Exercise therapy with or without other physical therapy interventions versus placebo interventions for osteoarthritis - systematic review

Objective To evaluate whether exercise therapy, with or without other physical therapy interventions, is superior to placebo intervention for osteoarthritis (OA). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: MEDLINE and EMBASE via OVID, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus via EBSCO were searched from inception to February 2021. Study selection: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with OA investigating an intervention involving exercise therapy with a placebo comparator. Data extraction and analysis: Data were extracted and checked for accuracy and completeness by pairs of reviewers. Primary outcomes were self-reported pain, function and quality of life (QoL). Comparative treatment effects were analysed by random effects model for short- and longer-term follow up. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment system was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Results 13 RCTs involving 1079 patients were identified and included. Meta-analysis demonstrated improved pain (10 studies (GRADE low certainty), SMD -1.1 (95%CI -1.7 to −0.4)) and function (8 studies (GRADE low certainty), SMD -0.8 (95%CI -1.5 to −0.2)) in the short-term with exercise versus placebo, but no significant difference in the longer-term (pain 3 studies; function 3 studies). Conclusion Current evidence demonstrates that exercise therapy is superior to placebo in the short-term for pain and function in OA. The certainty of this evidence is low to very low and further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effects

Current Management Strategies in Osgood Schlatter: A cross‐sectional mixed method study

AbstractBackground: Osgood Schlatter (OS) is the most common knee condition in adolescent athletes aged 9-16. Without evidence to guide clinical practice it is unclear how OS is managed. The aim of this study is to investigate how international healthcare professionals (General Practitioners, Physiotherapists, Rheumatologists, Sports and Exercise Medicine Doctors and Orthopaedic Surgeons) diagnose and manage OS.Methods: This mixed-method study used a convergent parallel design. A quantitative questionnaire and semi-structured interview covered prognosis, diagnosis, treatment, and return to play of adolescents with OS. For quantitative data those who reported likely/very likely considered 'for' and unlikely/very unlikely 'against' (for specific diagnostic/management strategy). Qualitative data analysis used a phenomenological approach.Results: Two hundred and fifty-one healthcare professionals completed the questionnaire. The most common diagnostic criterion was pain at the tibial tuberosity (97% for). The most common treatments were patient education (99%) and exercise therapy (92%). Other treatments options were more heterogeneous, e.g. pain medication (31% for, and 34% against). Managing training load (97%), pain intensity (87%) and psychological factors (86%) were considered the most important factors influencing the return to activities. Several themes emerged from the interviews (on N=20) including imaging, pain management, family, psychosocial factors influencing prognosis.Conclusion: Diagnosis criteria of OS was relatively well agreed upon, whereas triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data showed heterogeneity of treatments. Psychosocial factors including family were highlighted as critical in the management of OS.Keywords: Adolescents; Apophysitis; Musculoskeletal Pain; Osgood Schlatter; Osteochondrosis

The magnitude and temporal changes of response in the placebo arm of surgical randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Understanding changes in the placebo arm is essential for correct design and interpretation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It is assumed that placebo response, defined as the total improvement in the placebo arm of surgical trials, is large; however, its precise magnitude and properties remain to be characterized. To the best of our knowledge, the temporal changes in the placebo arm have not been investigated. The aim of this paper was to determine, in surgical RCTs, the magnitude of placebo response and how it is affected by duration of follow-up. Methods The databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from their inception to 20 October 2015 for studies comparing the efficacy of a surgical intervention with placebo. Inclusion was not limited to any particular condition, intervention, outcome or patient population. The magnitude of placebo response was estimated using standardized mean differences (SMDs). Study estimates were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Potential sources of heterogeneity were evaluated using stratification and meta-regression. Results Database searches returned 88 studies, but for 41 studies SMDs could not be calculated, leaving 47 trials (involving 1744 participants) eligible for inclusion. There were no temporal changes in placebo response within the analysed trials. Meta-regression analysis showed that duration of follow-up did not have a significant effect on the magnitude of the placebo response and that the strongest predictor of placebo response was subjectivity of the outcome. The pooled effect in the placebo arm of studies with subjective outcomes was large (0.64, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.8) and remained significantly different from zero regardless of the duration of follow-up, whereas for objective outcomes, the effect was small (0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.26) or non-significant across all time points. Conclusions This is the first study to investigate the temporal changes of placebo response in surgical trials and the first to investigate the sources of heterogeneity of placebo response. Placebo response in surgical trials was large for subjective outcomes, persisting as a time-invariant effect throughout blinded follow-up. Therefore, placebo response cannot be minimized in these types of outcomes through their appraisal at alternative time points. The analyses suggest that objective outcomes may be preferable as trial end-points. Where subjective outcomes are of primary interest, a placebo arm is necessary to control for placebo response

