Is there 'trustworthy' evidence for using manual therapy to treat patients with shoulder dysfunction?: A systematic review.

The primary objective of this review was to create a 'trustworthy,' living systematic review and meta-analysis for the application of manual therapy interventions in treating patients with shoulder dysfunction. Included studies were English-language randomized controlled trials published between 1/1/2010 and 8/3/2023, with searches performed in: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINHAL, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health, EBSCO Medline, and PEDro. The population of focus included adults 18 years and older with musculoskeletal impairments related to shoulder dysfunction. Our primary outcomes included pain and region-specific outcome measures. We excluded trials, including participants having shoulder dysfunction resulting from surgery, radicular pain, instability/dislocation, fracture, lymphedema, and radiation. Our screening methodology was based upon a previously published 'trustworthy' systematic review protocol. This included the application of our PICOTS criteria in addition to screening for prospective clinical trial registration and following of prospective intent, as well as assessment of PEDro scores, risk-of-bias ratings, GRADE scoring, and examination of confidence in estimated effects. Twenty-six randomized controlled trials met our PICOTS criteria; however, only 15 of these were registered. Only three were registered prospectively. Two of these did not have discussions and conclusions that aligned with their primary outcome. The remaining single study was found to have a high risk-of-bias, meaning the remainder of the protocol could not be employed and that no randomized controlled trials could undergo further assessment or meta-analysis. The results of this systematic review indicate there are no 'trustworthy' randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness of manual therapy interventions for the treatment of patients with shoulder dysfunction, as defined by the prospectively established methodology. Therefore, these findings signal that creating a 'trustworthy,' living systematic review on this clinically relevant topic is not yet possible due to a lack of 'trustworthy' randomized controlled trials.

The influence of pain-related comorbidities on pain intensity and pain-related psychological distress in patients presenting with musculoskeletal pain.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal pain (MSP) is the largest contributor to chronic pain and frequently occurs alongside other medical comorbidities. OBJECTIVE: Explore the relationships between the presence of pain-related comorbidities, pain intensity, and pain-related psychological distress in patients with MSP. METHODS: A longitudinal assessment of individuals 18-90 years old in the Midwestern United States beginning a new episode of physical therapy for MSP. Electronic medical records were assessed the full year prior for care-seeking of diagnoses for pain-related comorbidities (anxiety, metabolic disorder, chronic pain, depression, nicotine dependence, post-traumatic stress disorder, sleep apnea, and sleep insomnia). Pain intensity and pain-related psychological distress (Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome - Yellow Flags tool) were captured during the physical therapy evaluation. Generalized linear models were used to assess the association between pain intensity, psychological distress, and pain-related co-morbidities. Models were adjusted for variables shown in the literature to influence pain. RESULTS: 532 participants were included in the cohort (56.4% female; median age of 59 years, Interquartile Range [IQR]:47, 69). Comorbid depression (beta coefficient (ß) = 0.7; 95%CI: 0.2, 1.2), spine versus lower extremity pain ((ß = 0.6; 95%CI: 0.1, 1.1), and prior surgery (ß = 0.8, 95%CI: 0.3, 1.4) were associated with higher pain intensity scores. No pain-related comorbidities were associated with pain-related psychological distress (yellow flag count or number of domains). Female sex was associated with less pain-related psychological distress (ß = -0.2, 95%CI: -0.3, -0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Depression was associated with greater pain intensity. No comorbidities were able to account for the extent of pain-related psychological distress.

