First-line treatment for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and hip-related quality of life: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing a 6-month supervised strength exercise intervention to usual care (the Better Hip Trial).

INTRODUCTION: Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) is a motion-related and position-related clinical condition of the hip associated with pain, reduced physical function and hip-related quality of life (QoL). Interestingly, higher maximal muscle strength is associated with less pain, better physical function and improved QoL in people with FAIS. Furthermore, preliminary evidence suggests that a proportion of patients with FAIS respond positively to strength exercise as first-line treatment. Nonetheless, there is little evidence supporting a specific exercise intervention offered as a first-line treatment. We will conduct a randomised controlled trial investigating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 6-month strength exercise intervention compared with usual care as first-line treatment in patients with FAIS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial that will be conducted at hospitals and physiotherapy clinics across Denmark and Australia. A total of 120 patients with FAIS will be randomised (1:1) to 6 months of supervised strength exercise or usual care. The primary outcome is the change in hip-related QoL measured using the International Hip and Outcome Tool 33 (iHOT-33) from baseline to the end of intervention. A health economic evaluation will be conducted from a societal and healthcare perspective based on the data collection over a 12-month period starting at baseline. The analysis will calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using quality-adjusted life-years and iHOT-33 scores while estimating costs using microcosting and cost questionnaires. Secondary outcomes include objectively measured physical function at baseline and after 6 months and patient-reported outcomes measured at baseline, 3-month, 6-month and 12-month follow-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by the Committee on Health Research Ethics in the Central Denmark Region (journal no 1-10-72-45-23) and La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee (HEC24042) and is registered at the Central Denmark Region List of Research Projects (journal no 1-16-02-115-23). Informed consent will be obtained from each participant before randomisation. Results will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05927935.

Cost of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors compared with matched control groups.

INTRODUCTION: Societal costs of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survivors may be extensive due to high health care utilization and sick leave. Knowledge of the costs of OHCA survivors may guide decision-makers to prioritize health resources. AIM: The aims of the study were to evaluate the costs of OHCA survivors from a societal perspective, and to compare these costs to the costs of individuals with non-cardiac arrest myocardial infarction (MI) and individuals with no cardiac disease (non-CD). METHODS: From the Danish OHCA Registers, survivors, with a cardiac arrest between 2005-2018 were identified. Each case was assigned one MI control and one non-CD control, matched on gender and age. Based on register data, costs of healthcare utilization, sick leave, vocational rehabilitation, disability pension and other social benefits one year before event and five years after, were estimated. RESULTS: In total 5,646 OHCA survivors were identified with associated control groups. The mean costs for OHCA survivors during the 6-year period were €119,106 (95%CI: 116,297-121,916), with €83,472 (95%CI: 81,392-85,552) being healthcare costs. Mean costs of OHCA survivors were €49,132 higher than the MI-control group and €100,583 higher than the non-CD control group. CONCLUSIONS: Total costs of OHCA survivors were considerably higher than costs of MI- and non-CD controls. Hospital costs were highest during the first year after event, and work inability during the second to fifth year with sick leave and later disability pension as main burdens.

Exercise Therapy for Treatment of Acute Non-specific Low Back Pain: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of exercise for acute non-specific low back pain (LBP) vs our main comparisons: (1) sham treatment and (2) no treatment at short term (main follow-up time). DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: A comprehensive search up till November 2021 was conducted in numerous databases for randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of exercise in adults with acute LBP (<6 weeks). Studies examining LBP with a specific etiology were excluded. The primary outcomes were back pain, back-specific functional status, and recovery. DATA EXTRACTION: Two review authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 23 randomized controlled trials (2674 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain (mean difference [MD] -0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.79 to 4.19; 1 study, 299 participants) and on functional status (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.20 to 6.20; 1 study, 299 participants) in the short term. There is very low-quality evidence which suggests no difference in effect on pain and functional status for exercise vs no treatment (2 studies; n=157, not pooled due to heterogeneity) at short-term follow-up. Similar results were found for the other follow-up moments. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded because many randomized controlled trials had a high risk of bias, were small in size, and/or there was substantial heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo and no treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. Owing to insufficient reporting of adverse events, we were unable to reach any conclusions on the safety or harms related to exercise therapy.

