Effectiveness and safety of biological and target synthetic drugs treatment for psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review with network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psoriatic arthritis (PA) is a chronic inflammatory systemic arthritis that can result in loss of functional capacity and joint deformation. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and safety of biological and target synthetic drugs for treating PA. METHODS: We searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the use of Adalimumab, Etanercept, Infliximab, Golimumab, Secukinumab, Certolizumab Pegol and Tofacitinib in the main general databases and clinical trial registers databases. The primary outcomes were ACR 50, PsARC, and serious adverse events. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. Network meta-analyses were conducted using a random effects model and frequentist approach. The CINeMA software was used to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 33 RCTs (n = 11,034). The results from the network meta-analysis for the ACR 50 at 6-months follow-up showed that all drugs were superior to placebo, with Secukinumab (high certainty of evidence), Infliximab (very low certainty of evidence) and Adalimumab (high certainty of evidence) ranking the highest. Regarding the PsARC (at 6-months follow-up), all drugs, except for Golimumab (very low certainty of evidence), were superior to placebo, with Etanercept (low certainty of evidence), Infliximab (low certainty of evidence) and Certolizumab Pegol (low certainty of evidence) being the most effective drugs. There were no significant differences in the risk of serious adverse events between the drugs and placebo. Golimumab (very low certainty of evidence), Secukinumab (low certainty of evidence), and Adalimumab (very low certainty of evidence) ranked the highest for safety. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, based on the balance between efficacy and safety, Secukinumab and Adalimumab may be the preferred options among the evaluated drugs for treating patients with PsA. However, caution is necessary when interpreting the safety findings, as they are supported by evidence of low to very low certainty. Consequently, the balance between benefits and potential risks may change as new safety evaluation studies become available. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42022315577.

Impact of switching between reference biologics and biosimilars of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

What is the impact of switching between biologics and biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab on efficacy and safety for rheumatoid arthritis? A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed to compare switching and non-switching groups of treatments. Pooled Risk Relative (RR) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs) were obtained. Seventeen randomized trials with a switching phase involving 6,562 patients were included. Results showed that a single switch from biologics to biosimilars compared to continuing biologics had comparable effects for primary and co-primary outcomes, the American College of Rheumatology criteria with 20% response (ACR20) (7 trials, 1,926 patients, RR 0.98, 95% CrIs 0.93 to 1.03) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (5 trials, 1,609 patients, SMD - 0.07, 95% CrIs - 0.23 to 0.1), and within the equivalence margins: ACR20 [RR 0.94, 1.06] and HAQ-DI [SMD - 0.22, 0.22]. The risk of treatment-emergent adverse events, discontinuation, and positive anti-drug antibodies were comparable after switching. Safety results were imprecise, and the follow-up period might not be sufficient to evaluate long-term effects, especially malignancies. Overall, the practice of single switching between approved biologics and biosimilars of Tumour Necrosis Factor inhibitors is efficacious and safe for rheumatoid arthritis.

Therapeutic Equivalence of Biosimilar and Reference Biologic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Biosimilar drugs are potentially lower-cost versions of biologics that may improve access to therapy. However, there is a lack of adequate systematic reviews demonstrating equivalence between these drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Objectives: To assess the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity associated with biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab compared with their reference biologics in patients with RA. Data Sources: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and LILACS databases were searched from inception to September 2021. Study Selection: Head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab and their biologic reference drugs for RA were assessed. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two authors independently abstracted all data. Meta-analysis was conducted with bayesian random effects using relative risks (RRs) for binary outcomes and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and trial sequential analysis. Specific domains were assessed for the risk of bias in equivalence and noninferiority trials. This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Equivalence was tested using prespecified margins for the American College of Rheumatology criteria, with at least 20% improvement in the core set measures (ACR20) (ie, RR, 0.94 to 1.06), and for the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (ie, SMD, -0.22 to 0.22). Secondary outcomes included 14 items measuring safety and immunogenicity. Results: A total of 25 head-to-head trials provided data on 10 642 randomized patients with moderate to severe RA. Biosimilars met equivalence with reference biologics in terms of ACR20 response (24 RCTs with 10 259 patients; RR, 1.01; 95% CrI, 0.98 to 1.04; τ2 = 0.000) and change of HAQ-DI scores (14 RCTs with 5579 patients; SMD, -0.04; 95% CrI, -0.11 to 0.02; τ2 = 0.002) considering prespecified margins of equivalence. Trial sequential analysis found evidence for equivalence for ACR20 since 2017 and HAQ-DI since 2016. Overall, biosimilars were associated with similar safety and immunogenicity profiles compared with reference biologics. Conclusion and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, biosimilars of adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept were associated with clinically equivalent treatment effects compared with their reference biologics for the treatment of RA.

