Improvements are needed in the adherence to the TRIPOD statement for clinical prediction models for patients with spinal pain or osteoarthritis: a meta-research study.

This meta-research study aimed to evaluate the completeness of reporting of prediction model studies in patients with spinal pain or osteoarthritis (OA) in terms of adherence to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement. We searched for prognostic and diagnostic prediction models in patients with spinal pain or OA in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Using a standardized assessment form, we assessed the adherence to the TRIPOD of the included studies. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection and data extraction phases. We included 66 studies. Approximately 35% of the studies declared to have used the TRIPOD. The median adherence to the TRIPOD was 59% overall (IQR: 21.8), with the items of the methods and results sections having the worst reporting. Studies on neck pain had better adherence to the TRIPOD than studies on back pain and OA (medians of 76.5%, 59%, and 53%, respectively). External validation studies had the highest total adherence (median: 79.5%; IQR: 12.8) of all the study types. The median overall adherence was 4 points higher in studies that declared TRIPOD use than those that did not. Finally, we did not observe any improvement in adherence over the years. The adherence to the TRIPOD of prediction models in the spinal and OA fields is low, with the methods and results sections being the most poorly reported. Future studies on prediction models in spinal pain and OA should follow the TRIPOD to improve their reporting completeness. PERSPECTIVE: This article provides data about adherence to the TRIPOD statement in 66 prediction model studies for spinal pain or osteoarthritis. The adherence to the TRIPOD statement was found to be generally low (median adherence of 59%). This inadequate reporting may negatively impact the effective use of the models in clinical practice.

Substantial discrepancies exist between registered protocol and published manuscript in trials on exercise interventions for chronic low back pain: a meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: Reporting bias, prevalent in biomedical fields, can undermine evidence credibility. Our objective was to evaluate the proportion of discrepancies between registered protocols and published manuscripts in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on exercise interventions for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional meta-research study. STUDY SELECTION: We started from the 2021 'Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain' Cochrane Review to select all RCTs reporting a protocol registration on a primary register of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) or in ClinicalTrials.gov. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted data from both registered protocol and published manuscript of RCTs, collecting recruitment and administrative information (e.g., record dates) and details of trial characteristics (e.g., outcomes, arms, statistical analysis plan details). Independent pairs of reviewers assessed discrepancies between registered protocol and published manuscript for the reporting of primary and secondary outcomes domains, measurement instruments, time-points, number of arms and statistical analysis plans (if attached). Outcome discrepancies were characterized as addition, omission, upgrade or downgrade. RESULTS: We included 116 RCTs reporting an available protocol registration. Overall, 100 RCTs (86.2%) distinguished between primary and secondary outcomes. Of these, 39 RCTs (39.0%) reported one or more discrepancies in primary outcomes, and 78 RCTs (78.0%) reported one or more discrepancies in secondary outcomes. Focusing on discrepancies for the primary outcome, 64.5% of added, upgraded or downgraded outcomes favored statistically significant effects. Few RCTs (n=6) reported discrepancies in the number of arms. Statistical analysis plans were poorly reported in the registered protocols (n=3) for being compared to the publications. CONCLUSION: We found substantial outcome discrepancies comparing registered protocols and published manuscripts in RCTs assessing exercise interventions for patients with CLBP, with some impacting the statistical significance of the effects. Readers are encouraged to approach RCTs results in this field with caution.

Spinal manipulation does not improve short-term pain and function in persons with painful shoulder: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To investigate the benefit of spinal high-velocity low-amplitude thrust (HVLAT) in improving pain and disability in persons with painful shoulder as primary outcomes. Function, quality of life, persons (and clinicians) satisfaction, adverse events rate, and time for recovery were secondary outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted and MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, and PEDro until 20 September 2023 were investigated. Two thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine records were retrieved and nine studies were included. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed through the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The certainty of evidence of the pooled results was graded with GRADE approach. RESULTS: The analysis included nine studies (441 persons). The pooled results showed non-significant differences between HVLAT versus sham in pain at pre-post follow-up (MD -0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.60; 0.35; p = 0.61, I2 = 0%), and at <4 days follow-up (SMD 0.16, 95%CI -0.16; 0.48; p = 0.34, I2 = 23%); in function at <4 days follow-up (SMD -0.29, 95%CI -0.69; 0.11; p = 0.16, I2 = 50%). The certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: HVLAT was not more effective than sham in improving pain and function at pre-post and at <4 days follow-up. When used as an "add-on technique", HVLAT did not improve pain nor disability.