Predicting direct healthcare costs of general practitioner-guided care in patients with musculoskeletal complaints.

ABSTRACT: Information on healthcare utilization and costs of general practitioner (GP)-guided care in patients with musculoskeletal complaints is important for keeping healthcare affordable and accessible. A registry-based study was performed to describe healthcare utilization and costs of GP-guided care in patients with musculoskeletal complaints and to predict having higher direct healthcare costs. Healthcare costs of GP-guided care included all healthcare resources used by patients due to a musculoskeletal condition in 2018. Data were extracted from the database with a 1-year follow-up and descriptively analyzed. A general linear model was developed to predict having higher direct healthcare costs. In total, 403,719 patients were included, of whom 92% only received a single consultation. The number of referrals varied across the different types of complaints. Total annual direct healthcare costs amounted to €39,180,531, of which a key cost driver was referrals. Primary care consultations accounted for the largest part of referral-related costs. For all musculoskeletal conditions combined, the mean annual direct healthcare cost per patient was €97 (SEM = €0.18). Older age, being a woman, low socioeconomic status, spine complaints, high number of musculoskeletal diagnoses, and a high comorbidity score were predictive of having higher direct healthcare costs and explained 0.7% of the variance. This study showed that mean annual direct healthcare costs of GP-guided care in patients with musculoskeletal conditions were relatively low and did not differ considerably across conditions. The predictive model explained a negligible part of the variance in costs. Thus, it is unclear which factors do predict high direct healthcare costs in this population.

Six-month cost-effectiveness of adding motivational interviewing or a stratified vocational advice intervention to usual case management for workers with musculoskeletal disorders: the MI-NAV economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the six-month cost-effectiveness and cost-benefits of motivational interviewing (MI) or a stratified vocational advice intervention (SVAI) added to usual case management (UC) for workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders. METHODS: This study was conducted alongside a three-arm RCT including 514 employed workers on sick leave for at least 50% for ≥ 7 weeks. All participants received UC. The UC + MI group received two MI sessions, and the UC + SVAI group received 1-4 SVAI sessions. Sickness absence days, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and societal costs were measured between baseline and six months. RESULTS: Adding MI to UC, resulted in incremental cost-reduction of -2580EUR (95%CI -5687;612), and a reduction in QALYs of -0.001 (95%CI -0.02;0.01). Secondly, adding MI to UC resulted in an incremental cost-reduction of -538EUR (95%CI -1358;352), and reduction of 5.08 (95%CI -3.3;13.5) sickness-absence days. Financial return estimates were positive, but not statistically significant. Adding SVAI to UC, resulted in an incremental cost-reduction of -2899 EUR (95% CI -5840;18), and a reduction in QALYs of 0.002 (95% CI -0.02;0.01). Secondly, adding SVAI to UC resulted in an statistically significant incremental cost-reduction of -695 EUR (95% CI -1459;-3), and a reduction of 7.9 (95% CI -0.04;15.9) sickness absence days. Financial return estimates were positive and statistically significant. The probabilities of cost-effectiveness for QALYs were high for adding MI or SVAI (ceiling ratio 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to UC only, adding MI to UC tends to be cost-effective. Adding SVAI to UC is cost-effective for workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT03871712).

Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting with low-back pain.

