The most sustainable effects of treatment for improving physical function were reported with pain education delivered with physiotherapy care, at least until mid-term follow-up (0.63, 0.25 to 1.00; low quality evidence). No studies investigated the long term effectiveness of pain education delivered with physiotherapy care. For pain intensity, behavioural therapy (1.08, 0.22 to 1.94), cognitive behavioural therapy (0.92, 0.43 to 1.42), and pain education (0.91, 0.37 to 1.45), delivered with physiotherapy care, resulted in clinically important effects at post-intervention (low to moderate quality evidence). Only behavioural therapy delivered with physiotherapy care maintained clinically important effects on reducing pain intensity until mid-term follow-up (1.01, 0.41 to 1.60; high quality evidence).ConclusionsFor people with chronic, non-specific low back pain, psychological interventions are most effective when delivered in conjunction with physiotherapy care (mainly structured exercise). Pain education programmes (low to moderate quality evidence) and behavioural therapy (low to high quality evidence) result in the most sustainable effects of treatment; however, uncertainty remains as to their long term effectiveness. Although inconsistency was detected, potential sources were identified and resolved.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019138074.

Low back pain is a leading cause of disability globally. It is a common reason for presentation to the emergency department where opioids are commonly prescribed. This is a retrospective cohort study of opioid-naive adults with low back pain presenting to 1 of 4 emergency departments in Nova Scotia. We use routinely collected administrative clinical and drug-use data (July 2010-November 2017) to investigate the prevalence of prolonged opioid use and associated individual and prescription characteristics. In total, 23,559 eligible individuals presented with nonspecific low back pain, with 84.4% being opioid-naive. Our study population included 4023 opioid-naive individuals who filled a new opioid prescription within 7 days after their index emergency department visit (24.4%). The prevalence of prolonged opioid use after a new opioid prescription for low back pain (filling an opioid prescription 8-90 days after the emergency department visit and filling a subsequent prescription ±30 days of 6 months) was 4.6% (185 individuals). Older age and female sex were associated with clinically important increased odds of prolonged opioid use. First prescription average >90 morphine milligram equivalents/day (odds ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.0-2.6) and greater than 7-day supply (1.9, 1.1-3.1) were associated with prolonged opioid use in adjusted models. We found evidence of declining opioid prescriptions over the study period, but that 24.3% of first opioid prescriptions in 2016 would not have aligned with current guideline recommendations. Our study provides evidence to support a cautious approach to prescribing in opioid-naive populations.

BackgroundLow back pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Exercise therapy is widely recommended to treat persistent non-specific low back pain. While evidence suggests exercise is, on average, moderately effective, there remains uncertainty about which individuals might benefit the most from exercise.MethodsIn parallel with a Cochrane review update, we requested individual participant data (IPD) from high-quality randomised clinical trials of adults with our two primary outcomes of interest, pain and functional limitations, and calculated global recovery. We compiled a master data set including baseline participant characteristics, exercise and comparison characteristics, and outcomes at short-term, moderate-term and long-term follow-up. We conducted descriptive analyses and one-stage IPD meta-analysis using multilevel mixed-effects regression of the overall treatment effect and prespecified potential treatment effect modifiers.ResultsWe received IPD for 27 trials (3514 participants). For studies included in this analysis, compared with no treatment/usual care, exercise therapy on average reduced pain (mean effect/100 (95% CI) −10.7 (−14.1 to –7.4)), a result compatible with a clinically important 20% smallest worthwhile effect. Exercise therapy reduced functional limitations with a clinically important 23% improvement (mean effect/100 (95% CI) −10.2 (−13.2 to –7.3)) at short-term follow-up. Not having heavy physical demands at work and medication use for low back pain were potential treatment effect modifiers—these were associated with superior exercise outcomes relative to non-exercise comparisons. Lower body mass index was also associated with better outcomes in exercise compared with no treatment/usual care. This study was limited by inconsistent availability and measurement of participant characteristics.ConclusionsThis study provides potentially useful information to help treat patients and design future studies of exercise interventions that are better matched to specific subgroups.Protocol publicationhttps://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-64