Photobiomodulation therapy does not decrease pain and disability in people with non-specific low back pain: a systematic review.

QUESTION: In people with non-specific low back pain (LBP), what are the effects of photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) on pain, disability and other outcomes when compared with no intervention, sham PBMT and other treatments, and when used as an adjunct to other treatments? DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised trials with meta-analysis. PARTICIPANTS: People with acute/subacute or chronic non-specific LBP. INTERVENTIONS: Any type of PBMT (laser class I, II and III and light-emitting diodes) compared with no treatment, sham PBMT and other types of treatment, or used as an adjunct to another treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity, disability, overall improvement, quality of life, work absence and adverse effects. RESULTS: Twelve randomised controlled trials were included (pooled n = 1,046). Most trials had low risk of bias. Compared with sham PBMT, the effect of PBMT on pain and disability was clinically unimportant in people with acute/subacute or chronic LBP. In people with chronic LBP, there was no clinically important difference between the effect of PBMT and the effect of exercise on pain or disability. Although benefits were observed on some other outcomes, these estimates were imprecise and/or based on low-quality evidence. PBMT was estimated to reduce pain (MD -11.20, 95% CI -20.92 to -1.48) and disability (MD -11.90, 95% CI -17.37 to -6.43) more than ultrasound, but these confidence intervals showed important uncertainty about whether the differences in effect were worthwhile or trivial. Conversely, PBMT was estimated to reduce pain (MD 19.00, 95% CI 9.49 to 28.51) and disability (MD 17.40, 95% CI 8.60 to 26.20) less than Tecar (Energy Transfer Capacitive and Resistive) therapy, with marginal uncertainty that these differences in effect were worthwhile. CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not support the use of PBMT to decrease pain and disability in people with non-specific LBP. REGISTRATION: CRD42018088242.

Overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain: a cross-sectional analysis using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews of exercise therapy for chronic non-specific low back pain using the AMSTAR 2 tool. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PEDro and CINAHL was searched up to February 2017. Two independent reviewers selected systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials that investigated exercise therapy in patients with low back pain. AMSTAR 2 assessment was performed by pairs of reviewers, and the overall confidence in the results of the systematic reviews were rated as 'High', 'Moderate', 'Low' and 'Critically low'. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize the characteristics of included systematic reviews. The percentage of systematic reviews achieving each item from the AMSTAR 2 and the overall confidence in the results were tabulated. RESULTS: The search identified 38 systematic reviews. Most of the reviews included a median of 10 clinical trials and total sample size of 813 participants per review. Five of 38 (13%) reviews were Cochrane reviews, and 8 (21%) systematic reviews had a protocol published or registered prospectively. The overall confidence in the results of 28 reviews (74%) was rated as 'Critically low', 6 (16%) as 'Low', 1 (2%) as Moderate, while 3 of 38 reviews (8%) were rated as 'High'. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate very low confidence in the results of most systematic reviews of exercise in chronic non-specific low back pain. Clinicians are more likely to deliver the most efficacious interventions to patients by critically appraising systematic reviews using AMSTAR 2 before making their decisions.