High-velocity low-amplitude thrust (HVLAT) manipulation is no more effective than sham in improving shoulder pain at pre-post follow-up.Clinician should not be recommended to deliver HVLAT manipulation in subjects with painful shoulder with the purpose of reducing pain intensity.However, HVLAT manipulation should be considered within a multimodal approach to address function in painful shoulder subjects.

In trials of physiotherapy for chronic low back pain, clinical relevance is rarely interpreted, with great heterogeneity in the frameworks and thresholds used: a meta-research study.

QUESTIONS: How do authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) interpret the clinical relevance of the effects of physiotherapy interventions compared with no intervention on pain intensity, physical function and time to recovery in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP)? How can the clinical relevance be re-interpreted based on the available smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) threshold for this comparison? Are the studies in this field adequately powered? DESIGN: Cross-sectional meta-research study. PARTICIPANTS: People with CLBP. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity, physical function and time to recovery. RESULTS: This review included 23 RCTs with 1,645 participants. Twenty-two and 18 studies were included in the analysis of pain intensity and physical function, respectively. No studies investigated time to recovery. Sixteen studies reported varying thresholds to interpret clinical relevance for physical function and pain intensity. Discrepancies between interpretation using the minimal important difference and SWE values were observed in five studies. Study power ranged from 9% to 98%, with only four studies having a power > 80%. CONCLUSION: Little attention is given to the interpretation of clinical relevance in RCTs comparing physiotherapy with no intervention in CLBP, with great heterogeneity in the frameworks and thresholds used. Future trials should inform patients and clinicians on whether the effect of an intervention is large enough to be worthwhile, using a reliable and comprehensive approach like available SWE estimates. REGISTRATION: medRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.14.22283454.

Does the psychological profile of a patient with frozen shoulder predict future outcome? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Frozen shoulder (FS) is defined as a condition characterised by functional restriction and daily and nightly pain. As in other shoulder pathologies, the manifestation of psychological factors is recognised in FS; however, from a psychological point of view, only few studies have reported its prognostic value. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate, in patients with FS, the prognostic value of psychological factors on pain, function, disability, health-related quality of life, return to work and time to recovery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis-PRISMA 2020 guideline. The authors followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic review of Intervention as methodological guidance. The Quality in Prognostic Studies-QUIPS tool was used to assess the risk of bias. RESULTS: Pain-related fear and depression could be prognostic regarding patient-reported outcome measures assessing shoulder function, disability, and pain; instead, pain catastrophizing could have a prognostic value assessed by the disability of the arm shoulder and hand -DASH scale. Anxiety would appear to impact on disability and pain. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: As widely reported in numerous musculoskeletal conditions, also in FS psychological factors influence the physical dimension such as pain, disability and function. Therefore, clinicians should be encouraged to identify these factors through a comprehensive assessment of the bio-psychological profile of each individual with FS. Perhaps, patients with FS that show such psychological prognostic factors could benefit from a comprehensive and shared approach with other dedicated professionals.

The Uptake of the Core Outcome Set for Non-Specific Low Back Pain Clinical Trials is Poor: A Meta-Epidemiological Study of Trial Registrations.

We conducted a meta-epidemiological study on all non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) trial registrations on the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. We aimed to 1) assess the uptake of the core outcome set (COS) for NSLBP in clinical trials; 2) assess the uptake of the core outcome measurement set for NSLBP in clinical trials; and 3) determine whether specific study characteristics are associated with the COS uptake. After applying the relevant filters for the condition, study type, and phase of the trial, 240 registry entries were included in this study. Only 50 (20.8%) entries showed a full COS uptake, and this rate did not increase over time. Most registry entries that planned to measure physical functioning (n = 152) used the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (n = 74; 48.7%); a small percentage used the numeric rating scale (n = 60; 27.3%) or Short Form-12 (n = 5; 8.3%) if they planned to measure pain intensity (n = 220) or health-related quality of life (n = 60), respectively. Only the planned sample size (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.01, 1.03) showed a significant but small association with COS uptake. The uptake of the COS for NSLBP is poor. Only 21% of the randomized controlled trials aimed to measure all COS domains in their study registration and COS uptake is not increased over time. Great heterogeneity in measurement instruments was also observed, revealing poor core outcome measurement set uptake. PERSPECTIVE: The Core Outcome Set (COS) for non-specific low back pain was published more than 20 years ago. We evaluated whether trial registrations are using this set of outcomes when testing interventions for low back pain. Full uptake was found only in 21% of the sample, and this is not increasing over time. Researchers should use the COS to ensure that trials measure relevant outcomes consistently.