Background While low back pain is a common presenting complaint in the emergency department, current estimates from Canada are limited. Furthermore, existing estimates do not clearly define low back pain. As such, our main objective was to estimate prevalence rates of low back pain in a large Nova Scotian emergency department using various definitions, and to describe characteristics of individuals included in these groups. An additional objective was to explore trends in low back pain prevalence in our emergency department over time. Methods We conducted a cross sectional analysis using six years of administrative data from our local emergency setting. We first calculated the prevalence and patient characteristics for individuals presenting with any complaint of back pain, and for groups diagnosed with different types of low back pain. We explored prevalence over time by analyzing presentation trends by month, day of the week and hour of the day. Results The prevalence of patients presenting to the emergency department with a complaint of back pain was 3.17%. Individuals diagnosed with non-specific/mechanical low back pain with no potential nerve root involvement made up 60.8% of all back pain presentations. Persons diagnosed with non-specific/mechanical low back pain with potential nerve root involvement made up 6.7% of presentation and the low back pain attributed to secondary factors accounted for 9.9% of back pain presentations. We found a linear increase in presentations for low back pain over the study period. Conclusion This is the first multi-year analysis assessing the prevalence of low back pain in a Canadian emergency department. Back pain is a common presenting complaint in our local emergency department, with most of these persons receiving a diagnosis of non-specific/mechanical low back pain with no potential nerve root involvement. Future research should concentrate on understanding the management of low back pain in this setting, to ensure this is the proper setting to manage this common condition. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12891-018-2237-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives This study aimed to assess chiropractors’ awareness of clinical practice guidelines for low back pain and to identify barriers and facilitators to the screening and management of psychosocial factors in patients with low back pain. Methods This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework with 10 Nova Scotian chiropractors who were members of a practice-based research network. Results The participants correctly identified what the guidelines generally recommend and described the value of psychosocial factors; however, none of the participants could name specific clinical practice guidelines for low back pain. We identified 6 themes related to barriers and facilitators for chiropractors screening and managing psychosocial factors. The themes revolved around the participants’ desire to fulfill patients’ anatomy-focused treatment expectations and a perceived lack of training for managing psychosocial factors. Participants had concerns about going beyond the chiropractic scope of practice, and they perceived a lack of practical psychosocial screening and management resources. Social factors, such as the influence of other health care practitioners, were reported as both barriers and facilitators to screening and managing psychosocial factors. Conclusions The participants in this study reported that they mostly treated with an anatomical and biomechanical focus and that they did not always address psychosocial factors identified in their patients with low back pain. Although these findings are limited to Nova Scotian chiropractors, the barriers identified appeared to be potentially modifiable and could be considered in other groups. Low-cost interventions, such as continuing education using evidence-informed behavior change techniques, could be considered to address these barriers.

Background: Sibling relationships are longstanding across an individual’s life and are influential in children’s development. The study of siblings in pediatric pain is, although in early stages, a growing field. Aims: This scoping review sought to summarize and map the type of research available examining siblings and pediatric pain to identify gaps and directions for future research. Methods: Studies were identified based on a search of PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Embase, and Web of Science (up to November 2016). We extracted data about study methods, the sample, outcome assessment, and the influence/relationships investigated. Results: Thirty-five studies were included. Most studies used quantitative methods (n = 28), and participants typically included children (i.e., aged 6–12; n = 24) and adolescents (i.e., aged 13–18; n = 18). The majority of studies examined siblings in the context of chronic and disease-related pain (n = 30). Though quantitative studies primarily focused on the genetic influence of pain conditions (n = 18), qualitative and mixed-methods studies typically focused on exploring the impact of siblings with and without pain on one another (n = 2) and the impact of pain on the broader dyadic relationship/functioning (n = 4). Conclusions: Sibling research in pediatric pain has been primarily focused on the biological/physical components of pain, using quantitative approaches. Conducting more studies using qualitative or mixed-methods designs, incorporating multiple assessment measures (e.g., observational, self-report) and multiple perspectives (e.g., siblings, health professionals), may provide an opportunity to gain richer and more comprehensive information regarding the experience of siblings.

