CARLoquium 2022

The Chiropractic Academy for Research Leadership (CARL) is an innovative program that provides mentorship, training, and leadership opportunities to the next generation of chiropractic researchers through an open application process. The first CARLoquium was launched by in 2021 by the CARL Fellows as a means to meet and disseminate research findings from the chiropractic community during the COVID-19 pandemic with the second CARLoquium held virtually in March 2022. To date, the conference has featured numerous keynote speakers, hundreds of s and continues to provide a cost-effective avenue for our researcher community to gather.

SPINE20 recommendations 2021: spine care for people's health and prosperity.

PURPOSE: The focus of SPINE20 is to develop evidence-based policy recommendations for the G20 countries to work with governments to reduce the burden of spine disease, and disability. METHODS: On September 17-18, 2021, SPINE20 held its annual meeting in Rome, Italy. Prior to the meeting, the SPINE20 created six proposed recommendations. These recommendations were uploaded to the SPINE20 website 10 days before the meeting and opened to the public for comments. The recommendations were discussed at the meeting allowing the participants to object and provide comments. RESULTS: In total, 27 societies endorsed the following recommendations. SPINE20 calls upon the G20 countries: (1) to expand telehealth for the access to spine care, especially in light of the current situation with COVID-19. (2) To adopt value-based interprofessional spine care as an approach to improve patient outcomes and reduce disability. (3) To facilitate access and invest in the development of a competent rehabilitation workforce to reduce the burden of disability related to spine disorders. (4) To adopt a strategy to promote daily physical activity and exercises among the elderly population to maintain an active and independent life with a healthy spine, particularly after COVID-19 pandemic. (5) To engage in capacity building with emerging countries and underserved communities for the benefit of spine patients. (6) To promote strategies to transfer evidence-based advances into patient benefit through effective implementation processes. CONCLUSIONS: SPINE20's initiatives will make governments and decision makers aware of efforts to reduce needless suffering from disabling spine pain through education that can be instituted across the globe.

Sustainable UNiversity Life (SUN) study: protocol for a prospective cohort study of modifiable risk and prognostic factors for mental health problems and musculoskeletal pain among university students.

INTRODUCTION: Mental health problems and musculoskeletal pain are common health problems among young adults including students. Little is known about the aetiology and prognosis of these problems in university students. We aim to determine the role of personal, sociodemographic, academic and environmental factors for risk and prognosis of symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress as well as musculoskeletal pain in university students. The constructs that will be studied are based on the biopsychosocial model and psychopathology associated with disabling pain. This model acknowledges illness to consist of interrelated mechanisms categorised into biological, psychological, environmental and social cues. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This cohort study aims to recruit around 5000 Swedish full-time students. Data will be collected using five online surveys during one academic year. A subgroup (n=1851) of the cohort, recruited before the COVID-19 pandemic, receive weekly text messages with three short questions assessing mood, worry and pain, sent through the web-based platform SMS-track . Statistical analyses will include Kaplan-Meier estimates, Cox regression analyses, multinomial logistic regression analyses and generalised estimating equations. We will assess effect measure modification when relevant and conduct sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of lost to follow-up. PROTOCOL AMENDMENTS: Due to opportunity and timing of the study, with relevance to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, this study further aims to address mental health problems, musculoskeletal pain and lifestyle in university students before and during the pandemic. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Sustainable UNiversity Life study was approved by the Swedish ethics authority (2019-03276; 2020-01449). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed research papers, reports, research conferences, student theses and stakeholder communications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04465435.

Depression, anxiety and stress among Swedish university students during the second and third waves of COVID-19: A cohort study.