Can Kinesio Taping® influence the electromyographic signal intensity of trunk extensor muscles in patients with chronic low back pain? A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The evidence of the influence of Kinesio Taping® in changing electromyographic signal intensity of the lumbar musculature in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP) is very sparse. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if Kinesio Taping® changes the electromyographic signal intensity of the longissimus and iliocostalis muscles in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. METHODS: Prospectively registered, three-arm randomized controlled trial with a blinded assessor. Patients were randomly allocated to the following interventions: 1) Kinesio Taping® Group (n=21), where patients received the tape according to the manufacturer's manual; 2) Placebo Group (i.e. normal surgical tape) (n=21); and 3) Non-treatment control Group (n=21). Assessments were performed at baseline, immediately after, and 30min after the intervention. The primary outcome was muscle activity of the iliocostalis and longissimus muscles as measured by surface electromyography. The secondary outcome was pain intensity (measured with a 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale). The effects of treatment were calculated using linear mixed models. RESULTS: A total of 63 patients were recruited. Follow up rate was high (98.4%). Patients were mostly women with moderate levels of pain and disability. Kinesio Taping® was better than the control and placebo groups in only 4 of 96 statistical comparisons, likely reflective of type I error due to multiple comparisons. No statistically significant differences were identified for the immediate reduction in pain intensity between groups. CONCLUSION: Kinesio Taping® did not change the electromyographic signal intensity of the longissimus and iliocostalis muscles or reduce pain intensity in patients with chronic low back pain. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02759757 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02759757).

Effects of aerobic exercise on pain and disability in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Aerobic exercise programs have been used for various health conditions, including musculoskeletal disorders. However, the literature is still limited regarding the effect of aerobic exercise on pain and disability in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. METHODS: Search strategies will be performed in the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE ( https://www.embase.com ), CINAHL, PEDro, Lilacs, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). We will include randomized controlled trials in any language or date of publication. The primary outcomes will be pain and disability. The methodological quality and statistical reporting of each eligible trial will be evaluated using the 11-item PEDro scale. The strength of the recommendations will be summarized using the using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide a synthesis of current evidence on the effects of aerobic exercise in patients with chronic low back pain on pain and disability outcomes. This information can help healthcare professionals in decision-making related to the use of aerobic exercise in patients with low back pain. Following the guidelines, this systematic review protocol was registered on the Prospective International Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) number CRD42017071945.

Allocation Concealment and Intention-To-Treat Analysis Do Not Influence the Treatment Effects of Physical Therapy Interventions in Low Back Pain Trials: a Meta-epidemiologic Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if allocation concealment and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis influence the treatment effects of physical therapy interventions in low back pain (LBP) trials. DATA SOURCES: We searched on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and CINAHL up to February 2017. STUDY SELECTION: We included LBP trials that compared physical therapy interventions to placebo or no intervention or minimal intervention with pain or disability outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Information about allocation concealment and ITT analysis was extracted from PEDro and pain and disability outcomes converted to a 0-100 scale. A meta-regression was performed to evaluate the influence of these methodological features of interest on treatment effects. Other covariates included in the meta-regression were sample size and sequence generation. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 128 eligible trials (pooled N=20,555 participants). A total of 44.5% of the trials achieved allocation concealment, while 32% performed ITT analysis. Meta regression analyses showed no influence of allocation concealment on treatment effects for pain (regression coefficient 0.009; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.91 to 2.91) and disability (regression coefficient 1.13; 95% CI -1.35 to 3.62), and no influence of ITT analysis for pain (regression coefficient 1.38; 95% CI -1.73 to 4.50) or disability (regression coefficient 1.27; 95% CI -1.39 to 3.64). For the other covariates, there was also no clinically significant influence on the treatment effects. CONCLUSION: There is no influence of allocation concealment or ITT analysis on treatment effects of physical therapy interventions for pain and disability in LBP trials.