Persistent non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide.1 Although exercise is the most recommended intervention for NSLBP,2 the effects are small to moderate.3 Researchers who conduct and publish exercise-focused randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (clinicians/scientists) are doing a ‘poor to moderate’ job reporting.4 Gaps in reporting limit evidence synthesis and the ability of clinicians to replicate the exercises in a clinical setting. The CONSORT statement and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist aim to improve minimum reporting standards. More recently, the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) was developed to work alongside the existing RCT checklists. Authors and journal editors need to embrace these standards to ensure a high quality of research conduct and implementation. If you work in exercise medicine/science and do not yet know ‘CERT’, we encourage you to study it and use it. Despite CERT adding value for our community, it fails to address the aim or target of the exercise intervention.5 Related to the content of this discussion—low back pain—our call to action is that researchers should be clear on the purpose of exercise treatment. For example, is the purpose of exercise therapy to reduce pain, to make the patient stronger or to improve function? Understanding the aim of the exercise therapy will impact the selection of the exercise intervention and RCT design.5 Clearly, specified target(s) of exercise are helpful—yoga, may aim to increase strength and flexibility as well …

The recent network meta-analysis by Owen and colleagues1 included 89 trials of exercise for chronic low back pain (LBP) and reported low quality evidence that Pilates, stabilisation, resistance and aerobic exercises are the most effective treatments for these patients. We were surprised by how few trials were included and even more surprised by how large the estimates of treatment effect were. For example, with Pilates the effect is reported to be 1.86 standardised mean difference (SMD) in the abstract and 2.32 SMD in online supplementary table 5. These estimates are about 3–4 times effect sizes normally reported for exercise interventions in LBP and so we took a closer look at the review to try to understand what had happened. That investigation revealed some important issues that we would like to share with readers. First, the review has missed a lot of relevant trials. The Cochrane review of exercise for chronic LBP that is currently underway has identified over 350 trials, whereas the Owen review included only 89. Even applying the restrictive selection criteria of the Owen …

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is costly and disabling. Prognostic factor evidence can help healthcare providers and patients understand likely prognosis, inform the development of prediction models to identify subgroups, and may inform new treatment strategies. Recent studies have suggested that people who have poor expectations for recovery experience more back pain disability, but study results have differed. \ud \ud OBJECTIVES: To synthesise evidence on the association between recovery expectations and disability outcomes in adults with low back pain, and explore sources of heterogeneity. SEARCH METHODS: The search strategy included broad and focused electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO to 12 March 2019, reference list searches of relevant reviews and included studies, and citation searches of relevant expectation measurement tools. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included low back pain prognosis studies from any setting assessing general, self-efficacy, and treatment expectations (measured dichotomously and continuously on a 0 - 10 scale), and their association with work participation, clinically important recovery, functional limitations, or pain intensity outcomes at short (3 months), medium (6 months), long (12 months), and very long (> 16 months) follow-up. \ud \ud DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted study characteristics and all reported estimates of unadjusted and adjusted associations between expectations and related outcomes. Two review authors independently assessed risks of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. We conducted narrative syntheses and meta-analyses when appropriate unadjusted or adjusted estimates were available. Two review authors independently graded and reported the overall quality of evidence. MAIN \ud \ud RESULTS: We screened 4635 unique citations to include 60 studies (30,530 participants). Thirty-five studies were conducted in Europe, 21 in North America, and four in Australia. Study populations were mostly chronic (37%), from healthcare (62%) or occupational settings (26%). General expectation was the most common type of recovery expectation measured (70%); 16 studies measured more than one type of expectation. Usable data for syntheses were available for 52 studies (87% of studies; 28,885 participants). We found moderate-quality evidence that positive recovery expectations are strongly associated with better work participation (narrative synthesis: 21 studies; meta-analysis: 12 studies, 4777 participants: odds ratio (OR) 2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64 to 3.62), and low-quality evidence for clinically important recovery outcomes (narrative synthesis: 12 studies; meta-analysis: 5 studies, 1820 participants: OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.41), both at follow-up times closest to 12 months, using adjusted data. The association of recovery expectations with other outcomes of interest, including functional limitations (narrative synthesis: 10 studies; meta-analysis: 3 studies, 1435 participants: OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.31) and pain intensity (narrative synthesis: 9 studies; meta-analysis: 3 studies, 1555 participants: OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.23) outcomes at follow-up times closest to 12 months using adjusted data, is less certain, achieving very low- and low-quality evidence, respectively. No studies reported statistically significant or clinically important negative associations between recovery expectations and any low back pain outcome. \ud \ud AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that individual recovery expectations are probably strongly associated with future work participation (moderate-quality evidence) and may be associated with clinically important recovery outcomes (low-quality evidence). The association of recovery expectations with other outcomes of interest is less certain. Our findings suggest that recovery expectations should be considered in future studies, to improve prognosis and management of low back pain.