Bias in the measurement of the outcome is associated with effect sizes in randomized clinical trials on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain: a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the relationships between the risk of bias and treatment effect estimates for exercise therapy interventions on pain intensity and physical functioning outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with chronic low back pain. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study of the 230 RCTs (31,674 participants) in the 2021 'Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain' Cochrane Review were included. Study design characteristics, sample size, prospective trial registration, flowchart information, interventions, and comparisons were extracted. Independent pairs of reviewers assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. RESULTS: The metaregression included 220 (pain intensity) and 203 (physical functioning) effect sizes. Unadjusted and adjusted metaregression models showed no significant associations between the bias domains and pain intensity effect sizes. Only domain 'bias in the measurement of the outcome' was significantly associated with physical functioning (standardized mean difference: -0.40, 95% confidence interval: -0.77 to -0.02) when adjusted for flowchart reported (yes/no), prospective trial registration, sample size, and comparator type. CONCLUSION: The risk of bias in the measurement of the outcome could lead to slight overestimates of the effect size for physical functioning. Clinicians should consider this when they read and assess RCT results in this field. We encourage metaresearchers to replicate our findings using a consistent approach for evaluating the risk of bias (i.e., the RoB 2 tool) in other musculoskeletal conditions and interventions to investigate their generalizability.

Benefits and Harms of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Treating Recent and Persistent Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate the benefits and harms of cervical spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for treating neck pain. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Chiropractic Literature Index bibliographic databases, and grey literature sources, up to June 6, 2022. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs evaluating SMT compared to guideline-recommended and nonrecommended interventions, sham SMT, and no intervention for adults with neck pain were eligible for our systematic review. Prespecified outcomes included pain, range of motion, disability, health-related quality of life. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis for clinically homogenous RCTs at short-term and long-term outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach to judge the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 28 RCTs. There was very low to low certainty evidence that SMT was more effective than recommended interventions for improving pain at short term (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35, 0.97) and long term (SMD, 0.73; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.16), and for reducing disability at short-term (SMD, 0.95; 95% CI: 0.48, 1.42) and long term (SMD, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.23, 1.06). Transient side effects only were found (eg, muscle soreness). CONCLUSION: There was very low certainty evidence supporting cervical SMT as an intervention to reduce pain and improve disability in people with neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):510-528. Epub: 10 August 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11708.

The interpretation of clinical relevance in randomised clinical trials in patients with chronic low back pain: protocol for a meta-research study.

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is one of the leading worldwide causes of disability. The smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) parameter has been proposed to find a threshold of clinical relevance. Specific values of the SWE have been calculated in patients with cLBP for pain intensity, physical functioning and time to recovery for physiotherapy compared with no intervention. Our objectives are 1) To evaluate how authors have interpreted the clinical relevance of the effect of physiotherapy compared to no-intervention on pain, physical functioning and time to recovery; 2) To reinterpret the clinical relevance of these between-group differences based on the available SWE estimates; 3) To evaluate, for descriptive purposes, whether the studies are adequately powered or underpowered considering the published SWE values and a power threshold of 80%. A systematic search in Medline, PEDro, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL will be conducted. We will search for RCT investigating the effectiveness of physiotherapy as compared to no interventions in people with cLBP. We will compare the authors' interpretation of results for clinical relevance with their results to determine if they meet their a-priori definitions. Then, we will perform a re-interpretation of the between-group differences based on SWE values published for cLBP.

One cue does not fit all: A systematic review with meta-analysis of the effectiveness of cueing on freezing of gait in Parkinson's disease.

The difficulty in assessing FOG and the variety of existing cues, hamper to determine which cueing modality should be applied and which FOG-related aspect should be targeted to reach personalized treatments for FOG. This systematic review aimed to highlight: i) whether cues could reduce FOG and improve FOG-related gait parameters, ii) which cues are the most effective, iii) whether medication state (ON-OFF) affects cues-related results. Thirty-three repeated measure design studies assessing cueing effectiveness were included and subdivided according to gait tasks (gait initiation, walking, turning) and to the medication state. Main results reveal that: preparatory phase of gait initiation benefit from visual and auditory cues; spatio-temporal parameters (e.g., step and stride length) are improved by visual cues during walking; turning time and step time variability are reduced by applying auditory and visual cues. Some findings on the potential benefits of cueing on FOG and FOG gait-related parameters were found. Questions remain about which are the best behavioral strategies according to FOG features and PD clinical characteristics.

