Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 17 de 17
Filter
1.
Chiropr Man Therap ; 32(1): 21, 2024 Jun 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38872176

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To assess the concurrent validity and inter-rater agreement of the diagnosis of musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions using synchronous telehealth compared to standard in-person clinical diagnosis. METHODS: We searched five electronic databases for cross-sectional studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals from inception to 28 September 2023. We included studies of participants presenting to a healthcare provider with an undiagnosed MSK complaint. Eligible studies were critically appraised using the QUADAS-2 and QAREL criteria. Studies rated as overall low risk of bias were synthesized descriptively following best-evidence synthesis principles. RESULTS: We retrieved 6835 records and 16 full-text articles. Nine studies and 321 patients were included. Participants had MSK conditions involving the shoulder, elbow, low back, knee, lower limb, ankle, and multiple conditions. Comparing telehealth versus in-person clinical assessments, inter-rater agreement ranged from 40.7% agreement for people with shoulder pain to 100% agreement for people with lower limb MSK disorders. Concurrent validity ranged from 36% agreement for people with elbow pain to 95.1% agreement for people with lower limb MSK conditions. DISCUSSION: In cases when access to in-person care is constrained, our study implies that telehealth might be a feasible approach for the diagnosis of MSK conditions. These conclusions are based on small cross-sectional studies carried out by similar research teams with similar participant demographics. Additional research is required to improve the diagnostic precision of telehealth evaluations across a larger range of patient groups, MSK conditions, and diagnostic accuracy statistics.


Subject(s)
Musculoskeletal Diseases , Telemedicine , Humans , Musculoskeletal Diseases/diagnosis , Reproducibility of Results , Cross-Sectional Studies
2.
Digit Health ; 10: 20552076241236573, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38495858

ABSTRACT

Background: Little is known about lived experience of synchronous telehealth in patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders. Objective: We conducted a rapid systematic review to answer: (1) what are the lived experiences and/or perspectives of people with MSK disorders receiving non-pharmacological interventions delivered through synchronous telehealth; and (2) what clinical implications can be inferred from qualitative studies focusing on lived experiences for how telehealth is delivered in the management of MSK disorders? Data sources: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest, and Google Scholar from June 2010 to July 2023. Eligible qualitative and mixed methods studies capturing lived experiences of adults with MSK disorders receiving non-pharmacological interventions via synchronous telehealth were included. Study methods: Systematic rapid review conducted according to WHO guidelines. Titles and abstracts screened by reviewers independently, eligible studies critically appraised, and data was extracted. Themes summarized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) used to assess confidence in synthesis findings. Results: We identified 9782 references, screened 8029, and critically appraised 22, and included 17 studies. There is evidence to suggest that the experience of telehealth prior to and during the pandemic was shaped by (1) patient perception of telehealth, (2) existing relationships with practitioners, (3) availability and accessibility of telehealth technologies, and (4) perceptions about the importance of the role of the physical exam in assessing and treating MSK disorders. Conclusion: The five identified implications could be used to inform future research, policy, and strategy development.

3.
J Occup Rehabil ; 33(4): 651-660, 2023 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37991646

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To evaluate benefits and harms of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from various electronic databases from July 1, 2007 to March 9, 2022. Eligible RCTs targeted TENS compared to placebo/sham, usual care, no intervention, or interventions with isolated TENS effects (i.e., combined TENS with treatment B versus treatment B alone) in adults with CPLBP. We extracted outcomes requested by the WHO Guideline Development Group, appraised the risk of bias, conducted meta-analyses where appropriate, and graded the certainty of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs (adults, n = 1027; adults ≥ 60 years, n = 28) out of 2010 records and 89 full text RCTs screened were included. The evidence suggested that TENS resulted in a marginal reduction in pain compared to sham (9 RCTs) in the immediate term (2 weeks) (mean difference (MD) = -0.90, 95% confidence interval -1.54 to -0.26), and a reduction in pain catastrophizing in the short term (3 months) with TENS versus no intervention or interventions with TENS specific effects (1 RCT) (MD = -11.20, 95% CI -17.88 to -3.52). For other outcomes, little or no difference was found between TENS and the comparison interventions. The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low. CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low certainty evidence, TENS resulted in brief and marginal reductions in pain (not deemed clinically important) and a short-term reduction in pain catastrophizing in adults with CPLBP, while little to no differences were found for other outcomes.