Effect of physical therapy timing on patient-reported outcomes for individuals with acute low back pain: A systematic review with meta analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of early physical therapy (PT) for the management of acute low back pain (LBP) on patient-reported outcomes of pain and disability, compared to delayed PT or non-PT care. LITERATURE SURVEY: Randomized controlled trials in three electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase) were searched from inception to June 12, 2020, and updated on September 23, 2021. METHODOLOGY: Eligible participants were individuals with acute low back pain. The intervention was early PT compared to delayed PT or non-PT care. Primary outcomes included the patient-reported outcomes of pain and disability. The following information was extracted from included articles: demographic data, sample size, selection criteria, PT interventions, and pain and disability outcomes. Data were extracted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) Scale. Random effects models were used for the meta-analysis. SYNTHESIS: Seven of 391 articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Random effects meta-analysis comparing early PT to non-PT care for acute LBP indicated a significant reduction in pain (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.69 to -0.17) and disability (SMD = 0.36, 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.16) in the short term. Early PT compared to delayed PT did not result in improvement in short-term pain (SMD = -0.24, 95% CI: -0.52 to 0.04) or disability (SMD = 0.28, 95% CI: -0.56 to 0.01), or long-term pain (SMD = 0.21, 95% CI: -0.15 to 0.57) or disability (SMD = 0.14, 95% CI: -0.15 to 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest early PT versus non-PT care is associated with statistically significant reductions in short-term pain and disability (up to 6 weeks) with small effect sizes. The results indicate a nonsignificant trend favoring a small benefit of early PT over delayed PT for outcomes at short-term follow-up but no effect at long-term follow-up (6 months or greater).

Risk factors associated with physical therapist burnout: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Studies consistently suggest that work as a physical therapist is associated with burnout, yet no review of the contributing factors has been conducted. OBJECTIVE: To identify and examine the risk factors associated with physical therapist burnout. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to May 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Quantitative studies of physical therapists in clinical practice who experience burnout symptoms or syndrome. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: Risk factors such as characteristics of the participant, environment, structures, and experiences that demonstrate a significant predisposition to burnout were extracted. The modified Downs and Black checklist was used to identify risk of bias. RESULTS: Forty-six studies (8717 participants) were included. The risk of bias assessment determined all were of fair or poor quality. Fifty-three risk factors were identified, with four being classified as unavoidable and forty-nine determined as avoidable. The avoidable risk factors were further categorized as either structural/organizational (32%), psychological/emotional (19%), environmental (19%), or sociodemographic (13%). LIMITATIONS: A risk factor's importance may not correlate with its prevalence, and the low-quality studies limit the ability to make definitive conclusions. CONCLUSION: A significant amount of literature has identified a wide variety of risk factors. The majority are avoidable, and the effect and degree to which each risk factor contributes to burnout varies. The identified risk factors can help develop targeted prevention and intervention strategies for the benefit of physical therapists, organizations, and policymakers. FUNDING: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020136356.

Youth Distance Running and Lower Extremity Injury: A Systematic Review.

Distance running is a popular youth sport. This systematic review identified and examined the effects of youth distance running and lower extremity musculoskeletal injury. Scientific databases were searched from database inception to May 2020. Two hundred and fifty-eight full texts were screened, with nine articles retained for data extraction. Seven of the studies were case reports or case series. Two case reports involved an apophyseal hip fracture. No correlation was found between running mileage or gender and sustaining an injury. Middle school runners reported fewer injuries than high school runners. Cross country accounted for less than 10% of injuries in youth under 15 compared to other track activities. The main finding was a paucity of research. Available literature suggests youth can participate in distance running with minimal adverse effects. One exception may be increased vulnerability to growth plate injury. Additional research is needed, especially in those under 10, as literature in this population is nonexistent.

Using a behavioral model to identify factors associated with choice of provider for neck and low back pain: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear as to what factors influence a patient's choice to seek care from a specific healthcare provider for low back and neck pain. OBJECTIVE: Utilize Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Service Utilization as a conceptual framework to identify the predisposing, enabling and need factors associated with choice of healthcare provider for back and/or neck pain. METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases were searched for studies that included 1) patients seeking care for acute or chronic low back or neck pain; 2) patients at least 18 years of age; 3) reported any healthcare provider type chosen to be seen. Significant factors addressing a patient's choice of provider seen for back pain, neck pain, or both were extracted from studies and analyzed under the Behavioral Model of Health Service Utilization. RESULTS: 20 studies were included in this review: 17 quantitative studies and 3 qualitative studies. Provider types identified were medical physicians, chiropractors, physical therapists, acupuncturists and CAM providers. Age and sex were the most commonly reported predisposing factors; financial and personal factors were the most common enabling factors; patients' duration of pain and self-reported level of functioning were the most commonly reported need factors. CONCLUSIONS: While predisposing and need factors are important, enabling factors also have an influence in choice of healthcare provider for back and/or neck pain.