Speech and Language Therapy for Acquired Central Dysgraphia in Neurological Patients: A Systematic Review to Describe and Identify Trainings for Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: Acquired central dysgraphia is a heterogeneous neurological disorder that usually co-occurs with other language disorders. Written language training is relevant to improve everyday skills and as a compensatory strategy to support limited oral communication. A systematic evaluation of existing writing treatments is thus needed. METHOD: We performed a systematic review of speech and language therapies for acquired dysgraphia in studies of neurological diseases (PROSPERO: CRD42018084221), following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist with a search on several databases for articles written in English and published until August 31, 2021. Only methodological well-designed studies were included. Further assessment of methodological quality was conducted by means of a modified version of the Downs and Black checklist. RESULTS: Eleven studies of 43 patients in total were included. For each study, we collected data on type of population, type of impairment, experimental design, type of treatment, and measured outcomes. The studies had a medium level of assessed methodological quality. An informative description of treatments and linkages to deficits is reported. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a need for further experimental evidence, most treatments showed good applicability and improvement of written skills in patients with dysgraphia. Lexical treatments appear to be more frequently adopted and more flexible in improving dysgraphia and communication, especially when a multimodal approach is used. Finally, the reported description of treatment modalities for dysgraphia in relation to patients' deficits may be important for providing tailored therapies in clinical management.

The Reporting of Somatic Sensory Training Interventions in Individuals After a Stroke Is Suboptimal: A Systematic Review and Meta-research Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review is to assess adherence to the "template for intervention description and replication" checklist among all published randomized controlled trials of sensory retraining strategies for patients with a history of stroke. METHODS: Medline, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database were investigated, without time restrictions, until September 1, 2021. In addition, a search for additional studies was carried out using the included studies' reference list. Only randomized controlled trials of adults with a history of stroke who aimed to improve sensation, via any type of intervention, were included. The template for intervention description and replication checklist was used to assess the completeness of reporting on each intervention. RESULTS: A total of 61 trials were included. None of the included studies declared to have used the template for intervention description and replication checklist to report interventions. Overall, the median percentage of adherence to the 12 items of the template for intervention description and replication was 33% (interquartile range, 25%-50%). Only five of the single items were adequately described in more than 50% of the studies. None of the randomized controlled trials reported the entirety of the core intervention components, as described in items 3 to 9. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrates that interventions in sensory retraining strategy trials are described below desirable standards. Without this information, clinicians and researchers cannot reliably replicate interventions.

PFD-SENTINEL: Development of a screening tool for pelvic floor dysfunction in female athletes through an international Delphi consensus.

To develop a screening tool for pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) in female athletes for use by sports medicine clinicians (eg, musculoskeletal/sports physiotherapists, sports and exercise medicine physicians), which guides referral to a PFD specialist (eg, pelvic floor/women's health physiotherapist, gynaecologist, urogynaecologist, urologist).Between February and April 2022, an international two-round modified Delphi study was conducted to assess expert opinion on which symptoms, risk factors and clinical and sports-related characteristics (items) should be included in a screening tool. We defined consensus a priori as >67% response agreement to pass each round.41 and 34 experts participated in rounds 1 and 2, respectively. Overall, seven general statements were endorsed as relevant by most participants highlighting the importance of screening for PFD in female athletes. Through consensus, the panel developed the Pelvic Floor Dysfunction-ScrEeNing Tool IN fEmale athLetes (PFD-SENTINEL) and agreed to a cluster of PFD symptoms (n=5) and items (risk factors, clinical and sports-related characteristics; n=28) that should prompt specialist care. A clinical algorithm was also created: a direct referral is recommended when at least one symptom or 14 items are reported. If these thresholds are not reached, continuous monitoring of the athlete's health is indicated.Despite increasing awareness and clinical relevance, barriers to identify PFD in female athletes are still present. The PFD-SENTINEL is a new resource for sports medicine clinicians who regularly assess female athletes and represents the first step towards early PFD identification and management. Further studies to validate the tool are needed.