Subject(s)
Low Back Pain , Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation , Adult , Humans , Low Back Pain/therapy , Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation/methods , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
4.
J Occup Rehabil ; 33(4): 661-672, 2023 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37991648

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Evaluate benefits and harms of needling therapies (NT) for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing NT compared with placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (comparing interventions where the attributable effect could be isolated). We conducted meta-analyses where indicated and graded the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We screened 1831 citations and 109 full text RCTs, yeilding 37 RCTs. The certainty of evidence was low or very low across all included outcomes. There was little or no difference between NT and comparisons across most outcomes; there may be some benefits for certain outcomes. Compared with sham, NT improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (physical) (2 RCTs; SMD = 0.20, 95%CI 0.07; 0.32) at 6 months. Compared with no intervention, NT reduced pain at 2 weeks (21 RCTs; MD = - 1.21, 95%CI - 1.50; - 0.92) and 3 months (9 RCTs; MD = - 1.56, 95%CI - 2.80; - 0.95); and reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (19 RCTs; SMD = - 1.39, 95%CI - 2.00; - 0.77) and 3 months (8 RCTs; SMD = - 0.57, 95%CI - 0.92; - 0.22). In older adults, NT reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (SMD = - 1.10, 95%CI - 1.71; - 0.48) and 3 months (SMD = - 1.04, 95%CI - 1.66; - 0.43). Compared with usual care, NT reduced pain (MD = - 1.35, 95%CI - 1.86; - 0.84) and functional limitations (MD = - 2.55, 95%CI - 3.70; - 1.40) at 3 months. CONCLUSION: Based on low to very low certainty evidence, adults with CPLBP experienced some benefits in pain, functioning, or HRQoL with NT; however, evidence showed little to no differences for other outcomes.


Subject(s)
Low Back Pain , Aged , Humans , Low Back Pain/therapy , Quality of Life , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
5.
J Occup Rehabil ; 33(4): 625-635, 2023 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37991651

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Evaluate benefits and harms of education/advice for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing education/advice compared with placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (including comparison interventions where the attributable effect of education/advice could be isolated). We conducted meta-analyses and graded the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We screened 2514 citations and 86 full text RCTs and included 15 RCTs. Most outcomes were assessed 3 to 6 months post-intervention. Compared with no intervention, education/advice improved pain (10 RCTs, MD = -1.1, 95% CI -1.63 to -0.56), function (10 RCTs, SMD = -0.51, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.12), physical health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (2 RCTs, MD = 24.27, 95% CI 12.93 to 35.61), fear avoidance (5 RCTs, SMD = -1.4, 95% CI -2.51 to -0.29), depression (1 RCT; MD = 2.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.15), and self-efficacy (1 RCT; MD = 4.4, 95% CI 2.77 to 6.03). Education/advice conferred less benefit than sham Kinesio taping for improving fear avoidance regarding physical activity (1 RCT, MD = 5.41, 95% CI 0.28 to 10.54). Compared with usual care, education/advice improved pain (1 RCT, MD = -2.10, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.07) and function (1 RCT, MD = -7.80, 95% CI -14.28 to -1.32). There was little or no difference between education/advice and comparisons for other outcomes. For all outcomes, the certainty of evidence was very low. CONCLUSION: Education/advice in adults with CPLBP was associated with improvements in pain, function, HRQoL, and psychological outcomes, but with very low certainty.