EDITORIAL NOTE: See https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD014461.pub2/full for a more recent review that covers this topic and has superseded this review. BACKGROUND: Low-back pain (LBP) is a common condition seen in primary care. A principal aim during a clinical examination is to identify patients with a higher likelihood of underlying serious pathology, such as vertebral fracture, who may require additional investigation and specific treatment. All 'evidence-based' clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of red flags to screen for serious causes of back pain. However, it remains unclear if the diagnostic accuracy of red flags is sufficient to support this recommendation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags obtained in a clinical history or physical examination to screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting with LBP. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for primary studies between the earliest date and 7 March 2012. Forward and backward citation searching of eligible studies was also conducted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were considered if they compared the results of any aspect of the history or test conducted in the physical examination of patients presenting for LBP or examination of the lumbar spine, with a reference standard (diagnostic imaging). The selection criteria were independently applied by two review authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently conducted 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed using the 11-item QUADAS tool. Characteristics of studies, patients, index tests and reference standards were extracted. Where available, raw data were used to calculate sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Due to the heterogeneity of studies and tests, statistical pooling was not appropriate and the analysis for the review was descriptive only. Likelihood ratios for each test were calculated and used as an indication of clinical usefulness. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies set in primary (four), secondary (one) and tertiary care (accident and emergency = three) were included in the review. Overall, the risk of bias of studies was moderate with high risk of selection and verification bias the predominant flaws. Reporting of index and reference tests was poor. The prevalence of vertebral fracture in accident and emergency settings ranged from 6.5% to 11% and in primary care from 0.7% to 4.5%. There were 29 groups of index tests investigated however, only two featured in more than two studies. Descriptive analyses revealed that three red flags in primary care were potentially useful with meaningful positive likelihood ratios (LR+) but mostly imprecise estimates (significant trauma, older age, corticosteroid use; LR+ point estimate ranging 3.42 to 12.85, 3.69 to 9.39, 3.97 to 48.50 respectively). One red flag in tertiary care appeared informative (contusion/abrasion; LR+ 31.09, 95% CI 18.25 to 52.96). The results of combined tests appeared more informative than individual red flags with LR+ estimates generally greater in magnitude and precision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence does not support the use of many red flags to specifically screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting for LBP. Based on evidence from single studies, few individual red flags appear informative as most have poor diagnostic accuracy as indicated by imprecise estimates of likelihood ratios. When combinations of red flags were used the performance appeared to improve. From the limited evidence, the findings give rise to a weak recommendation that a combination of a small subset of red flags may be useful to screen for vertebral fracture. It should also be noted that many red flags have high false positive rates; and if acted upon uncritically there would be consequences for the cost of management and outcomes of patients with LBP. Further research should focus on appropriate sets of red flags and adequate reporting of both index and reference tests.

Measurement properties of performance-based instruments for assessing mental function during activity and participation in persons with stroke: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Various performance-based instruments exist to assess mental function after stroke and users have to select one for research or clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the measurement properties of performance-based instruments to assess (any aspect of) mental function during activity and participation in persons after stroke. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched in five electronic databases. COSMIN methodology was used to conduct the review. The strength of evidence was assessed using a modified GRADE approach. RESULTS: Fifty articles were included reporting on 20 instruments assessing (1) multiple mental functions including ≥ four subdomains (2) attention, memory and executive functions, or single subdomains (3) executive functions, (4) perception, and (5) mental function of language. Highest quality evidence for sufficient results was found for some measurement properties in seven instruments. These instruments included: FIM + FAM, MPAI-4 and EFPT, MET, CBS/KF-NAP, BIT and the Scenario Test. CONCLUSIONS: Further studies of high methodological quality are needed that evaluate the measurement properties of instruments to allow clinicians and researchers to select the most suitable performance-based measures for purpose. SIGNIFICANCE: Results may be used to select the most suitable performance-based instrument to measure mental function during activity and participation in persons with stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42018086744.