Background In order to address the opioid crisis in North America, many regions have adopted preventative strategies, such as prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). PDMPs aim to increase patient safety by certifying that opioids are prescribed in appropriate quantities. We aimed to synthesize the literature on changes in opioid-related harms and consequences, an important measure of PDMP effectiveness. Methods We completed a systematic review. We conducted a narrative synthesis of opioid-related harms and consequences from PDMP implementation. Outcomes were grouped into categories by theme: opioid dependence, opioid-related care outcomes, opioid-related adverse events, and opioid-related legal and crime outcomes. Results We included a total of 22 studies (49 PDMPs) in our review. Two studies reported on illicit and problematic use but found no significant associations with PDMP status. Eight studies examined the association between PDMP status and opioid-related care outcomes, of which two found that treatment admissions for prescriptions opioids were lower in states with PDMP programs (p p Conclusion Our study found limited evidence to support overall associations between PDMPs and reductions in opioid-related consequences. However, this should not detract from the value of PDMPs’ larger role of improving opioid prescribing.

Background Adoption of low back pain guidelines is a well-documented problem. Information to guide the development of behaviour change interventions is needed. The review is the first to synthesise the evidence regarding physicians’ barriers to providing evidence-based care for LBP using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Using the TDF allowed us to map specific physician-reported barriers to individual guideline recommendations. Therefore, the results can provide direction to future interventions to increase physician compliance with evidence-based care for LBP. Methods We searched the literature for qualitative studies from inception to July 2018. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extracted data on study characteristics, reporting quality, and methodological rigour. Guided by a TDF coding manual, two reviewers independently coded the individual study themes using NVivo. After coding, we assessed confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. Results Fourteen studies (n = 318 physicians) from 9 countries reported barriers to adopting one of the 5 guideline-recommended behaviours regarding in-clinic diagnostic assessments (9 studies, n = 198), advice on activity (7 studies, n = 194), medication prescription (2 studies, n = 39), imaging referrals (11 studies, n = 270), and treatment/specialist referrals (8 studies, n = 193). Imaging behaviour is influenced by (1) social influence—from patients requesting an image or wanting a diagnosis (n = 252, 9 studies), (2) beliefs about consequence—physicians believe that providing a scan will reassure patients (n = 175, 6 studies), and (3) environmental context and resources—physicians report a lack of time to have a conversation with patients about diagnosis and why a scan is not needed (n = 179, 6 studies). Referrals to conservative care is influenced by environmental context and resources—long wait-times or a complete lack of access to adjunct services prevented physicians from referring to these services (n = 82, 5 studies). Conclusions Physicians face numerous barriers to providing evidence-based LBP care which we have mapped onto 7 TDF domains. Two to five TDF domains are involved in determining physician behaviour, confirming the complexity of this problem. This is important as interventions often target a single domain where multiple domains are involved. Interventions designed to address all the domains involved while considering context-specific factors may prove most successful in increasing guideline adoption. Registration PROSPERO 2017, CRD42017070703 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0884-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) is a treatment-based classification system founded on 3 core principles: classification into diagnostic syndromes, classification-based intervention, and appropriate application of force. Many randomized controlled trials have investigated the efficacy of MDT for low back pain; however, results have varied. The inconsistent delivery of MDT across trials may explain the different findings.To compare treatment effect sizes for pain or disability between trials that delivered MDT consistent with the core principles of the approach and trials that met some or none of these principles.In this systematic review, databases were searched from inception to June 2018 for studies that delivered MDT compared to nonpharmacological, conservative control interventions in patients with low back pain and reported outcomes of pain or disability. Studies were classified as "adherent" (meeting the core principles of MDT) or "nonadherent" (using some or none of the principles of MDT). Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Meta-regression procedures were used to analyze the effect of delivery mode on clinical outcomes, adjusting for covariates of symptom duration (less than or greater than 3 months) and control intervention (minimal or active).Studies classified as adherent to the MDT approach showed greater reductions in pain and disability of 15.0 (95% confidence interval: 7.3, 22.7) and 11.7 (95% confidence interval: 5.4, 18.0) points, respectively, on a 100-point scale compared to nonadherent trials.This review provides preliminary evidence that treatment effects of MDT are greater when the core principles are followed.Therapy, level 1a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(4):219-229. Epub 13 Feb 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8734.