Subject(s)
Low Back Pain , Adult , Humans , Exercise , Low Back Pain/therapy , Quality of Life , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
6.
BMJ Open ; 13(10): e075382, 2023 10 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37788930

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The increasing prevalence of coexisting health conditions poses a challenge to healthcare providers and healthcare systems. Spinal pain (eg, neck and back pain) and spinal pathologies (eg, osteoporotic fractures and degenerative spinal disease) exist concurrently with other non-spinal health conditions (NSHC). However, the scope of what associations may exist among these co-occurring conditions is unclear. Therefore, this scoping review aims to map the epidemiological literature that reports associations between spine-related pain and pathologies (SPPs) and NSHCs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow the JBI protocol and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. We will systematically search the literature using key words and MeSH terms for SPPs and NSHCs. Terminology/vocabulary for NSHCs will include those for communicable and non-communicable diseases as reported by WHO Global Burden of Disease reports. Five databases will be searched from inception: MEDLINE, EMBASE, APA PsycInfo, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection. Papers published in English, in peer-reviewed journals, including measures of association between SPPs and NSHCs and using observational epidemiologic study designs will be included. Excluded will be studies of cadaveric, animal or health behaviours; studies with no measures of association and non-observational epidemiologic studies. Results will include the number of studies, the studies that have evaluated the measures of association and the frequency of the studied associations between SPPs and NSHCs. Results will be reported in tables and diagrams. Themes of comorbidities will be synthesised into a descriptive report. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review was deemed exempt from ethics review. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of the literature that reports associations between SPPs and NSHCs to inform future research initiatives and practices. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and research conferences. REGISTRATION DETAILS: https://osf.io/w49u3.


Subject(s)
Biological Phenomena , Review Literature as Topic , Spinal Diseases , Animals , Humans , Databases, Factual , Epidemiologic Studies , Pain , Research Design , Spinal Diseases/epidemiology
7.
Clin J Pain ; 39(4): 188-201, 2023 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36943163

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to identify, summarize, and appraise the evidence supporting the coexistence of myofascial pain (MPS) and trigger points (MTrP) in osteoarthritis (OA), and the effectiveness of MTrPs treatments in OA-related pain and physical function outcomes. METHODS: Three databases were searched from inception to June 2022. We included observational and experimental studies to fulfill our 2 study aims. Two independent reviewers conducted 2-phase screening procedures and risk of bias using checklist tools for cross-sectional, quasi-experimental, and randomized control trials. Patient characteristics, findings of active and latent MTrPs in relevant muscles, treatments, and pain and physical function outcomes were extracted from low-risk bias studies. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 2898 articles, of which 6 observational and 7 experimental studies had a low bias risk and the data extracted. Active MTrPs in knee OA patients was more evident in the quadriceps and hamstring muscles than in healthy individuals. Dry needling on active MTrPs improved pain and physical function in the short term compared with sham treatment in hip OA patients. In knee OA, dry needling on latent or active MTrPs improved pain and functional outcomes compared with sham needling but did not result in better pain and physical outcomes when combined with a physical exercise program. DISCUSSION: The presence of active versus latent MTrPs seems to be a more sensitive discriminating feature of OA given that latent is often present in OA and healthy individuals. Dry needling on active MTrPs improved pain and physical function in the short term compared with sham treatment in hip OA patients. However, the small sample size and the few number of studies limit any firm recommendation on the treatment. REGISTRY: The study protocol was prospectively registered in Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8DVU3).


Subject(s)
Myofascial Pain Syndromes , Osteoarthritis, Hip , Osteoarthritis, Knee , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , Myofascial Pain Syndromes/epidemiology , Myofascial Pain Syndromes/therapy , Myofascial Pain Syndromes/diagnosis , Trigger Points , Comorbidity , Pain , Observational Studies as Topic
8.
J Can Chiropr Assoc ; 67(3): 202-225, 2023 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38283160

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To investigate the research capacity and productivity of Canadian sports chiropractors. Methods: A cross-sectional survey (phase one) and scoping review (phase two) investigated the research capacity and productivity (from 2015-2020) of the Canadian sports chiropractic field. Results: Most respondents (72%) reported obtaining research training from fellowship and master's programs, with only 2 (1%) PhD qualifications identified. Approximately, 30% reported active involvement in research, with 28% being part-time clinician researchers. Access to human and technological research resources were limited. We identified 67 publications and 16 conference presentations within a five-year period, with clinical, population health, and basic science research as the areas most studied. Conclusion: The research effort of Canadian sports chiropractors is primarily conducted by clinicians involved in research on a part-time basis. Its research outputs predominantly reflect the research requirements of the RCCSS(C) Sports Sciences Residency Program, highlighting its contribution in developing capacity and producing research for the Canadian sports chiropractic field.