Exercise therapy for treatment of acute non-specific low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability globally. It generates considerable direct costs (healthcare) and indirect costs (lost productivity). The many available treatments for LBP include exercise therapy, which is practised extensively worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise therapy for acute non-specific low back pain in adults compared to sham/placebo treatment or no treatment at short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term follow-up. SEARCH METHODS: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. We conducted an updated search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two trial registers. We screened the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews published since 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that examined the effects of exercise therapy on non-specific LBP lasting six weeks or less in adults. Major outcomes for this review were pain, functional status, and perceived recovery. Minor outcomes were return to work, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. Our main comparisons were exercise therapy versus sham/placebo treatment and exercise therapy versus no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We evaluated outcomes at short-term follow-up (time point within three months and closest to six weeks after randomisation; main follow-up), intermediate-term follow-up (between nine months and closest to six months), and long-term follow-up (after nine months and closest to 12 months); and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 studies (13 from the previous review, 10 new studies) that involved 2674 participants and provided data for 2637 participants. Three small studies are awaiting classification, and four eligible studies are ongoing. Included studies were conducted in Europe (N = 9), the Asia-Pacific region (N = 9), and North America (N = 5); and most took place in a primary care setting (N = 12), secondary care setting (N = 6), or both (N = 1). In most studies, the population was middle-aged and included men and women. We judged 10 studies (43%) at low risk of bias with regard to sequence generation and allocation concealment. Blinding is not feasible in exercise therapy, introducing performance and detection bias. There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain scores in the short term (mean difference (MD) -0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.79 to 4.19; 1 study, 299 participants). The absolute difference was 1% less pain (95% CI 4% more to 6% less), and the relative difference was 4% less pain (95% CI 20% more to 28% less). The mean pain score was 20.1 (standard deviation (SD) 21) for the intervention group and 20.9 (SD 23) for the control group. There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on functional status scores in the short term (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.20 to 6.20; 1 study, 299 participants). The absolute difference was 2% worse functional status (95% CI 2% better to 6% worse), and the relative difference was 15% worse (95% CI 17% better to 47% worse). The mean functional status score was 15.3 (SD 19) for the intervention group and 13.3 (SD 18) for the control group. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for pain and functional status by one level for risk of bias and by two levels for imprecision (only one study with fewer than 400 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with no treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term (2 studies, 157 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by two levels for imprecision and by one level for inconsistency. One study associated exercise with small benefits and the other found no differences. The first study was conducted in an occupational healthcare centre, where participants received one exercise therapy session. The other study was conducted in secondary and tertiary care settings, where participants received treatment three times per week for six weeks. We did not pool data from these studies owing to considerable clinical heterogeneity. In two studies, there were no reported adverse events. One study reported adverse events unrelated to exercise therapy. The remaining studies did not report whether any adverse events had occurred. Owing to insufficient reporting of adverse events, we were unable to reach any conclusions on the safety or harms related to exercise therapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise therapy compared to sham/placebo treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. Exercise therapy compared to no treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low for inconsistency, risk of bias concerns, and imprecision (few participants).

Pharmacological treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. METHODS: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety. MAIN RESULTS: Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and ≤ 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.

The McKenzie method for (sub)acute non-specific low back pain.

BACKGROUND: There is widespread agreement amongst clinicians that people with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) comprise a heterogeneous group and that their management should be individually tailored. One treatment known by its tailored design is the McKenzie method (e.g. an individualized program of exercises based on clinical clues observed during assessment). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in people with (sub)acute non-specific low back pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers up to 15 August 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of the McKenzie method in adults with (sub)acute (less than 12 weeks) NSLBP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: This review included five RCTs with a total of 563 participants recruited from primary or tertiary care. Three trials were conducted in the USA, one in Australia, and one in Scotland. Three trials received financial support from non-commercial funders and two did not provide information on funding sources. All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias. None of the included trials measured adverse events. McKenzie method versus minimal intervention (educational booklet; McKenzie method as a supplement to other intervention - main comparison) There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may result in a slight reduction in pain in the short term (MD -7.3, 95% CI -12.0 to -2.56; 2 trials, 377 participants) but not in the intermediate term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -14.3 to 4.3; 1 trial, 180 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -2.5, 95% CI -7.5 to 2.0; 2 trials, 328 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD -0.9, 95% CI -7.3 to 5.6; 1 trial, 180 participants). McKenzie method versus manual therapy There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce pain in the short term (MD -8.7, 95% CI -27.4 to 10.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) and may result in a slight increase in pain in the intermediate term (MD 7.0, 95% CI 0.7 to 13.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). There is low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD -5.0, 95% CI -15.0 to 5.0; 3 trials, 298 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 4.3, 95% CI -0.7 to 9.3; 1 trial, 235 participants). McKenzie method versus other interventions (massage and advice) There is very low-certainty evidence that the McKenzie method may not reduce disability in the short term (MD 4.0, 95% CI -15.4 to 23.4; 1 trial, 30 participants) nor in the intermediate term (MD 10.0, 95% CI -8.9 to 28.9; 1 trial, 30 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low- to very low-certainty evidence, the treatment effects for pain and disability found in our review were not clinically important. Thus, we can conclude that the McKenzie method is not an effective treatment for (sub)acute NSLBP.