Prognostic factors are associated with the risk of future health outcomes in individuals with a particular health condition or some clinical start point (eg, a particular diagnosis). Research to identify genuine prognostic factors is important because these factors can help improve risk stratification, treatment, and lifestyle decisions, and the design of randomised trials. Although thousands of prognostic factor studies are published each year, often they are of variable quality and the findings are inconsistent. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are therefore needed that summarise the evidence about the prognostic value of particular factors. In this article, the key steps involved in this review process are described.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of a government-regulated rehabilitation guideline compared with education and activation by general practitioners, and to a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation programme on self-reported global recovery from acute whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) grade I–II.DesignPragmatic randomised clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment.SettingMultidisciplinary rehabilitation clinics and general practitioners in Ontario, Canada.Participants340 participants with acute WAD grade I and II. Potential participants were sampled from a large automobile insurer when reporting a traffic injury.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to receive one of three protocols: government-regulated rehabilitation guideline, education and activation by general practitioners or a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOur primary outcome was time to self-reported global recovery. Secondary outcomes included time on insurance benefits, neck pain intensity, whiplash-related disability, health-related quality of life and depressive symptomatology at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months postinjury.ResultsThe median time to self-reported global recovery was 59 days (95% CI 55 to 68) for the government-regulated guideline group, 105 days (95% CI 61 to 126) for the preferred-provider group and 108 days (95% CI 93 to 206) for the general practitioner group; the difference was not statistically significant (Χ2=3.96; 2 df: p=0.138). We found no clinically important differences between groups in secondary outcomes. Post hoc analysis suggests that the general practitioner (hazard rate ratio (HRR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77) and preferred-provider groups (HRR=0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96) had slower recovery than the government-regulated guideline group during the first 80 days postinjury. No major adverse events were reported.ConclusionsTime-to-recovery did not significantly differ across intervention groups. We found no differences between groups with regard to neck-specific outcomes, depression and health-related quality of life.Trial registration numberNCT00546806.

A prognostic factor is any variable associated with a subsequent outcome such as death or disability among people with a disease or health condition. Prognostic factors range from simple measures, such as age, gender, temperature, or pulse rate, to test results such as X-rays or psychological scores, whilst novel biomarkers and genetic information are increasingly studied. Different values of a prognostic factor are associated with a different prognosis and can be used to stratify overall prognosis estimates. This chapter details the potential use of prognostic factors (including disease definition, identifying new intervention targets, and providing building blocks for prognostic models); the design of exploratory and validation cohort studies to identify prognostic factors; the importance of examining the prognostic value of a new factor over and above existing factors; consideration of time-dependent prognostic effects; and the use of the REMARK reporting guideline.