Objectifs: Étudier la capacité de recherche et la productivité des chiropraticiens du sport Canadiens. Méthodes: Une enquête transversale (première phase) et un examen de la portée (deuxième phase) ont permis d'étudier la capacité de recherche et la productivité (de 2015 à 2020) du domaine de la chiropratique sportive au Canada. Résultats: La plupart des répondants (72 %) ont déclaré avoir obtenu une formation en recherche dans le cadre de programmes de bourses et de maîtrises, et seulement 2 (1 %) ont indiqué avoir obtenu un doctorat. Environ 30 % des répondants ont déclaré participer activement à la recherche, 28 % d'entre eux étant des cliniciens-chercheurs à temps partiel. L'accès aux ressources humaines et technologiques de la recherche était limité. Nous avons recensé 67 publications et 16 présentations de conférences sur une période de cinq ans, les domaines les plus étudiés étant la recherche clinique, la recherche sur la santé des populations et la recherche en sciences fondamentales. Conclusion: L'effort de recherche des chiropraticiens du sport canadiens est principalement mené par des cliniciens impliqués dans la recherche à temps partiel. Leurs résultats de recherche reflètent surtout les exigences de recherche du programme de résidence en sciences du sport du Collège royal des sciences chiropratiques du sport du Canada (RCCSS(C)), soulignant leur contribution au développement des capacités et à la production de recherches pour le domaine de la chiropratique du sport au Canada.

9.
Int J Rehabil Res ; 45(4): 302-310, 2022 Dec 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36112110

ABSTRACT

Knowledge of the pre-rehabilitation generic status of functioning in individuals with low back pain is necessary to understand the clinical utility of rehabilitation care. We conducted a scoping review to describe the pre-rehabilitation functioning status of persons with nonspecific low back pain using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS)-36 or WHODAS-12. We searched multiple databases from 2010 to 2021 for studies reporting pre-rehabilitation scores using WHODAS in persons with low back pain. Reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data, and we descriptively summarized results by the duration of low back pain (acute/subacute <3 months; chronic ≥3 months), and the WHODAS version. Of 1770 citations screened, eight citations were relevant. Five studies were conducted in Europe, two in America, and one in the African Region (mostly high-income countries). In persons with acute low back pain, the mean WHODAS-36 pre-rehabilitation summary score (complex scoring) was 22.8/100 (SD = 15.4) (one study). In persons with chronic low back pain, the mean WHODAS-36 summary score (complex scoring) ranged from 22.8/100 (SD = 5.7) to 41.5/100 (SD = 13.8) (two studies). For WHODAS-12 in persons with chronic low back pain, the mean summary score was 11.4/48 (SD = 8.7) or 14.4/48 (SD = 9.4) using simple scoring (two studies), and 25.8/100 (SD = 2.2) using complex scoring (one study). No floor or ceiling effects were observed in WHODAS-36 summary scores for chronic low back pain. Our scoping review comprehensively summarizes available studies reporting pre-rehabilitation levels of functioning using WHODAS in persons with low back pain. Persons with low back pain seeking rehabilitation have moderate limitations in functioning, and limitations level tends to be worse with chronic low back pain.


Subject(s)
Disability Evaluation , Low Back Pain , Humans , Reproducibility of Results , World Health Organization , Europe
10.
J Can Chiropr Assoc ; 66(3): 227-243, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36818363

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To identify and prioritize research to inform research agenda development for Canadian chiropractors working in sport. Methods: Clinicians, researchers and leaders from the Canadian sports chiropractic field were invited to participate in 1) a survey to refine a list of research priorities, 2) a Delphi procedure to determine consensus on these priorities, and 3) a prioritization survey. Results: The top three research priorities were 1) effects of interventions on athletic outcomes, 2) research about sports healthcare teams, and 3) clinical research related to spinal manipulative and mobilization therapy. The three highest ranked conditions to research were 1) low back pain, 2) neck pain, and 3) concussion. Collaborations with sports physicians and universities/ colleges were rated as important research collaborations to pursue. Conclusions: These results represent the Canadian sports chiropractic perspective to research priority setting and will be used alongside stakeholder input to set the first research agenda for the Canadian sports chiropractic field.