Mapping Oswestry Disability Index Responses to EQ-5D-3L Utility Values: Are Cost-Utility Results Valid?

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate approaches for mapping Oswestry Disability Index responses to 3-level version of EQ-5D utility values and to evaluate the impact of using mapped utility values on cost-utility results compared with published regression models. METHODS: Three response mapping approaches were developed in a random sample of 70% of 18 692 patients with low back pain: nonparametric approach (Non-p), nonparametric approach excluding logical inconsistencies (Non-peLI), and ordinal logistic regression (OLR). Performance was assessed in the remaining 30% using R-square (R2), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE). To evaluate whether MAEs and their 95% limits of agreement (LA) were clinically relevant, a minimally clinically important difference of 0.074 was used. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness estimated using observed and mapped utility values were compared in 2 economic evaluations. RESULTS: The Non-p performed the best (R2 = 0.43; RMSE = 0.22; MAE = 0.03; 95% LA = -0.40 to 0.47) compared with the Non-peLI (R2 = 0.07; RMSE = 0.29; MAE = -0.15; 95% LA = -0.63 to 0.34) and OLR (R2 = 0.22; RMSE = 0.26; MAE = 0.02; 95% LA = -0.49 to 0.53). MAEs were lower than the minimally clinically important difference for the Non-p and OLR but not for the Non-peLI. Differences in probabilities of cost-effectiveness ranged from 1% to 4% (Non-p), 0.1% to 9% (Non-peLI), and 0.1% to 20% (OLR). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the developed response mapping approaches are not valid for estimating individual patients' 3-level version of EQ-5D utility values, and-depending on the approach-may considerably affect cost-utility results. The developed approaches did not perform better than previously published regression-based models and are therefore not recommended for use in economic evaluations.

Measurement properties of performance-based instruments to assess mental function during activity and participation in persons who have survived a stroke: A systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: A frequent consequence of stroke is impaired mental function, which often affects the ability to perform activities and participate in life situation. In occupational therapy practice, performance-based instruments during activity and participation are often used. However, it is important to assess if the instruments used are valid, reliable and responsive. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review is to investigate measurement properties of performance-based instruments to assess mental function during activity and participation in persons who have survived stroke. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Systematic database searches of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and OTseeker will be conducted. COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist will be used to evaluate methodological quality of the included articles. Measurement properties of the included studies will be rated against criteria for good measurement properties. The overall evidence of each measurement property per instrument is graded using a modified GRADE approach. RESULTS: Results will be presented in text and tables. CONCLUSIONS: Conclusion will be drawn up-on the overall evidence to give recommendations on the most suitable instrument. SIGNIFICANCE: It is expected that findings of the review will provide evidence to guide professionals in the selection of a performance-based instruments to measure mental function in practice and research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42018086744.

Effectiveness of adding motivational interviewing or a stratified vocational advice intervention to usual case management on return to work for people with musculoskeletal disorders: the MI-NAV randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if adding motivational interviewing (MI) or a stratified vocational advice intervention (SVAI) to usual case management (UC), reduced sickness absence over 6 months for workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders. METHODS: We conducted a three-arm parallel pragmatic randomised controlled trial including 514 employed workers (57% women, median age 49 (range 24-66)), on sick leave for at least 50% of their contracted work hours for ≥7 weeks. All participants received UC. In addition, those randomised to UC+MI were offered two MI sessions from social insurance caseworkers and those randomised to UC+SVAI were offered vocational advice from physiotherapists (participants with low/medium-risk for long-term sickness absence were offered one to two sessions, and those with high-risk were offered three to four sessions). RESULTS: Median sickness absence was 62 days, (95% CI 52 to 71) in the UC arm (n=171), 56 days (95% CI 43 to 70) in the UC+MI arm (n=169) and 49 days (95% CI 38 to 60) in the UC+SVAI arm (n=169). After adjusting for predefined potential confounding factors, the results showed seven fewer days in the UC+MI arm (95% CI -15 to 2) and the UC+SVAI arm (95% CI -16 to 1), compared with the UC arm. The adjusted differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The MI-NAV trial did not show effect on return to work of adding MI or SVAI to UC. The reduction in sickness absence over 6 months was smaller than anticipated, and uncertain due to wide CIs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03871712.

Cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment of C-reactive protein point-of-care testing in comparison with usual care to reduce antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infections in nursing homes: a cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: C-reactive protein point-of-care testing (CRP POCT) is a promising diagnostic tool to guide antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) in nursing home residents. This study aimed to evaluate cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment (ROI) of CRP POCT compared with usual care for nursing home residents with suspected LRTI from a healthcare perspective. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomised, controlled trial. SETTING: 11 Dutch nursing homes. PARTICIPANTS: 241 nursing home residents with a newly suspected LRTI. INTERVENTION: Nursing home access to CRP POCT (POCT-guided care) was compared with usual care without CRP POCT (usual care). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure for the cost-effectiveness analysis was antibiotic prescribing at initial consultation, and the secondary outcome was full recovery at 3 weeks. ROI analyses included intervention costs, and benefits related to antibiotic prescribing. Three ROI metrics were calculated: Net Benefits, Benefit-Cost-Ratio and Return-On-Investment. RESULTS: In POCT-guided care, total costs were on average €32 higher per patient, the proportion of avoided antibiotic prescribing was higher (0.47 vs 0.18; 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.42) and the proportion of fully recovered patients statistically non-significantly lower (0.86 vs 0.91; -0.05, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.05) compared with usual care. On average, an avoided antibiotic prescription was associated with an investment of €137 in POCT-guided care compared with usual care. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were relatively robust. Taking the ROI metrics together, the probability of financial return was 0.65. CONCLUSION: POCT-guided care effectively reduces antibiotic prescribing compared with usual care without significant effects on recovery rates, but requires an investment. Future studies should take into account potential beneficial effects of POCT-guided care on costs and health outcomes related to antibiotic resistance. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL5054.

A scoping review of statistical methods for trial-based economic evaluations: The current state of play.

The statistical quality of trial-based economic evaluations is often suboptimal, while a comprehensive overview of available statistical methods is lacking. Therefore, this review summarized and critically appraised available statistical methods for trial-based economic evaluations. A literature search was performed to identify studies on statistical methods for dealing with baseline imbalances, skewed costs and/or effects, correlated costs and effects, clustered data, longitudinal data, missing data and censoring in trial-based economic evaluations. Data was extracted on the statistical methods described, their advantages, disadvantages, relative performance and recommendations of the study. Sixty-eight studies were included. Of them, 27 (40%) assessed methods for baseline imbalances, 39 (57%) assessed methods for skewed costs and/or effects, 27 (40%) assessed methods for correlated costs and effects, 18 (26%) assessed methods for clustered data, 7 (10%) assessed methods for longitudinal data, 26 (38%) assessed methods for missing data and 10 (15%) assessed methods for censoring. All identified methods were narratively described. This review provides a comprehensive overview of available statistical methods for dealing with the most common statistical complexities in trial-based economic evaluations. Herewith, it can provide valuable input for researchers when deciding which statistical methods to use in a trial-based economic evaluation.

Comparing exercise and patient education with usual care in the treatment of hip dysplasia: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial with 6-month follow-up (MovetheHip trial).