Adherence to the PRISMA statement and its association with risk of bias in systematic reviews published in rehabilitation journals: A meta-research study.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses are essential resources for the clinicians. They allow to evaluate the strengths and the weaknesses of the evidence to support clinical decision-making if they are adequately reported. Little is known in the rehabilitation field about the completeness of reporting of SRs and its relationship with the risk of bias (ROB). OBJECTIVES: Primary: 1) To evaluate the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SRs) published in rehabilitation journals by evaluating their adherence to the PRISMA 2009 checklist, 2) To investigate the relationship between ROB and completeness of reporting. Secondary: To study the association between completeness of reporting and journals and study characteristics. METHODS: A random sample of 200 SRs published between 2011 and 2020 in 68 rehabilitation journals was indexed under the "rehabilitation" category in the InCites database. Two independent reviewers evaluated adherence to the PRISMA checklist and assessed ROB using the ROBIS tool. Overall adherence and adherence to each PRISMA item and section were calculated. Regression analyses investigated the association between completeness of reporting, ROB, and other characteristics (impact factor, publication options, publication year, and study protocol registration). RESULTS: The mean overall PRISMA adherence across the 200 studies considered was 61.4%. Regression analyses show that having a high overall ROB is a significant predictor of lower adherence (B=-7.1%; 95%CI -12.1, -2.0). Studies published in fourth quartile journals displayed a lower overall adherence (B= -7.2%; 95%CI -13.2, -1.3) than those published in first quartile journals; the overall adherence increased (B= 11.9%; 95%CI 5.9, 18.0) if the SR protocol was registered. No association between adherence, publication options, and publication year was found. CONCLUSION: Reporting completeness in rehabilitation SRs is suboptimal and is associated with ROB, impact factor, and study registration. Authors of SRs should improve adherence to the PRISMA guideline, and journal editors should implement strategies to optimize the completeness of reporting.

Some conservative interventions are more effective than others for people with chronic non-specific neck pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

QUESTION: Which is the most effective conservative intervention for patients with non-specific chronic neck pain (CNSNP)? DESIGN: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with CNSNP of at least 3 months duration. INTERVENTIONS: All available pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. The secondary outcome was adverse events. RESULTS: Overall, 119 RCTs (12,496 patients; 32 interventions) were included. Risk of bias was low in 50.4% of trials, unclear in 22.7% and high in 26.9%. Compared with inert treatment, a combination of active and/or passive multimodal non-pharmacological inventions (eg, exercise and manual therapy) were effective for pain on a 0-to-10 scale at 1 month (MD range 0.84 to 3.74) and at 3 to 6 months (MD range 1.06 to 1.49), and effective on disability on a 0-to-100 scale at 1 month (MD range 10.26 to 14.09) and 3 to 6 months (MD range 5.60 to 16.46). These effects ranged from possible to definite clinical relevance. Compared with inert treatment, anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with another non-pharmacological treatment did not reduce pain at 1 month or 3 to 6 months. At 12 months, no superiority was found over inert treatment on both outcomes. Most mild adverse events were experienced following acupuncture/dry needling intervention. On average, the evidence varied from low to very low certainty. CONCLUSIONS: While multimodal non-pharmacological interventions may reduce pain and disability for up to 3 to 6 months of follow-up when compared with inert treatment, the evidence was very uncertain about their effects. Better quality and larger trials are needed to improve the certainty of evidence. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019124501.

Depression and Anxiety Are Associated With Worse Subjective and Functional Baseline Scores in Patients With Frozen Shoulder Contracture Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: To investigate whether psychological factors, such as avoidance behavior, fear, pain catastrophization, kinesiophobia, anxiety, depression, optimism, and expectation are associated with different subjective and functional baseline scores in patients with frozen shoulder contracture syndrome (FSCS). Methods: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL Database), PEDro, Pubpsych, and PsychNET.APA without restrictions applied to language, date, or status of publication. Two authors reviewed study titles, abstract, and full text based on the following inclusion criteria: adult population (≥ 30 < 70 years old) with FSCS. Results: Seven hundred and seventy-six records were included by the search strategies. After title final screening, 6 studies were included for the qualitative synthesis. Psychological features investigated were anxiety, depression, pain-related fear, pain catastrophizing, and pain self-efficacy; reported outcomes included pain, function, disability, quality of life, and range of motion. Data suggest that anxiety and depression impact self-assessed function, pain, and quality of life. There is no consensus on the correlation between psychological variables and range of motion. Associations were suggested between pain-related fear, pain-related beliefs, and pain-related behavior and perceived arm function; pain-related conditions showed no significant correlation with range of motion and with perceived stiffness at baseline. Conclusion: Scores traditionally thought to assess physical dimensions like shoulder pain, disability, and function seem to be influenced by psychological variables. In FSCS patients, depression and anxiety were associated with increased pain perception and decreased function and quality of life at baseline. Moreover, pain-related fear and catastrophizing seem to be associated with perceived arm function.