Objectifs: Définir et prioriser la recherche afin d'élaborer un programme de recherche pour les chiropraticiens canadiens travaillant dans le domaine du sport. Méthodologie: Des cliniciens, des chercheurs et des chefs de file du domaine de la chiropratique sportive canadienne ont été invités à participer à 1) un sondage pour préciser une liste de priorités de recherche, 2) une procédure Delphi pour déterminer le consensus sur ces priorités, et 3) un sondage d'établissement de priorités. Résultats: Les trois principales priorités de recherche sont 1) les effets des interventions sur les résultats sportifs, 2) la recherche sur les équipes de soins de santé dans le domaine du sport et 3) la recherche clinique liée à la thérapie de manipulation et de mobilisation de la colonne vertébrale. Les trois problèmes de santé les plus importants cités comme priorité de recherche sont 1) la lombalgie, 2) la cervicalgie et 3) les commotions cérébrales. Les collaborations avec les médecins du sport et les universités/collèges sont considérées comme des collaborations de recherche importantes à poursuivre. Conclusions: Ces résultats représentent le point de vue de la chiropratique sportive canadienne sur l'établissement des priorités en matière de recherche et seront utilisés avec les commentaires des intervenants pour établir le premier programme de recherche du domaine de la chiropratique sportive canadienne.

11.
Chiropr Man Therap ; 29(1): 52, 2021 12 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34969400

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Low back pain (LBP) is prevalent in military personnel. We aimed to systematically review the literature regarding risk factors for first-time LBP during military service among active duty military personnel. METHODS: We searched six electronic databases (inception-April 2020) for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals. Eligible studies were independently critically appraised by paired reviewers and a descriptive synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: We screened 1981 records, reviewed 118 full-text articles, and synthesised data from eight acceptable quality cohort studies. Studies assessed physical (n = 4), sociodemographic (n = 2), and/or occupational factors (n = 5) associated with LBP. Two studies reported prior LBP was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of LBP compared to those without prior LBP. Other factors consistently associated with LBP included previous musculoskeletal injury (n = 2), less time spent on physical training (n = 2), female sex (n = 2), and lower rank (n = 2). Factors associated with LBP from single studies included marital status, lower education level, blast injury, job duties, and service type. We found inconsistent associations for performance on physical fitness tests, age, and occupation type. Psychological risk factors were not assessed in any included studies. CONCLUSION: In active duty personnel, prior history of LBP, previous musculoskeletal injury, less time in physical training, female sex, and lower rank were consistent risk factors for LBP. This information is relevant for researchers, active duty military personnel, and other decision makers. Future studies should explore causal relationships for LBP in this population. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084549.


Subject(s)
Low Back Pain , Military Personnel , Cohort Studies , Exercise , Female , Humans , Low Back Pain/epidemiology , Low Back Pain/etiology , Risk Factors
12.
Chiropr Man Therap ; 29(1): 33, 2021 08 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34446040

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Static or motion manual palpation of the low back is commonly used to assess pain location and reproduction in low back pain (LBP) patients. The purpose of this study is to review the reliability and validity of manual palpation used for the assessment of LBP in adults. METHOD: We systematically searched five databases from 2000 to 2019. We critically appraised internal validity of studies using QAREL and QUADAS-2 instruments. We stratified results using best-evidence synthesis. Validity studies were classified according to Sackett and Haynes. RESULTS: We identified 2023 eligible articles, of which 14 were low risk of bias. Evidence suggests that reliability of soft tissue structures palpation is inconsistent, and reliability of bony structures and joint mobility palpation is poor. We found preliminary evidence that gluteal muscle palpation for tenderness may be valid in differentiating LBP patients with and without radiculopathy. CONCLUSION: Reliability of manual palpation tests in the assessment of LBP patients varies greatly. This is problematic because these tests are commonly used by manual therapists and clinicians. Little is known about the validity of these tests; therefore, their clinical utility is uncertain. High quality validity studies are needed to inform the clinical use of manual palpation tests.