Effectiveness of Kinesio Taping in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of Kinesio Taping (KT) in patients with nonspecific low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: KT is widely used in patients with low back pain. METHODS: We conducted searches on PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro, SciELO, and LILACS up to February 26, 2018. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with chronic nonspecific low back pain that compared KT to no intervention or placebo as well as RCTs that compared KT combined with exercise against exercise alone. The methodological quality and statistical reporting of the eligible trials were measured by the 11-item PEDro scale. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE classification. We considered pain intensity and disability as the primary outcomes. Whenever possible, the data were pooled through meta-analysis. RESULTS: We identified 11 RCTs for this systematic review (pooled n = 743). Two clinical trials (pooled n = 100) compared KT to no intervention at the short-term follow-up. Four studies compared KT to placebo (pooled n = 287) at short-term follow-up and two trials (pooled n = 100) compared KT to placebo at intermediate-term follow-up. Five trials (pooled n = 296) compared KT combined with exercises or electrotherapy to exercises or spinal manipulation alone. No statistically significant difference was found for most comparisons. CONCLUSION: Very low to moderate quality evidence shows that KT was no better than any other intervention for most the outcomes assessed in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. We found no evidence to support the use of KT in clinical practice for patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Reliability of the Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy System in Patients With Spinal Pain: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: An updated summary of the evidence for the reliability of the Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) system in patients with spinal pain is needed. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the evidence on the intrarater and interrater reliability of MDT in patients with spinal pain. METHODS: Searches in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PEDro, and Scopus were conducted for this systematic review. We included any study design as long as reliability of the MDT method was tested in patients with spinal pain. We collected data on the reliability of MDT to identify main and subsyndromes, directional preference, the centralization phenomenon, and lateral shift. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Quality Appraisal of Diagnostic Reliability and the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies checklists. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included (8 studies on back pain, pooled n = 2160 patients; 3 studies on neck pain, pooled n = 45 patients; and 3 studies recruited mixed spinal conditions, pooled n = 389 patients). Studies investigating patients with back pain reported kappa estimates ranging from 0.26 to 1.00 (main and subsyndromes), 0.27 to 0.90 (directional preference), and 0.11 to 0.70 (centralization phenomenon). Kappa estimates for studies investigating neck pain ranged from 0.47 to 0.84 (main and subsyndromes) and 0.46 (directional preference). In mixed populations, kappa estimates ranged from 0.56 to 0.96 (main and subsyndromes). CONCLUSION: The MDT system appears to have acceptable interrater reliability for classifying patients with back pain into main and subsyndromes when applied by therapists who have completed the credentialing examination, but unacceptable reliability in other therapists. We found conflicting evidence regarding the reliability of the MDT system in patients with neck pain or mixed pain locations. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(12):923-933. Epub 22 Jun 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7876.

McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy was slightly more effective than placebo for pain, but not for disability, in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomised placebo controlled trial with short and longer term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) is one of the exercise approaches recommended by low back pain (LBP) guidelines. We investigated the efficacy of MDT compared with placebo in patients with chronic LBP. METHODS: This was a prospectively registered, two-arm randomised placebo controlled trial, with a blinded assessor. A total of 148 patients seeking care for chronic LBP were randomly allocated to either MDT (n=74) or placebo (n=74). Patients from both groups received 10 treatment sessions over 5 weeks. Patients from both groups also received an educational booklet. Clinical outcomes were obtained at the end of treatment (5 weeks) and 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability at the end of treatment (5 weeks). We also conducted a subgroup analysis to identify potential treatment effect modifiers that could predict a better response to MDT treatment. RESULTS: The MDT group had greater improvements in pain intensity at the end of treatment (mean difference (MD) -1.00, 95% CI -2.09 to -0.01) but not for disability (MD -0.84, 95% CI -2.62 to 0.93). We did not detect between-group differences for any secondary outcomes, nor were any treatment effect modifiers identified. Patients did not report any adverse events. CONCLUSION: We found a small and likely not clinically relevant difference in pain intensity favouring the MDT method immediately at the end of 5 weeks of treatment but not for disability. No other difference was found for any of the primary or secondary outcomes at any follow-up times. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02123394).