INTRODUCTION: Surgery is not a viable treatment for all patients with hip dysplasia. Currently, usual care for these patients is limited to a consultation on self-management. We have shown that an exercise and patient education intervention is a feasible and acceptable intervention for patients not receiving surgery. Therefore, we aim to investigate whether patients with hip dysplasia randomised to exercise and patient education have a different mean change in self-reported pain compared with those randomised to usual care over 6 months. Furthermore, we aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and perform a process evaluation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In a randomised controlled trial, 200 young and middle-aged patients will be randomised to either exercise and patient education or usual care at a 1:1 ratio through permuted block randomisation. The intervention group will receive exercise instruction and patient education over 6 months. The usual care group will receive one consultation on self-management of hip symptoms. The primary outcome is the self-reported mean change in the pain subscale of the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS). Secondary outcomes include mean changes in the other HAGOS subscales, in the Short Version of the International Hip Outcome Tool, in performance, balance and maximal hip muscle strength. Between-group comparison from baseline to 6-month follow-up will be made with intention-to-treat analyses with a mixed-effects model. Cost-effectiveness will be evaluated by relating quality-adjusted life years and differences in HAGOS pain to differences in costs over 12 months. The functioning of the intervention will be evaluated as implementation, mechanisms of change and contextual factors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Committee on Health Research Ethics in the Central Denmark Region and registered at ClinicalTrials. Positive, negative and inconclusive findings will be disseminated through international peer-reviewed scientific journals and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04795843.

Diagnostic Imaging in Chiropractic Practice: A Survey of Opinions and Self-Reported Guideline Adherence of Dutch and Belgian Chiropractors.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was (1) to describe diagnostic imaging in Dutch and Belgian chiropractic practice in general, (2) to estimate adherence to the diagnostic imaging guidelines for patients with low back pain (LBP) via vignettes, and (3) to evaluate factors associated with diagnostic imaging and adherence to the guidelines. METHODS: We used a web-based survey to collect sociodemographic data, practice characteristics, amount of imaging, opinions, and indications for requesting imaging from registered Dutch and Belgian chiropractors in 2013. Additionally, adherence to imaging guidelines for LBP was assessed by 6 vignettes in patients with LBP. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted to explore associations between characteristics of chiropractors and the use of imaging. Generalized mixed models were used to explore guidelines adherence and their relationship with chiropractor's characteristics. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 60% (n = 203 out of 340). In total, 83% of chiropractors viewed diagnostic imaging in general as an important part of their practice. It is important to note that Dutch and Belgian chiropractors are not allowed to refer directly for imaging. Chiropractors reported that they would like to have imaging in 42% of their patients. Imaging had already been performed in 37% of patients before the first visit and was ordered by another health care provider (ie, general practitioner or medical specialist). The most common indication for ordering imaging was exclusion of contraindications (73%). The most common reason against imaging was the perceived limited value (45%). Many chiropractors (71%) were familiar with imaging guidelines. Adherence to the imaging guidelines for LBP based upon the vignettes was 66%. Dutch chiropractors and chiropractors with less than 10 years in practice demonstrated better adherence to guidelines and imaging use as compared with Belgian and those with more than 10 years of experience. CONCLUSIONS: Most Dutch and Belgian chiropractors reported that imaging in general was important in chiropractic practice. Self-reported indications for ordering diagnostic imaging were in line with the imaging guidelines in the majority of cases. We found some variances between Belgian and Dutch chiropractors and years of experience related to guideline adherence.

Management of people with low back pain: a survey of opinions and beliefs of Dutch and Belgian chiropractors.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractors commonly provide care to people with low-back pain (LBP). The aim of this survey was to determine the opinions and beliefs of chiropractors regarding the support and management of LBP. We also investigated whether their management is in accordance with the three most commonly recommended approaches to LBP based upon international guidelines (i.e. advice regarding return-to-work, limit bedrest, and stay active). METHODS: A web-based survey was sent out in 2013 to collect data from registered Dutch and Belgian chiropractors. In addition to providing a description of their sociodemographic and practice characteristics, chiropractors were asked to complete six patient vignettes representing people with LBP who typically present to a chiropractor. The respondents indicated which intervention(s) they would recommend or undertake. Based upon these vignettes, we were able to determine whether their management approach adhered to clinical guidelines. Generalized mixed models were used to explore guidelines adherence and their relationship to chiropractors' characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 60% (n = 203/340) of the chiropractors who were invited, chose to participate. Chiropractors reported applying a chiropractic adjustment in 90% of all vignettes, while the advice to exercise varied from one-third in the chronic cases to approximately half of those with acute LBP. More than 75% of the chiropractors would initially treat LBP 1-2 times a week. More than 90% of the chiropractors advised against bedrest. Overall, self-reported adherence to clinical guidelines for all six vignettes was [64.5% (CI 58.7-70.0)]. Adherence in the chronic vignettes [73.4% (CI 66.7-79.2)] was better than in the acute vignettes [55.9% (CI 50.5-61.1)]. Importantly, regarding recommended approaches to LBP, chiropractors more consistently followed guidelines regarding advice to limit bedrest [98.5% (CI 97.3-99.1)] than advice to stay active [77.5% (CI 72.3-81.9)] or return-to-work [59.4% (CI 55.2-63.4)]. Finally, Dutch chiropractors were more likely to adhere to the guidelines than Belgian chiropractors. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic adjustments were the most common self-reported treatment modalities supplemented by exercise in the management of LBP patients. Two-thirds of the chiropractors reported adhering to the guidelines regarding management and advice for LBP patients. Practitioners should improve guideline adherence, particularly for acute LBP cases, and when advising on return-to-work.