Subject(s)
Low Back Pain , Radiculopathy , Adult , Humans , Low Back Pain/diagnosis , Palpation , Range of Motion, Articular , Reproducibility of Results
13.
J Can Chiropr Assoc ; 65(1): 32-49, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34035539

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to update a previous critical review of adverse events in pregnant and postpartum populations. METHODS: The following databases were searched: PubMed, CINAHL, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MEDLINE. We included all study design types as it was determined a priori that there would not be enough high-quality research on spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in these populations to make any determinations. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and CARE (CAse REport) checklists were used for quality rating. RESULTS: This update found one case study that demonstrated a serious adverse event in the cervical spine following SMT and a handful of minor and transient adverse events in the low back following SMT. CONCLUSIONS: There was limited evidence of adverse events following SMT in these populations. Although we are calling for improved reporting of such events in future studies, it may be that such injuries are rare.


CONTEXTE: La présente étude vise à mettre à jour les résultats d'un examen critique des effets défavorables des manipulations vertébrales chez la femme enceinte et la femme en postpartum. MÉTHODOLOGIE: On a interrogé les bases de données suivantes : PubMed, CINAHL, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/ Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials et MEDLINE. On a retenu toutes les études parce qu'il avait été établi antérieurement que le nombre de recherches de bonne qualité sur les manipulations vertébrales (MV) chez la femme enceinte et la femme en postpartum était insuffisant pour trancher toute question. On s'est servi des listes de vérification Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) et CARE (CAse REport) pour évaluer la qualité des études. RÉSULTATS: Une étude de cas faisait état d'un grave effet indésirable à la colonne cervicale après des MV et d'une poignée d'effets indésirables mineurs et transitoires à la colonne lombaire. CONCLUSIONS: Il existe peu de preuves que les MV ont des effets indésirables chez les populations à l'étude. Il faudrait plus de données. Mais il est permis d'affirmer que ces effets indésirables sont rares.

14.
JBI Evid Synth ; 18(6): 1305-1312, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32813379

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to identify and map current literature describing the center of rotation locations and migration paths during lumbar spine movements. INTRODUCTION: Altered lumber spine kinematics has been associated with pain and injury. Intervertebral segments' center of rotations, the point around which spinal segments rotate, are important for determining the features of lumbar spine kinematics and the potential for increased injury risk during movements. Although many studies have investigated the center of rotations of humans' lumbar spine, no review has summarized and organized the state of the science related to center of rotation locations and migration paths of the lumbar spine during lumbar spine movements. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider studies that include human lumbar spines of any age and condition (e.g. heathy, pathological) during lumbar spine movements. Quantitative study designs, including clinical, observational, laboratory biomechanical experimental studies, mathematical and computer modeling studies will be considered. Only studies published in English will be included, and there will be no limit on dates of publication. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library Controlled Register of Trials, CINAHL, ACM Digital Library, Compendex, Inspec, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and dissertation and theses repositories will be searched. After title and abstract screening of identified references, two independent reviewers will screen the full-text of identified studies and extract data. Data will be summarized and categorized, and a comprehensive narrative summary will be presented with the respective results.


Subject(s)
Lumbar Vertebrae , Lumbosacral Region , Biomechanical Phenomena , Humans , Movement , Review Literature as Topic
15.
Accid Anal Prev ; 142: 105546, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32438092

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to summarize the evidence for the association between exposure to a motor vehicle collision (MVC) and future low back pain (LBP). LITERATURE SURVEY: Persistent low back pain (LBP) is a relatively common complaint after acute injury in a MVC, with a reported 1 year post-crash prevalence of at least 31 % of exposed individuals. Interpretation of this finding is challenging given the high incidence of LBP in the general population that is not exposed to a MVC. Risk studies with comparison control groups need to be examined in a systematic review. METHODOLOGY: A systematic search of five electronic databases from 1998 to 2019 was performed. Eligible studies describing exposure to a MVC and risk of future non-specific LBP were critically appraised using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) instrument. The results were summarized using best-evidence synthesis principles, a random effects meta-analysis and testing for publication bias. SYNTHESIS: The search strategy yielded 1136 articles, three of which were found to be at low to medium risk of bias after critical appraisal. All three studies reported a positive association between an acute injury in a MVC and future LBP. Pooled analysis of the results resulted in an unadjusted relative risk of future LBP in the MVC-exposed and injured population versus the non-exposed population of 2.7 (95 % CI [1.9, 3.8]), which equates to a 63 % attributable risk under the exposed. CONCLUSIONS: There was a consistent positive association in the critically reviewed literature that investigated the risk of future LBP following an acute MVC-related injury. For the patient with chronic low back pain who was initially injured in a MVC, more often than not (63 % of the time) the condition was caused by the MVC. These findings are likely to be of interest to clinicians, insurers, patients, governments and the courts. Future studies from both general and clinical populations would help strengthen these results.