AIMS: This study aims to describe the mean trajectories of depression, anxiety and stress symptoms among Swedish university students before and during the second and third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We recruited 1835 participants in September 2020, of whom 81% provided follow-ups in December 2020-January 2021 and 77% provided follow-ups in March-April 2021. The short-form Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale was used to measure mental health symptoms. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the mean differences in symptom levels over the three time periods. RESULTS: Compared with September, mean depression was 0.91 points of 21 higher (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-1.13) in December 2020-January 2021 and 0.66 points higher (95% CI 0.43-.88) in March-April 2021. Anxiety levels were 0.20 points higher (95% CI 0.05-0.34) in December 2020-January 2021 and 0.17 points higher (95% CI 0.02-0.33) in March-April 2021. Stress levels were 0.21 points higher (95% CI 0.00-0.41) in December 2020-January 2021 and 0.16 points lower (95% CI -0.38 to 0.05) in March-April 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate relatively stable levels of mental health among Swedish university students during the second and third waves of COVID-19 compared with before the second wave. Mean depression symptom scores increased slightly, but the importance of this small increase is uncertain.

Depression, anxiety and stress among Swedish university students before and during six months of the COVID-19 pandemic: A cohort study.

AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound effect on societies and citizens worldwide, raising concerns about potential mental health impacts. We aimed to describe trajectories of depression, anxiety and stress symptoms during the COVID-19 outbreak compared to before the outbreak, and to determine if trajectories were modified by pre-pandemic loneliness, poor sleep quality and mental health problems. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study with 1836 Swedish university students entering the study before 13 March 2020, the onset of the pandemic, with follow-ups within three (FU1) and six months (FU2) of the outbreak. Generalized Estimating Equations were used to estimate mean differences in symptom levels over time-periods, and to estimate potential effect modifications. RESULTS: We found small differences in mean levels of the depression, anxiety and stress scale (DASS-21) over time. Compared to before the pandemic, depression increased by 0.25 points of 21 (95% CI: 0.04 to 0.45) at FU1 and decreased by 0.75/21 (95% CI:-0.97 to -0.53) at FU2. Anxiety decreased from baseline to FU1 by 0.09/21 (95% CI: -0.24 to 0.07) and by 0.77/21 (95% CI: -0.93 to -0.61) to FU2. Stress decreased from baseline to FU1 by 0.30/21 (95% CI: -0.52 to -0.09) and by 1.32/21 (95% CI: -1.55 to -1.09) to FU2. Students with pre-pandemic loneliness, poor sleep quality or pre-pandemic mental health problems did not have worse trajectories of mean mental health symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom levels were relatively stable during the first three months of the pandemic, while there was a slight decrease during the summer months, probably due to seasonality effects.

Are Nonpharmacologic Interventions Delivered Through Synchronous Telehealth as Effective and Safe as In-Person Interventions for the Management of Patients With Nonacute Musculoskeletal Conditions? A Systematic Rapid Review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether nonpharmacologic interventions delivered through synchronous telehealth are as effective and safe compared with in-person interventions for the management of patients with musculoskeletal conditions in improving pain, functioning, self-reported recovery, psychological outcomes, or health-related quality of life using rapid review methods. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 2010 to August 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English or French; we updated our search in January 2021. STUDY SELECTION: One reviewer screened citations in 2 phases (phase 1: title/abstract; phase 2: full-text) selecting RCTs comparing synchronous telehealth with in-person care for the management of musculoskeletal conditions. A random 10% sample was screened by 2 independent reviewers with minimum 95% agreement prior to full screening. One reviewer critically appraised and one reviewer validated appraisal for eligible RCTs. DATA EXTRACTION: One author extracted participant characteristics, setting, sample size, interventions, comparisons, follow-up period, and outcome data. A second author validated data extraction. DATA SYNTHESIS: We summarized the findings narratively. Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggests that synchronous telehealth (ie, videoconference or telephone calls) alone or in combination with in-person care leads to similar outcomes as in-person care alone for nonspecific low back pain, generalized osteoarthritis, hip or knee osteoarthritis, and nonacute headaches in adults. CONCLUSIONS: Synchronous telehealth may be an option for the management of nonacute musculoskeletal conditions in adults. However, our results may not be generalizable to rural or low socioeconomic populations. Future research should investigate the outcomes associated the use of new technologies, such as videoconference.

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: rapid living systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field - third edition. Update as of June 30th, 2021.