Completeness of Reporting Is Suboptimal in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Rehabilitation Journals, With Trials With Low Risk of Bias Displaying Better Reporting: A Meta-research Study.

OBJECTIVE: Primary: To evaluate the completeness of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in rehabilitation journals through the evaluation of the adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist and investigate the relationship between reporting and risk of bias (ROB). Secondary: To study the association between completeness of reporting and the characteristics of studies and journals. DATA SOURCES: A random sample of 200 RCTs published between 2011 and 2020 in 68 rehabilitation journals indexed under the "rehabilitation" category in the InCites Journal Citation Report. STUDY SELECTION: One reviewer evaluated the completeness of reporting operationalized as the adherence to the CONSORT checklist. Two independent reviewers evaluated the ROB using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2.0 tool. DATA EXTRACTION: Overall adherence and adherence to each CONSORT section were calculated. Regression analyses investigated the association between completeness of reporting, ROB, and other characteristics (quartile range, publication modalities, study protocol registration). DATA SYNTHESIS: The mean overall CONSORT adherence across studies was 65%. Studies with high ROB have less adherence than those with low ROB (-5.5%; CI, -10.9 to 0.0). There was a 10.2% (% CI, 6.2-14.3) increase in adherence if the RCT protocol was registered. Studies published in first quartile journals displayed an overall adherence of 11.7% (% CI 17.1-6.4) higher than those published in the fourth quartile. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting completeness is still suboptimal and is associated with ROB, journal impact ranking, and registration of the study protocol. Trial authors should improve adherence to the CONSORT guideline, and journal editors should adopt new strategies to improve the reporting.

What is known from the existing literature about the available interventions for pelvic floor dysfunction among female athletes? A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Female athletes may be at higher risk of developing pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD). However, despite the great number of epidemiologic studies, the interventions have not been standardized. AIM: The present scoping review aimed to map and summarize the literature to identify the available interventions for PFD among female athletes. METHODS: Seven databases were searched up to May 2021. Studies considering female athletes practising sports at any performance level with any type of PFD were eligible for inclusion. Any clinical intervention and any context were considered. No language, study design, and publication type restrictions were applied. Additional studies were identified through gray literature and the reference lists of articles included. The results were presented numerically and thematically. RESULTS: From 2625 initial records, 35 studies met inclusion criteria. The majority of articles were narrative reviews, considering athletes with urinary incontinence practising multiple or high-impact sports. Authors discussed a wide range of interventions: preventive (n = 8); conservative (n = 35), pharmacological (n = 12), and surgical (n = 10). In particular, the Pelvic Floor Muscle Training was considered in 30 studies. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first scoping review to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic. Besides the great number of available interventions, specific programs and randomized controlled clinical trials for female athletes are still limited. Findings highlighted evident gaps in the primary research confirming that the current management is based on expert opinion. This review may be useful for the overall management, and it may represent a starting point for future research.

The influence of central pain modulation on postoperative outcomes after shoulder surgery: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review whether the altered central pain modulation has a significant influence on post-surgical outcomes in patients undergoing shoulder surgery due to musculoskeletal disorders. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, PEDro, and EMBASE was conducted without time restriction, including observational prognostic studies. Quality in Prognostic Studies Tool was adopted for critical appraisal, and a qualitative synthesis was undertaken. Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment; any disagreement was resolved by a third author. A review protocol is published in the PROSPERO registry (CRD42019122303). The data regarding the potential predictors and outcome measures were obtained from the studies. RESULTS: 11 prospective cohort studies were appraised. Overall, 952 patients were included with a sample size that ranged from 20 to 314. Studies included both arthroscopy and open surgery and presented low to moderate ROB. The prognostic factors investigated were depression, psychological distress, anxiety, catastrophizing, fear avoidance beliefs, self-efficacy and quantitative sensory testing. Only avoidance behaviors and self-efficacy were significantly related to post-surgical pain and function at 12 months after surgery. CONCLUSION: Fear avoidance beliefs and inadequate coping strategies seem to be the most correlated factors with the worst pain and function scores. Surgeons and physical therapists should look for patients with signs of altered central pain modulation before surgery as they might be at risk of unfavorable outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, Therapeutic Study.