A survey evaluation comparing pain curriculum taught in Australian exercise physiology degrees to graduate perceptions of their preparedness and competency to treat people with chronic pain

Background and Aims: This cross-sectional study evaluated the nature of pain curriculum being taught in accredited exercise physiology degrees across Australian universities and its perceived usefulness for preparing exercise physiologists to treat people with chronic pain. Materials & Methods: Universities and graduates were asked about the nature and sufficiency of pain curriculum taught, with particular emphasis on competencies for physical therapists as outlined by the International Association for the Study of Pain. Results: Ten universities and 101 graduates responded. Median (interquartile range) instruction time on pain curriculum was 12 (7.25–18.75) hours. Few universities (30%) were aware of the guidelines for physical therapy pain curricula, although most (70%) agreed their degrees contained adequate instruction on pain assessment and management. In contrast, 74% of graduates felt their degree did not adequately prepare them to treat people with chronic pain. Half the graduates (51%) were not aware of the guidelines for physical therapy pain curricula. Discussion & Conclusion: There is a disconnect between perceptions of Australian universities and their graduates regarding the sufficiency of pain curriculum taught to student exercise physiologists. Benchmarking pain curriculum in Australian university programs against relevant international recommendations may enhance the suitability of pain curricula taught to exercise physiologists, thereby better preparing new graduates to treat people with pain

If exercise is medicine, why don’t we know the dose? An overview of systematic reviews assessing reporting quality of exercise interventions in health and disease

Objective To determine how well exercise interventions are reported in trials in health and disease. Design Overview of systematic reviews. Data sources PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and PsycINFO from inception until June 2021. Eligibility criteria Reviews of any health condition were included if they primarily assessed quality of exercise intervention reporting using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) or the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). We assessed review quality using a modified version of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews. Results We identified 7804 studies and included 28 systematic reviews. The median (IQR) percentage of CERT and TIDieR items appropriately reported was 24% (19%) and 49% (33%), respectively. TIDieR items 1, Brief name (median=100%, IQR 4) and 2, Why (median=98%, IQR 6), as well as CERT item 4, Supervision and delivery (median=68%, IQR 89), were the best reported. For replication of exercise interventions, TIDieR item 8, When and how much, was moderately well reported (median=62%, IQR 68) although CERT item 8, Description of each exercise to enable replication (median=23%, IQR 44) and item 13, Detailed description of the exercise intervention (median=24%, IQR 66) were poorly reported. Quality of systematic reviews ranged from moderate to critically low quality. Conclusion Exercise interventions are poorly reported across a range of health conditions. If exercise is medicine, then how it is prescribed and delivered is unclear, potentially limiting its translation from research to practice

A systematic review highlights the need to improve the quality and applicability of trials of physical therapy interventions for low back pain

Objectives: The objective of this study was to review and assess the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials that test physical therapy interventions for low back pain. Study Design and Setting: This is a systematic review of trials of physical therapy interventions to prevent or treat low back pain (of any duration or type) in participants of any age indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Existing PEDro scale ratings were used to evaluate methodological quality. Results: This review identified 2,215 trials. The majority of trials were for adults (n = 2136, 96.4%), low back pain without specific etiology (n = 1,863, 84.1%), and chronic duration (n = 947, 42.8%). The quality of trials improved over time; however, most were at risk of bias. Less than half of the trials concealed allocation to intervention (n = 813, 36.7%), used intention-to-treat principles (n = 778, 35.1%), and blinded assessors (n = 810, 36.6%), participants (n = 174, 7.9%), and therapists (n = 39, 1.8%). These findings did not vary by the type of therapy. Conclusion: Most trials that test physical therapy interventions for low back pain have methodological limitations that could bias treatment effect estimates. Greater attention to methodological features, such as allocation concealment and the reporting of intention-to-treat effects, would improve the quality of trials testing physical therapy interventions for low back pain