INTRODUCTION: This paper updates and summarizes the current evidence informing rehabilitation of patients with COVID-19 and/or describing the consequences of the disease and its treatment. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Studies published from May 1st to June 30th, 2021 were selected, excluding descriptive studies and expert opinions. Papers were categorized according to study design, research question, COVID-19 phase, limitations of functioning of rehabilitation interest, and type of rehabilitation service involved. From this edition, we improved the quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized-controlled clinical trials (RCTs). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-five, out of 3699 papers, were included. They were three RCTs, 13 cross-sectional studies and nine cohort studies. Twenty studies reported data on symptom prevalence (N.=13) or disease natural history (N.=7); and five studies reported intervention effectiveness at the individual level. All study participants were COVID survivors and 48% of studies collected information on participants 6 months or longer after COVID-19 onset. The most frequent risks of bias for RCTs concerned weaknesses in allocation concealment, blinding of therapists, and lack of intention-to-treat analysis. Most analytical studies failed to identify or deal with confounders, describe or deal with dropouts or eventually perform an appropriate statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies in this updated review targeted the prevalence of limitations of functioning of rehabilitation interest in COVID-19 survivors. This is similar to past review findings; however, data in the new studies was collected at longer follow-up periods (up to one year after symptom onset) and in larger samples of participants. More RCTs and analytical observational studies are available, but the methodological quality of recently published studies is low. There is a need for good quality intervention efficacy and effectiveness studies to complement the rapidly expanding evidence from observational studies.

Expected impact of lockdown measures due to COVID-19 on disabling conditions: a modelling study of chronic low back pain.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic and the containment measures such as social distancing, mobility restrictions and quarantine have significantly impacted the delivery of healthcare services, with possible negative effects on low back pain patients. In this study, we used an innovative agent-based model to quantify the effects of COVID-19 on the prevalence and severity of low back pain in the general population. METHODS: Epidemiological data were used to simulate the low back pain evolution in a population of 300,000 agents. Reduced access to treatment due to the containment measures was simulated with a probabilistic approach, in which 500 random scenarios (differing in: length of the lockdown, probability of having access to treatment, time before the resumption of treatment, duration of the effects of the treatment after its interruption) were simulated. RESULTS: The lockdown may increase the mean pain score higher than 1/10 points for patients suffering from acute low back pain, up to 4-5/10 points for specific individuals. The lockdown also affected the length of pain episodes, possibly impacting chronicity and disability. All the variables describing the random scenarios had a relevant impact in determining both the increase of pain intensity in the population and the length of the effects of the lockdown. CONCLUSIONS: "Optimal lockdown parameters" which minimize the impact on low back pain while preserving the effects on infection spread and mortality could not be identified. Policies favouring a prompt resumption of treatments after the lockdown may be effective in shortening the duration of its negative effects.

A systematic review that is ``rapid'' and ``living'': A specific answer to the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe "rapid living" systematic reviews, an innovative methodological design used to systematically synthesize emerging evidence in the field of rehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A methodological paper, with a formative approach to rapid living systematic reviews. RESULTS: Based on our experience, we propose the following definition of rapid living SR: ``A dynamic method of knowledge synthesis that allows for the constant updating of new emerging evidence and refinement of its methodological quality.'' This method has the benefit of accelerating the conduct of traditional systematic reviews and allows for a synergistic adaptation of methodology based on the quality of the evidence with a flexibility to update results, methods and collaborations. CONCLUSION: Our proposed methodology has been helpful to synthesize the rapidly evolving evidence in the field of rehabilitation during the pandemic. Similarly, it may be useful when a rapid answer is urgently needed to make informed decisions. The COVID-19 disease has shown that modern medical science has the ability to produce new knowledge at a rate never seen before. Therefore, our proposed rapid living systematic reviews provide the scientific community with a method to rapidly synthesize evidence when facing health emergencies.

Impact of COVID-19 on routine immunisation in South-East Asia and Western Pacific: Disruptions and solutions.