Influence of allocation concealment and intention-to-treat analysis on treatment effects of physical therapy interventions in low back pain randomised controlled trials: a protocol of a meta-epidemiological study.

INTRODUCTION: Meta-epidemiological studies examining the influence of methodological characteristics, such as allocation concealment and intention-to-treat analysis have been performed in a large number of healthcare areas. However, there are no studies investigating these characteristics in physical therapy interventions for patients with low back pain. The aim of this study is to investigate the influence of allocation concealment and the use of intention-to-treat analysis on estimates of treatment effects of physical therapy interventions in low back pain clinical trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Searches on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and CINAHL databases will be performed. We will search for systematic reviews that include a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that compared physical therapy interventions in patients with low back pain with placebo or no intervention, and have pain intensity or disability as the primary outcomes. Information about selection (allocation concealment) and attrition bias (intention-to-treat analysis) will be extracted from the PEDro database for each included trial. Information about bibliographic data, study characteristics, participants' characteristics and study results will be extracted. A random-effects model will be used to provide separate estimates of treatment effects for trials with and without allocation concealment and with and without intention-to-treat analysis (eg, four estimates). A meta-regression will be performed to measure the association between methodological features and treatment effects from each trial. The dependent variable will be the treatment effect (the mean between-group differences) for the primary outcomes (pain or disability), while the independent variables will be the methodological features of interest (allocation concealment and intention-to-treat analysis). Other covariates will include sample size and sequence generation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval will be required for this study. The study findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences. REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42016052347).

PREVALENCE OF MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN AMONG SWIMMERS IN AN ELITE NATIONAL TOURNAMENT.

BACKGROUND: Professional swimmers are often affected by a high number of injuries due to their large amount of training. The occurrence of musculoskeletal pain during an important tournament has not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess the prevalence of musculoskeletal pain and its characteristics in professional swimmers. Secondary objectives included evaluating the swimmers' injury history over the previous 12 months, and examining the association of the presence of pain with personal and training characteristics of the swimmers. DESIGN: Observational, cross-sectional study. METHOD: Two-hundred and fifty-seven swimmers who participated in the Brazilian Swimming Championship were included in the study and answered a questionnaire about personal and training characteristics, presence of pain, and injuries in the previous 12 months. The relative risk of presence of pain was calculated for the following variables: gender, BMI, stroke specialty, swimmer's position, strength training, practice of another physical activity, and previous injuries. RESULTS: The prevalence of musculoskeletal pain was about 20%, with 60% of swimmers reporting at least one injury in the previous 12 months. The shoulder was the most commonly affected region and tendinopathy was the most common type of previous injury. No significant relationships were found between the presence of pain and personal or training characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrated that the prevalence of musculoskeletal pain in professional swimmers participating in the most important Brazilian national tournament was approximately 20%, while the majority of participants reported previous injuries in many areas. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c.

Prevalência de dor musculoesquelética em praticantes de caminhada: um estudo transversal / La prevalencia de dolor musculo esquelético en practicantes de caminatas: estudio transversal / Prevalence of musculoskeletal pain in walkers: a cross-sectional study

O presente estudo teve como objetivo verificar a prevalência de dor de origem musculoesquelética em praticantes de caminhada e os possíveis fatores associados. Trata-se de um estudo transversal, realizado por meio de um formulário aplicado aos praticantes de caminhada em parques comuns à prática desta atividade. O formulário utilizado foi composto de questões sobre informações pessoais dos participantes, a rotina da prática de caminhada, o histórico de lesões e a presença de dor musculoesquelética no momento da entrevista. Foi realizada uma análise descritiva das características dos participantes e utilizado o teste t independente, teste de Mann-Whitney e teste de qui-quadrado para a comparação dos dados entre os participantes com dor e sem dor no momento da entrevista. Foram entrevistados 136 praticantes de caminhada, sendo que a prevalência de dor musculoesquelética foi de 8%. A articulação do joelho foi a região mais acometida pela dor entre os participantes (45%). Entre as variáveis analisadas, a presença de lesões prévias nos últimos 12 meses demostrou uma associação estatisticamente significativa (p<0,05) com a presença de dor atual. Podemos concluir que a prevalência de dor musculoesquelética em praticantes de caminhada é baixa, porém esteve diretamente associada à presença de lesões prévias nos últimos 12 meses.