Emotion regulation skills-focused interventions for chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: To investigate the effect of emotion regulation skills-focused (ERSF) interventions to reduce pain intensity and improve psychological outcomes for people with chronic pain and to narratively report on safety and intervention compliance. Methods: Six databases and four registries were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to 29 April 2022. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed according to the Grading, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Meta-analyses for eight studies (902 participants) assessed pain intensity (primary outcome), emotion regulation, affect, symptoms of depression and anxiety, and pain interference (secondary outcomes), at two time points when available, post-intervention (closest to intervention end) and follow-up (the first measurement after the post-intervention assessment). Results: Compared to TAU, pain intensity improved post-intervention (weighted mean difference [WMD] = −10.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] [−17.55, −2.56]) and at follow-up (WMD = −11.38; 95% CI [−13.55, −9.21]). Emotion regulation improved post-intervention (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.57; 95% CI [0.14, 1.01]), and depressive symptoms improved at follow-up (SMD = −0.45; 95% CI [−0.66, −0.24]). Compared to active comparators, anxiety symptoms improved favouring the comparator post-intervention (SMD = 0.10; 95% CI [0.03, 0.18]), and compared to CBT, pain interference improved post-intervention (SMD = −0.37; 95% CI [−0.69, −0.04]). Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Significance: The findings provide evidence that ERSF interventions reduce pain intensity for people with chronic pain compared to usual treatment. These interventions are at least as beneficial to reduce pain intensity as the current gold standard psychological intervention, CBT. However, the limited number of studies and certainty of evidence mean further high-quality RCTs are warranted. Additionally, further research is needed to identify whether ERSF interventions may be more beneficial for specific chronic pain conditions

“My Back is Fit for Movement”: A Qualitative Study Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial for Chronic Low Back Pain

A new wave of treatments has emerged to target nervous system alterations and maladaptive conceptualizations about pain for chronic low back pain. The acceptability of these treatments is still uncertain. We conducted a qualitative study alongside a randomized controlled trial to identify perceptions of facilitators or barriers to participation in a non-pharmacological intervention that resulted in clinically meaningful reductions across 12 months for disability compared to a sham intervention. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants from the trial's active arm after they completed the 12-week program. We included a purposeful sample (baseline and clinical characteristics) (n = 20). We used reflexive thematic analysis informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability for health care interventions. We identified positive and negative emotional/cognitive responses associated with treatment acceptability and potential efficacy, including emotional support, cognitive empowerment, readiness for self-management, and acceptance of face-to-face and online components designed to target the brain. These findings suggest the importance of psychoeducation and behavior change techniques to create a positive attitude towards movement and increase the perception of pain control; systematic approaches to monitor and target misconceptions about the interventions during treatment; and psychoeducation and behavior change techniques to maintain the improvements after the cessation of formal care. Perspective: This article presents the experiences of people with chronic low back pain participating in a new non-pharmacological brain-targeted treatment that includes face-to-face and self-directed approaches. The facilitators and barriers of the interventions could potentially inform adaptations and optimization of treatments designed to target the brain to treat chronic low back pain

Efficacy, acceptability, and safety of muscle relaxants for adults with non-specific low back pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AbstractObjective To investigate the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of muscle relaxants for low back pain. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and WHO ICTRP from inception to 23 February 2021. Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised controlled trials of muscle relaxants compared with placebo, usual care, waiting list, or no treatment in adults (≥18 years) reporting non-specific low back pain. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations, respectively. Random effects meta-analytical models through restricted maximum likelihood estimation were used to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Outcomes included pain intensity (measured on a 0-100 point scale), disability (0-100 point scale), acceptability (discontinuation of the drug for any reason during treatment), and safety (adverse events, serious adverse events, and number of participants who withdrew from the trial because of an adverse event). Results 49 trials were included in the review, of which 31, sampling 6505 participants, were quantitatively analysed. For acute low back pain, very low certainty evidence showed that at two weeks or less non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics were associated with a reduction in pain intensity compared with control (mean difference -7.7, 95% confidence interval-12.1 to-3.3) but not a reduction in disability (-3.3, -7.3 to 0.7). Low and very low certainty evidence showed that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might increase the risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.6, 1.2 to 2.0) and might have little to no effect on acceptability (0.8, 0.6 to 1.1) compared with control for acute low back pain, respectively. The number of trials investigating other muscle relaxants and different durations of low back pain were small and the certainty of evidence was reduced because most trials were at high risk of bias. Conclusions Considerable uncertainty exists about the clinical efficacy and safety of muscle relaxants. Very low and low certainty evidence shows that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might provide small but not clinically important reductions in pain intensity at or before two weeks and might increase the risk of an adverse event in acute low back pain, respectively. Large, high quality, placebo controlled trials are urgently needed to resolve uncertainty. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019126820 and Open Science Framework https://osf.io/mu2f5/

Comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for adults with non-specific acute low back pain: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022. Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks). Data extraction and synthesis Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method. Results 98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference −26.1 (95% confidence intervals −34.0 to −18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (−26.1 (−38.5 to −13.6)), pregabalin (−24.7 (−34.6 to −14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes. Conclusions The comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines.MAW was supported by a Postgraduate Scholarship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, a School of Medical Sciences Top-Up Scholarship from the University of New South Wales, and a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia. MKB was supported by a PhD Candidature Scholarship and Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia. MCF was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia, and the Edward C Dunn Foundation Scholarship. RRNR was supported by the School of Medical Sciences Postgraduate Research Scholarship from the University of New South Wales and a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia. HBL was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. SSh was supported by the International Association for the Study of Pain John J Bonica Postdoctoral Fellowship. CGM was supported by an NHMRC Leadership 3 Fellowship (App 1194283). SMG was supported by a Research Fellowship from the Rebecca L Cooper Foundation. AN was supported by personal fellowship (P400PM_186723) from the Swiss National Science Foundation. This study received project support funding from a 2020 Exercise Physiology Research (Consumables) Grant from the University of New South Wales, which was used to obtain translations of studies published in languages other than English. The funder had played no part in the design, conduct, or analysis of the study

The translation, validity and reliability of the German version of the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire

Background: The Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ) claims to assess disrupted self-perception of the back. The aim of this study was to develop a German version of the Fre-BAQ (FreBAQ-G) and assess its test-retest reliability, its known-groups validity and its convergent validity with another purported measure of back perception. Methods: The FreBaQ-G was translated following international guidelines for the transcultural adaptation of questionnaires. Thirty-five patients with non-specific CLBP and 48 healthy participants were recruited. Assessor one administered the FreBAQ-G to each patient with CLBP on two separate days to quantify intra-observer reliability. Assessor two administered the FreBaQ-G to each patient on day 1. The scores were compared to those obtained by assessor one on day 1 to assess inter-observer reliability. Known-groups validity was quantified by comparing the FreBAQ-G score between patients and healthy controls. To assess convergent validity, patient\u27s FreBAQ-G scores were correlated to their two-point discrimination (TPD) scores. Results: Intra- and Inter-observer reliability were both moderate with ICC3.1 = 0.88 (95%CI: 0.77 to 0.94) and 0.89 (95%CI: 0.79 to 0.94), respectively. Intra- and inter-observer limits of agreement (LoA) were 6.2 (95%CI: 5.0±8.1) and 6.0 (4.8±7.8), respectively. The adjusted mean difference between patients and controls was 5.4 (95%CI: 3.0 to 7.8, p\u3c0.01). Patient\u27s FreBAQ-G scores were not associated with TPD thresholds (Pearson\u27s r = -0.05, p = 0.79). Conclusions: The FreBAQ-G demonstrated a degree of reliability and known-groups validity. Interpretation of patient level data should be performed with caution because the LoA were substantial. It did not demonstrate convergent validity against TPD. Floor effects of some items of the FreBAQ-G may have influenced the validity and reliability results. The clinimetric properties of the FreBAQ-G require further investigation as a simple measure of disrupted self-perception of the back before firm recommendations on its use can be made