Subject(s)
Accidents, Traffic , Low Back Pain/etiology , Back Injuries/etiology , Female , Humans , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors
16.
PM R ; 11(11): 1228-1239, 2019 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31020768

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the literature that has examined the association between a motor vehicle collision (MVC) related neck injury and future neck pain (NP) in comparison with the population that has not been exposed to neck injury from an MVC. LITERATURE SURVEY: Neck injury resulting from an MVC is associated with a high rate of chronicity. Prognosis studies indicate 50% of injured people continue to experience NP a year after the collision. This is difficult to interpret due to the high prevalence of NP in the general population. METHODOLOGY: We performed a systematic review of the literature using five electronic databases, searching for risk studies on exposure to an MVC and future NP published from 1998 to 2018. The outcome of interest was future NP. Eligible risk studies were critically appraised using the modified Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) instrument. The results were summarized using best-evidence synthesis principles, a random effects meta-analysis, metaregression, and testing for publication bias was performed with the pooled data. SYNTHESIS: Eight articles were identified of which seven were of lower risk of bias. Six studies reported a positive association between a neck injury in an MVC and future NP compared to those without a neck injury in an MVC. Pooled analysis of the six studies indicated an unadjusted relative risk of future NP in the MVC exposed population with neck injury of 2.3 (95% CI [1.8, 3.1]), which equates to a 57% attributable risk under the exposed. In two studies where exposed participants were either not injured or injury status was unknown, there was no increased risk of future NP. CONCLUSIONS: There was a consistent positive association among studies that have examined the association between MVC-related neck injury and future NP. These findings are of potential interest to clinicians, insurers, patients, governmental agencies, and the courts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.


Subject(s)
Accidents, Traffic/statistics & numerical data , Chronic Pain/epidemiology , Neck Injuries/epidemiology , Neck Pain/epidemiology , Neck Pain/etiology , Pain Measurement , Chronic Pain/etiology , Chronic Pain/physiopathology , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Injury Severity Score , Motor Vehicles , Neck Injuries/diagnosis , Neck Pain/physiopathology , Prevalence , Risk Assessment
17.
Musculoskeletal Care ; 17(1): 3-12, 2019 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30350334

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Consistent terminology to describe the diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia (FM) and myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is required to address the reported inadequacies in diagnosis. The present review investigated intervention studies in FM and MPS populations to determine the lexicon of the current diagnostic criteria used to identify chronic musculoskeletal pain patients. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a scoping review to review systematically the literature obtained from five scientific databases between 1997 and February 2017. Included studies consisted of intervention studies that involved symptomatic musculoskeletal pain patients, of any age or gender, presenting with FM or MPS. Included studies were evaluated for musculoskeletal condition and the diagnostic criteria used to identify patient conditions. Extraction of study criteria focused on whether diagnostic criteria were explicitly stated, the diagnostic criteria used, physical findings, symptomatic duration and the profession of the healthcare provider who confirmed diagnosis. RESULTS: We identified 493 interventions, of which 410 were related to FM and 83 to MPS. The lexicon of the diagnostic criteria used for MPS tended to be less consistent in comparison to FM criteria, with notable differences in all comparative categories. CONCLUSIONS: The current review identified inconsistencies associated with the lexicon of the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose FM and MPS, and showed that there is wide variability in the terminology currently being used. These findings may have important implications for future development of consistent criteria to diagnose FM and MPS patients accurately.


Subject(s)
Fibromyalgia/diagnosis , Myofascial Pain Syndromes/diagnosis , Diagnosis, Differential , Fibromyalgia/epidemiology , Humans , Myofascial Pain Syndromes/epidemiology , Pain Measurement
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...