BACKGROUND: Data on COVID-19-induced disruption to routine vaccinations in the South-East Asia and Western Pacific regions (SEAR/WPR) have been sparse. This study aimed to quantify the impact of COVID-19 on routine vaccinations by country, antigen, and sector (public or private), up to 1 June 2020, and to identify the reasons for disruption and possible solutions. METHODS: Sanofi Pasteur teams from 19 countries in SEAR/WPR completed a structured questionnaire reporting on COVID-19 disruptions for 13-19 routinely delivered antigens per country, based on sales data, government reports, and regular physician interactions. Data were analysed descriptively, disruption causes ranked, and solutions evaluated using a modified public health best practices framework. FINDINGS: 95% (18/19) of countries reported vaccination disruption. When stratified by country, a median of 91% (interquartile range 77-94) of antigens were impacted. Infancy and school-entry age vaccinations were most impacted. Both public and private sector healthcare providers experienced disruptions. Vaccination rates had not recovered for 39% of impacted antigens by 1 June 2020. Fear of infection, movement/travel restrictions, and limited healthcare access were the highest-ranked reasons for disruption. Highest-scoring solutions were separating vaccination groups from unwell patients, non-traditional vaccination venues, virtual engagement, and social media campaigns. Many of these solutions were under-utilised. INTERPRETATION: COVID-19-induced disruption of routine vaccination was more widespread than previously reported. Adaptable solutions were identified which could be implemented in SEAR/WPR and elsewhere. Governments and private providers need to act urgently to improve coverage rates and plan for future waves of the pandemic, to avoid a resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases. FUNDING: Sanofi Pasteur.

Assessment of Studies Evaluating Spinal Manipulative Therapy and Infectious Disease and Immune System Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Claims that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) can improve immune function have increased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic and may have contributed to the rapid spread of both accurate and inaccurate information (referred to as an infodemic by the World Health Organization). Objective: To identify, appraise, and synthesize the scientific literature on the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT in preventing the development of infectious disease or improving disease-specific outcomes in patients with infectious disease and to examine the association between SMT and selected immunological, endocrine, and other physiological biomarkers. Evidence Review: A literature search of MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Index to Chiropractic Literature, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase was conducted from inception to April 15, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies were included. Eligible studies were critically appraised, and evidence with high and acceptable quality was synthesized using the Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis guideline. Findings: A total of 2593 records were retrieved; after exclusions, 50 full-text articles were screened, and 16 articles reporting the findings of 13 studies comprising 795 participants were critically appraised. The literature search found no clinical studies that investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT in preventing the development of infectious disease or improving disease-specific outcomes among patients with infectious disease. Eight articles reporting the results of 6 high- and acceptable-quality RCTs comprising 529 participants investigated the effect of SMT on biomarkers. Spinal manipulative therapy was not associated with changes in lymphocyte levels or physiological markers among patients with low back pain or participants who were asymptomatic compared with sham manipulation, a lecture series, and venipuncture control groups. Spinal manipulative therapy was associated with short-term changes in selected immunological biomarkers among asymptomatic participants compared with sham manipulation, a lecture series, and venipuncture control groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review of 13 studies, no clinical evidence was found to support or refute claims that SMT was efficacious or effective in changing immune system outcomes. Although there were limited preliminary data from basic scientific studies suggesting that SMT may be associated with short-term changes in immunological and endocrine biomarkers, the clinical relevance of these findings is unknown. Given the lack of evidence that SMT is associated with the prevention of infectious diseases or improvements in immune function, further studies should be completed before claims of efficacy or effectiveness are made.

Misinformation, chiropractic, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the World Health Organization elevated the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic to a pandemic and called for urgent and aggressive action worldwide. Public health experts have communicated clear and emphatic strategies to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Hygiene rules and social distancing practices have been implemented by entire populations, including 'stay-at-home' orders in many countries. The long-term health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic are not yet known. MAIN TEXT: During this time of crisis, some chiropractors made claims on social media that chiropractic treatment can prevent or impact COVID-19. The rationale for these claims is that spinal manipulation can impact the nervous system and thus improve immunity. These beliefs often stem from nineteenth-century chiropractic concepts. We are aware of no clinically relevant scientific evidence to support such statements. We explored the internet and social media to collect examples of misinformation from Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand regarding the impact of chiropractic treatment on immune function. We discuss the potential harm resulting from these claims and explore the role of chiropractors, teaching institutions, accrediting agencies, and legislative bodies. CONCLUSIONS: Members of the chiropractic profession share a collective responsibility to act in the best interests of patients and public health. We hope that all chiropractic stakeholders will view the COVID-19 pandemic as a call to action to eliminate the unethical and potentially dangerous claims made by chiropractors who practise outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.

