Effect of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation on spasticity in upper motor neuron conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of non-invasive transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) on spasticity, activity limitations and participation restrictions in various upper motor neuron diseases. METHODS: Six databases including CINAHL plus, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, SCOPUS and Web of Science were searched for the relevant records from January 2008 to December 2022. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted data on spasticity, activity limitations and participation restrictions. The risk of bias was evaluated using the PEDro scale while the GRADE approach established the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: Eleven studies were identified of which 5 (45.5%) were rated as having a low risk of bias and 8 (72.7%) were meta-analyzed. The meta-analyses did not show any significant differences between cathodal (SMD = -0.67, 95% CI = -1.50 to 0.15, P = 0.11, I2 = 75%, 6 RCTs) or anodal (SMD = 0.11, 95% CI = -0.43 to -0.64, p = 0.69, I2 = 0%, 2 RCTs) and sham tsDCS for spasticity. There was also no significant difference between active and sham tsDCS for activity limitations (SMD = -0.42, 95% CI = -0.04 to 0.21, p = 0.2, I2 = 0%, 2 RCTs) and participation restrictions (MD = -8.10, 95% CI = -18.02 to 1.82, p = 0.11, 1 RCT). CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis of the available evidence provides an uncertain estimate of the effect of cathodal tsDCS on spasticity, activity limitation and participation restriction. It might be very helpful, or it may make no difference at all. However, considering the level of the evidence and the limitation in the quality of the majority of the included studies, further well-designed research may likely change the estimate of effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021245601.

Cross-cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Hausa Version of the Oswestry Disability Index 2.1a for Patients With Low Back Pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Validation of a translated, culturally adapted questionnaire. OBJECTIVE: To translate the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) version 2.1a into Hausa Language and to validate its use in a cohort of patients with low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The ODI is one of the most commonly used condition-specific questionnaires for assessing functional disability in patients with LBP, yet, no formal cross-culturally adapted and validated Hausa version exists. METHODS: The Hausa version of the ODI 2.1a (ODI-H) was developed according to established guidelines. Validation was performed among 200 patients with LBP recruited from both rural and urban Nigeria. Reliability was assessed using internal consistency (Cronbach α), test-retest reliability by computing intraclass correlation coefficient, standard error of measurement, and minimal detectable change. Convergent validity was assessed by correlating the ODI-H with Visual Analogue Scale for pain, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, and finger-floor distance test. Divergent validity was assessed by correlating the ODI-H with age, educational level, and occupational status. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis were also performed. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed with three models: 1) one-factor theory-driven model, 2) two-factor theory-driven model (dynamic and static factors), and 3) a model based on our EFA. RESULTS: The ODI-H had high internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.87) and excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient  = 0.937) with standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change being 3.69 and 10.2 respectively. The construct validity (convergent and divergent validity) is supported as all (6:6, 100%) the a priori hypotheses were confirmed. The EFA yielded a two-factor model explaining 54.3% of the total variance but demonstrated poor fit. The one-factor and two-factor theory-driven model had acceptable fit but the one-factor theory-driven model was better. CONCLUSION: The ODI-H version 2.1a was transculturally equivalent, reliable, and valid tool for assessing functional disability among Hausa-speaking patients with LBP. The use of this tool can be recommended for future clinical and research purposes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.