Search

Keywords: Musculoskeletal Conditions, Pain, Low Back Pain, Shoulder Pain, Hip Pain, For many common musculoskeletal conditions like nonspecific low back pain and rotator cuff-related shoulder pain, it is not possible to identify a structural cause of someone's pain. (1,2) Clinical tests [...]

Background: Understanding the clinical course of low back pain is essential to informing treatment recommendations and patient stratification. Our aim was to update our previous systematic review and meta-analysis to gain a better understanding of the clinical course of acute, subacute and persistent low back pain. Methods: To update our 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the Embase, MEDLINE and CINAHL databases from 2011 until January 2023, using our previous search strategy. We included prospective inception cohort studies if they reported on participants with acute (< 6 wk), subacute (6 to less than 12 wk) or persistent (12 to less than 52 wk) nonspecific low back pain at study entry. Primary outcome measures included pain and disability (0-100 scale). We assessed risk of bias of included studies using a modified tool and assessed the level of confidence in pooled estimates using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. We used a mixed model design to calculate pooled estimates (mean, 95% confidence interval [CI]) of pain and disability at 0, 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. We treated time in 2 ways: time since study entry (inception time uncorrected) and time since pain onset (inception time corrected). We transformed the latter by adding the mean inception time to the time of study entry. Results: We included 95 studies, with 60 separate cohorts in the systematic review (n = 17 974) and 47 cohorts (n = 9224) in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias of included studies was variable, with poor study attrition and follow-up, and most studies did not select participants as consecutive cases. For the acute pain cohort, the estimated mean pain score with inception time uncorrected was 56 (95% CI 49-62) at baseline, 26 (95% CI 21-31) at 6 weeks, 22 (95% CI 18-26) at 26 weeks and 21 (95% CI 17-25) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the subacute pain cohort, the mean pain score was 63 (95% CI 55-71) at baseline, 29 (95% CI 22-37) at 6 weeks, 29 (95% CI 22-36) at 26 weeks and 31 (95% 23-39) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the persistent pain cohort, the mean pain score was 56 (95% CI 37-74) at baseline, 48 (95% CI 32-64) at 6 weeks, 43 (95% CI 29-57) at 26 weeks and 40 (95% CI 27-54) at 52 weeks (very low-certainty evidence). The clinical course of disability was slightly more favourable than the clinical course of pain. Interpretation: Participants with acute and subacute low back pain had substantial improvements in levels of pain and disability within the first 6 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence); however, participants with persistent low back pain had high levels of pain and disability with minimal improvements over time (very low-certainty evidence). Identifying and escalating care in individuals with subacute low back pain who are recovering slowly could be a focus of intervention to reduce the likelihood of transition into persistent low back pain. Protocol registration: PROSPERO--CRD42020207442, Low back pain is a leading cause of disability worldwide, (1,2) affecting about 570 million people globally. About 39% of the adult population will have low back pain in any [...]

Objective. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation strategies aimed at improving the adherence of physical therapists' treatment choices to clinical practice guidelines for a range of musculoskeletal conditions. Methods. For this review, searches were performed in several databases combining terms synonymous with 'practice patterns' and 'physical therapy' until August 2019. The review included randomized controlled trials that investigated any intervention to improve the adherence of physical therapists' treatment choices to clinical practice guidelines or research evidence. Treatment choices assessed by surveys, audits of clinical notes, and treatment recording forms were the primary measures of adherence. Self-reported guideline adherence was the secondary measure. Three reviewers independently assessed risk of bias. Because of heterogeneity across studies, only a narrative synthesis of the results was performed. Results. Nine studies were included. Four demonstrated a positive effect on at least 1 measure of treatment choices for low back pain and acute whiplash. One involved a comparison with no intervention, and 3 involved a comparison with another active intervention. The interventions that demonstrated a positive effect included dissemination of clinical practice guidelines, with additional elements including interactive educational meetings (3 studies), tailored interventions and monitoring of the performance of health care delivery (1 study), peer assessment (1 study), and local opinion leaders plus educational outreach visits (1 study). Conclusions. Although this review revealed limited trials evaluating interventions to increase physical therapists' use of evidence-based treatments for musculoskeletal conditions compared with no intervention, it highlighted some interventions that may be effective. Impact. Dissemination of clinical practice guidelines, interactive educational meetings, tailored interventions and monitoring the performance of health care delivery, peer assessment, and use of local opinion leaders plus educational outreach visits should be implemented to improve physical therapists' adherence to clinical practice guidelines for a range of musculoskeletal conditions., As with other health professions, there is an expectation that physical therapists provide evidence-based care. In the United States, there are nearly 250,000 physical therapists, and the profession is estimated [...]