Este artículo tuvo el propósito de verificar la prevalencia de dolor musculo esquelético en practicantes de caminatas y los posibles factores asociados a esta práctica. Se trata de estudio transversal, que se realizó mediante un cuestionario aplicado a los practicantes de caminatas en parques y lugares que son comunes a esta actividad. El cuestionario se componía por informaciones personales de los practicantes, la rutina de la práctica, el historial de lesiones y la presencia de dolor musculo esquelético durante la entrevista. Para ello, se ha hecho un análisis descriptivo de las características de los participantes, y se han utilizados la prueba t independiente, la prueba de Mann-Whitney y la prueba de Chi Cuadrado para la comparación de los datos entre los participantes con y sin dolor en la ocasión de la entrevista. Se han entrevistados 136 practicantes de caminatas, y el 8% fue la prevalencia de dolor musculo esquelético encontrada. La zona más afectada por el dolor entre los participantes fue la articulación de rodilla (45%). Entre las variables evaluadas, se ha demostrado que la presencia de lesiones previas de los últimos 12 meses está asociada estadísticamente (p<0,05) a la presencia de dolor actual. Se concluyó que es baja la prevalencia de dolor musculo esquelético en practicantes de caminatas, sin embargo se la asocia a la presencia de lesiones previas de los últimos 12 meses.

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of musculoskeletal pain in walkers and the associated factors. This is a cross sectional study, conducted through a questionnaire applied to walkers in parks in which this activity is commonly seen. The form used was composed of questions about personal information, walking practice routine, injury history and the presence of musculoskeletal pain during the interview. We performed a descriptive analysis of the characteristics of the participants and used the independent t test, Mann-Whitney's test e chi-square test for the comparison of data between participants with and without pain at the moment of the interview. We interviewed 136 walkers, and the prevalence of musculoskeletal pain was 8%. The knee joint was the most affected region by pain between the participants (45%). Among the variables analyzed, the presence of previous injuries in the last 12 months showed a statistically significant association (p<0.05) with the presence of pain. We can conclude that the prevalence of musculoskeletal pain in walkers was low, however, it was directly associated with previous injuries in the last 12 months.

Efficacy of the McKenzie method in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a protocol of randomized placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The McKenzie method is widely used as an active intervention in the treatment of patients with nonspecific low back pain. Although the McKenzie method has been compared with several other interventions, it is not yet known whether this method is superior to placebo in patients with chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this trial is to assess the efficacy of the McKenzie method in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. DESIGN: An assessor-blinded, 2-arm, randomized placebo-controlled trial will be conducted. SETTING: This study will be conducted in physical therapy clinics in São Paulo, Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: The participants will be 148 patients seeking care for chronic nonspecific low back pain. INTERVENTION: Participants will be randomly allocated to 1 of 2 treatment groups: (1) McKenzie method or (2) placebo therapy (detuned ultrasound and shortwave therapy). Each group will receive 10 sessions of 30 minutes each (2 sessions per week over 5 weeks). MEASUREMENTS: The clinical outcomes will be obtained at the completion of treatment (5 weeks) and at 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. The primary outcomes will be pain intensity (measured with the Pain Numerical Rating Scale) and disability (measured with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) at the completion of treatment. The secondary outcomes will be pain intensity; disability and function; kinesiophobia and global perceived effect at 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization; and kinesiophobia and global perceived effect at completion of treatment. The data will be collected by a blinded assessor. LIMITATIONS: Therapists will not be blinded. CONCLUSIONS: This will be the first trial to compare the McKenzie method with placebo therapy in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. The results of this study will contribute to better management of this population.