Cost-effectiveness of full endoscopic versus open discectomy for sciatica.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the costs and cost-effectiveness of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) compared with open microdiscectomy among patients with sciatica. METHODS: This economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 12-month multicentre randomised controlled trial with a non-inferiority design, in which patients were randomised to PTED or open microdiscectomy. Patients were aged from 18 to 70 years and had at least 6 weeks of radiating leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation. Effect measures included leg pain and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), as derived using the EQ-5D-5L. Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Missing data were multiply imputed, bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty, and various sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the robustness. RESULTS: Of the 613 patients enrolled, 304 were randomised to PTED and 309 to open microdiscectomy. Statistically significant differences in leg pain and QALYs were found in favour of PTED at 12 months follow-up (leg pain: 6.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 12.6; QALYs: 0.040; 95% CI 0.007 to 0.074). Surgery costs were higher for PTED than for open microdiscectomy (ie, €4500/patient vs €4095/patient). All other disaggregate costs as well as total societal costs were lower for PTED than for open microdiscectomy. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that the probability of PTED being less costly and more effective (ie, dominant) compared with open microdiscectomy was 99.4% for leg pain and 99.2% for QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that PTED is more cost-effective from the societal perspective compared with open microdiscectomy for patients with sciatica. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02602093.

Full endoscopic versus open discectomy for sciatica: randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) is non-inferior to conventional open microdiscectomy in reduction of leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial with non-inferiority design. SETTING: Four hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 613 patients aged 18-70 years with at least six weeks of radiating leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation. The trial included a predetermined set of 125 patients receiving PTED who were the learning curve cases performed by surgeons who did not do PTED before the trial. INTERVENTIONS: PTED (n=179) compared with open microdiscectomy (n=309). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported leg pain measured by a 0-100 visual analogue scale at 12 months, assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5.0. Secondary outcomes included complications, reoperations, self-reported functional status as measured with the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale for back pain, health related quality of life, and self-perceived recovery. Outcomes were measured until one year after surgery and were longitudinally analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Patients belonging to the PTED learning curve were omitted from the primary analyses. RESULTS: At 12 months, patients who were randomised to PTED had a statistically significantly lower visual analogue scale score for leg pain (median 7.0, interquartile range 1.0-30.0) compared with patients randomised to open microdiscectomy (16.0, 2.0-53.5) (between group difference of 7.1, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 11.3). Blood loss was less, length of hospital admission was shorter, and timing of postoperative mobilisation was earlier in the PTED group than in the open microdiscectomy group. Secondary patient reported outcomes such as the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale for back pain, health related quality of life, and self-perceived recovery, were similarly in favour of PTED. Within one year, nine (5%) in the PTED group compared with 14 (6%) in the open microdiscectomy group had repeated surgery. Per protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses including the patients of the learning curve resulted in similar outcomes to the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: PTED was non-inferior to open microdiscectomy in reduction of leg pain. PTED resulted in more favourable results for self-reported leg pain, back pain, functional status, quality of life, and recovery. These differences, however, were small and may not reach clinical relevance. PTED can be considered as an effective alternative to open microdiscectomy in treating sciatica. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02602093ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02602093.