Swimming for low back pain: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend exercise for treatment of chronic low back pain and prevention, but the amount and quality of evidence for different exercise modes is highly variable. Swimming is commonly recommended by health professionals, but the extent and quality of research supporting its relationship with back pain is not clear. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this scoping review was to map the extent, characteristics and findings of research investigating the relationship between swimming and low back pain. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHOD: Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SPORT Discus) were searched from inception to February 2023. We included primary studies and reviews that reported an association between swimming and low back pain. Hydrotherapy studies were excluded. RESULTS: 3093 articles were identified, and 44 studies included. Only one randomised controlled trial and one longitudinal cohort study were included. Most studies were cross-sectional (37/44; 84.1%), included competitive athletes (23/39; 59.0%), and did not primarily focus on the association between swimming and low back pain in the aims (41/44; 93.2%). Instead, most data available were largely incidentally collected or a secondary outcome. The reported associations between swimming and low back pain were highly variable regardless of whether the comparison was to other sports (odds ratio: 0.17 to 17.92) or no sport (odds ratio: 0.54 to 3.01). CONCLUSION: Most available literature investigating swimming and low back pain is cross-sectional in design. We did not identify any clear pattern of association between swimming and low back pain, based on the available literature.

Single-group studies in leading physical therapy journals commonly make inappropriate conclusions regarding treatment effect modifiers. A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Characteristics that identify patients who respond differently to certain interventions are called treatment effect modifiers. Some studies inappropriately report the presence of treatment effect modifiers without adequate study designs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate what proportion of single-group studies published in leading physical therapy journals inappropriately report treatment effect modifiers, and to assess whether the proportion varies over time or between journals. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of studies published in eight leading physical therapy journals since 2000. Eligible studies were single-group studies (e.g., cohort study or secondary analysis of treatment arm of randomised controlled trial) that investigated any condition, treatment or outcome. Studies that suggested participants with certain baseline characteristics responded better/or worse to the treatment, were considered to have reported inappropriately. Studies reporting that participants with certain baseline characteristics had improved outcomes but did not state it was due to the treatment were considered to have reported appropriately. The proportion of inappropriate reporting was compared over time and between journals. RESULTS: Of the 145 included studies, 73 (50.3%) were categorised as inappropriately reporting treatment effect modifiers. The proportion of inappropriate reporting was highest in the most recent period, 2018 - 2022 (59.6%) and 2006 - 2011 (55.6%). The proportion of inappropriate reporting varied substantially between journals from 0% (Journal of Physiotherapy) to 91.7% (Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion (50.3%) of single-arm studies in leading physical therapy journals inappropriately report treatment effect modifiers. This inappropriate reporting risks misleading clinicians when selecting interventions for individual patients.