Is the rearfoot pattern the most frequently foot strike pattern among recreational shod distance runners?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the distribution of the foot strike patterns among recreational shod runners and to compare the personal and training characteristics between runners with different foot strike patterns. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Areas of running practice in São Paulo, Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: 514 recreational shod runners older than 18 years and free of injury. OUTCOMES MEASURES: Foot strike patterns were evaluated with a high-speed camera (250 Hz) and photocells to assess the running speed of participants. Personal and training characteristics were collected through a questionnaire. RESULTS: The inter-rater reliability of the visual foot strike pattern classification method was 96.7% and intra-rater reliability was 98.9%. 95.1% (n = 489) of the participants were rearfoot strikers, 4.1% (n = 21) were midfoot strikers, and four runners (0.8%) were forefoot strikers. There were no significant differences between strike patterns for personal and training characteristics. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to demonstrate that almost all recreational shod runners were rearfoot strikers. The visual method of evaluation seems to be a reliable and feasible option to classify foot strike pattern.

Tratamento fisioterapêutico para epicondilite lateral: uma revisão sistemática / Physiotherapy treatment for tennis elbow: a systematic review

INTRODUÇÃO: Embora o tratamento conservador ainda seja a melhor conduta inicial para a epicondilite lateral do cotovelo, há pouca evidência científica de que o tratamento fisioterapêutico altere o curso natural da doença e seja efetiva no tratamento dessa patologia. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a efetividade e a segurança das diversas intervenções fisioterapêuticas utilizadas no tratamento conservador da epicondilite lateral. MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Foram incluídos apenas ensaios clínicos aleatorizados e quase aleatorizados que utilizaram pelo menos uma modalidade fisioterapêutica como uma das intervenções. Foi realizada uma busca nas bases de dados eletrônicos MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS e SciELO até dezembro de 2010. Não houve restrição do período de publicação dos artigos. Com o objetivo de aumentar a sensibilidade e a precisão, a estratégia de busca utilizada foi adaptada para cada base de dados. Foi utilizada a pontuação da escala PEDro para avaliação da qualidade metodológica dos ensaios clínicos aleatorizados. RESULTADOS: 26 artigos foram incluídos na revisão sistemática e a avaliação da maioria desses artigos apresentou qualidade metodológica satisfatória (6,4 pontos). Em relação aos aspectos mensurados, todos os artigos avaliaram a dor, 18 (69%) examinaram a força de preensão e 11 (42%) a função dos pacientes. Quanto à duração do acompanhamento dos pacientes apenas nove (35%) artigos realizaram acompanhamento a longo prazo. CONCLUSÃO: A melhor opção para o tratamento da epicondilite lateral parece ser a combinação de modalidades terapêuticas, o que condiz com a realidade clínica do fisioterapeuta. Porém, mais ensaios clínicos com boa qualidade metodológica são necessários para determinar a efetividade da maioria das modalidades terapêuticas encontradas.

INTRODUCTION: Although conservative treatment is still the best initial management for lateral epicondylitis, there is little scientific evidence that physical therapy change the natural history of disease and is effective for treating this condition. Objective: evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different physical therapy interventions used in the conservative treatment of lateral epicondylitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included only randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized studies that used at least one modality of physical therapy as an intervention. We performed a search of electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and SciELO by December 2010. There was no restriction of the period and publication of articles aiming to increase the sensitivity and accuracy; the search strategy used was adapted for each database. We used the score of the PEDro scale for assessing the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: 26 articles were included in the systematic review, and the evaluation of most of these articles had satisfactory methodological quality (6.4 points). Regarding the aspects measured, all articles evaluated pain, 18 (69%) examined the grip strength and 11 (42%) examined the patient's function. The duration of follow-up, only nine (35%) articles made long-term monitoring. CONCLUSION: The best option for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis seems to be a combination of therapeutic modalities, which agrees with clinical reality of the physiotherapists. However, more clinical trials with good methodological quality are needed to determine the effectiveness of most therapeutic modalities found.