High- and low-value health care is a concept receiving substantial attention in many fields of medicine. (1) High-value care refers to an intervention for which evidence suggests it provides a [...], Objective. The aim of this systematic review was to determine what percentages of physical therapists provide interventions that are of high value, low value, or unknown value for cardiorespiratory conditions, neurological conditions, or conditions requiring acute hospital care. Whether an intervention was considered high or low value was determined by reference to guidelines or systematic reviews. Methods. Searches of numerous databases were performed by combining terms synonymous with 'practice patterns' and 'physical therapy' until April 2018. Studies that investigated what interventions physical therapists provide for any cardiorespiratory condition, neurological condition, or condition requiring acute hospital care through surveys and audits of clinical notes were included. Through the use of medians and interquartile ranges, the percentages of physical therapists who provided interventions that were of high value, low value, or unknown value were summarized. Results. Twenty-six studies were included. The median percentages of physical therapists who provided interventions of high, low, and unknown value for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ranged from 78% to 96%, 67% to 100%, and 56% to 91%, respectively. These percentages ranged from 61% to 97%, 87% to 98%, and 83% to 98% for adults who were critically ill in intensive care units; 70% to 93%, 38% to 50%, and 8% to 95% before or after cardiac/thoracic surgery; 25% to 96%, 23% to 84%, and 96% for acute stroke; and 11% (high value) and 13% (unknown value) for Parkinson disease, respectively. Conclusions. This review found patterns of physical therapist practice for cardiorespiratory conditions, neurological conditions, and conditions requiring acute hospital care that were both evidence based and not evidence based. A concern is that a substantial percentage of physical therapists provided interventions that were of low or unknown value despite the availability of high-value interventions. Impact. This systematic review is the first, to our knowledge, to summarize the percentage of physical therapist treatment choices that were high versus low value for cardiorespiratory conditions, neurological conditions, and conditions requiring acute hospital care. The findings highlight areas of practice where low-value care could be replaced with high-value care--such as in the management of patients who have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or who are in intensive care--and identify an urgent need to develop and test strategies to ensure that patients with these conditions receive the interventions most likely to improve their outcomes.

Low back pain (LBP) is ranked globally as the leading cause of disability (1) that emerges during adolescence, escalating into adulthood. (2) Although for some LBP is self-limiting and not [...], Biomedical approaches for diagnosing and managing disabling low back pain (LBP) have failed to arrest the exponential increase in health care costs, with a concurrent increase in disability and chronicity. Health messages regarding the vulnerability of the spine and a failure to target the interplay among multiple factors that contribute to pain and disability may partly explain this situation. Although many approaches and subgrouping systems for disabling LBP have been proposed in an attempt to deal with this complexity, they have been criticized for being unidimensional and reductionist and for not improving outcomes. Cognitive functional therapy was developed as a flexible integrated behavioral approach for individualizing the management of disabling LBP. This approach has evolved from an integration of foundational behavioral psychology and neuroscience within physical therapist practice. It is underpinned by a multidimensional clinical reasoning framework in order to identify the modifiable and nonmodifiable factors associated with an individual&apos;s disabling LBP. This article illustrates the application of cognitive functional therapy to provide care that can be adapted to an individual with disabling LBP.

People often use infographics (also called visual or graphical abstracts) as a substitute for reading the full text of an article. This is a concern because most infographics do not present sufficient information to interpret the research appropriately and guide wise health decisions. The Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide aims to improve the completeness with which research findings of comparative studies are communicated and avoid research findings being misinterpreted if readers do not refer to the full text. The primary audience for the RIVA-C checklist and guide is developers of infographics that summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. The need for the RIVA-C checklist and guide was identified by a survey of how people use infographics. Possible checklist items were informed by a systematic review of how infographics report research. We then conducted a two-round, modified Delphi survey of 92 infographic developers/designers, researchers, health professionals and other key stakeholders. The final checklist includes 10 items. Accompanying explanation and both text and graphical examples linked to the items were developed and pilot tested over a 6-month period. The RIVA-C checklist and guide was designed to facilitate the creation of clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed infographics which summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. Accurate infographics can ensure research findings are communicated appropriately and not misinterpreted. By capturing the perspectives of a wide range of end users (eg, authors, informatics editors, journal editors, consumers), we are hopeful of rapid endorsement and implementation of RIVA-C.