The clinical utility of routine spinal radiographs by chiropractors: a rapid review of the literature

INTRODUCTION: When indicated by signs or symptoms of potentially serious underlying pathology (red flags), chiropractors can use radiographs to inform their diagnosis. In the absence of red flags, the clinical utility of routine or repeat radiographs to assess the structure and function of the spine is controversial. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic and therapeutic utility of routine or repeat radiographs (in the absence of red flags) of the cervical, thoracic or lumbar spine for the functional or structural evaluation of the spine. Investigate whether functional or structural findings on repeat radiographs are valid markers of clinically meaningful outcomes. The research objectives required that we determine the validity, diagnostic accuracy and reliability of radiographs for the structural and functional evaluation of the spine. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to November 25, 2019. We used rapid review methodology recommended by the World Health Organization. Eligible studies (cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, randomized controlled trials, diagnostic and reliability) were critically appraised. Studies of acceptable quality were included in our synthesis. The lead author extracted data and a second reviewer independently validated the data extraction. We conducted a qualitative synthesis of the evidence. FINDINGS: We identified 959 citations, screened 176 full text articles and critically appraised 23. No relevant studies assessed the clinical utility of routine or repeat radiographs (in the absence of red flags) of the cervical, thoracic or lumbar spine for the functional or structural evaluation of the spine. No studies investigated whether functional or structural findings on repeat radiographs are valid markers of clinically meaningful outcomes. Nine low risk of bias studies investigated the validity (n = 2) and reliability (n = 8) of routine or repeat radiographs. These studies provide no evidence of clinical utility. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that the use of routine or repeat radiographs to assess the function or structure of the spine, in the absence of red flags, improves clinical outcomes and benefits patients. Given the inherent risks of ionizing radiation, we recommend that chiropractors do not use radiographs for the routine and repeat evaluation of the structure and function of the spine.

A united statement of the global chiropractic research community against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity.

BACKGROUND: In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) posted reports claiming that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. These claims clash with recommendations from the World Health Organization and World Federation of Chiropractic. We discuss the scientific validity of the claims made in these ICA reports. MAIN BODY: We reviewed the two reports posted by the ICA on their website on March 20 and March 28, 2020. We explored the method used to develop the claim that chiropractic adjustments impact the immune system and discuss the scientific merit of that claim. We provide a response to the ICA reports and explain why this claim lacks scientific credibility and is dangerous to the public. More than 150 researchers from 11 countries reviewed and endorsed our response. CONCLUSION: In their reports, the ICA provided no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. We call on regulatory authorities and professional leaders to take robust political and regulatory action against those claiming that chiropractic adjustments have a clinical impact on the immune system.

Why Rehabilitation must have priority during and after the COVID-19-pandemic: A position statement of the Global Rehabilitation Alliance.

COVID-19 has become a pandemic with strong influence on health systems. In many cases it leads to a disruption of rehabilitation service provision. On the other hand, rehabilitation must be an integral part of COVID-19 management. Rehabilitation for COVID-19 should start from acute and early post-acute care and needs to be continued in the post-acute and long-term rehabilitation phase. Of course, it should follow specific safety protocol. Additionally, rehabilitation must be kept available for all other people who are in need. From the perspective of health system, the Global Rehabilitation Alliance urges decision makers to ensure that rehabilitation services will be available for all patients with COVID-19 in the acute, post-acute and long-term phase. Additionally, it must be ensured that all other persons with rehabilitation need have access to rehabilitation services. Rehabilitation services must be equipped with personal protection equipment and follow strict hygiene measures. In particular, rehabilitation must be accessible for vulnerable populations. For that reason, rehabilitation must be kept a health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic and given adequate financial resources. Last but not least, scientific studies should be performed to clarify the impact of the pandemic on rehabilitation services as well as on the needs for rehabilitation of COVID-19 patients.