Academic requirements for Certificate of Completion of Training in surgical training: Consensus recommendations from the Association of Surgeons in Training/National Research Collaborative Consensus Group.

BACKGROUND: Surgical trainees are expected to demonstrate academic achievement in order to obtain their certificate of completion of training (CCT). These standards are set by the Joint Committee on Surgical Training (JCST) and specialty advisory committees (SAC). The standards are not equivalent across all surgical specialties and recognise different achievements as evidence. They do not recognise changes in models of research and focus on outcomes rather than process. The Association of Surgeons in Training (ASiT) and National Research Collaborative (NRC) set out to develop progressive, consistent and flexible evidence set for academic requirements at CCT. METHODS: A modified-Delphi approach was used. An expert group consisting of representatives from the ASiT and the NRC undertook iterative review of a document proposing changes to requirements. This was circulated amongst wider stakeholders. After ten iterations, an open meeting was held to discuss these proposals. Voting on statements was performed using a 5-point Likert Scale. Each statement was voted on twice, with ≥80% of votes in agreement meaning the statement was approved. The results of this vote were used to propose core and optional academic requirements for CCT. RESULTS: Online discussion concluded after ten rounds. At the consensus meeting, statements were voted on by 25 delegates from across surgical specialties and training-grades. The group strongly favoured acquisition of 'Good Clinical Practice' training and research methodology training as CCT requirements. The group agreed that higher degrees, publications in any author position (including collaborative authorship), recruiting patients to a study or multicentre audit and presentation at a national or international meeting could be used as evidence for the purpose of CCT. The group agreed on two essential 'core' requirements (GCP and methodology training) and two of a menu of four 'additional' requirements (publication with any authorship position, presentation, recruitment of patients to a multicentre study and completion of a higher degree), which should be completed in order to attain CCT. CONCLUSION: This approach has engaged stakeholders to produce a progressive set of academic requirements for CCT, which are applicable across surgical specialties. Flexibility in requirements whilst retaining a high standard of evidence is desirable

Academic requirements for certificate of completion of training in surgical training: consensus recommendations from the Association of Surgeons in Training/National Research Collaborative Consensus Group

Background Surgical trainees are expected to demonstrate academic achievement in order to obtain their certificate of completion of training (CCT). These standards are set by the Joint Committee on Surgical Training (JCST) and specialty advisory committees (SAC). The standards are not equivalent across all surgical specialties and recognise different achievements as evidence. They do not recognise changes in models of research and focus on outcomes rather than process. The Association of Surgeons in Training (ASiT) and National Research Collaborative (NRC) set out to develop progressive, consistent and flexible evidence set for academic requirements at CCT. Methods A modified-Delphi approach was used. An expert group consisting of representatives from the ASiT and the NRC undertook iterative review of a document proposing changes to requirements. This was circulated amongst wider stakeholders. After ten iterations, an open meeting was held to discuss these proposals. Voting on statements was performed using a 5-point Likert Scale. Each statement was voted on twice, with ≥80% of votes in agreement meaning the statement was approved. The results of this vote were used to propose core and optional academic requirements for CCT. Results Online discussion concluded after ten rounds. At the consensus meeting, statements were voted on by 25 delegates from across surgical specialties and training-grades. The group strongly favoured acquisition of ‘Good Clinical Practice’ training and research methodology training as CCT requirements. The group agreed that higher degrees, publications in any author position (including collaborative authorship), recruiting patients to a study or multicentre audit and presentation at a national or international meeting could be used as evidence for the purpose of CCT. The group agreed on two essential ‘core’ requirements (GCP and methodology training) and two of a menu of four ‘additional’ requirements (publication with any authorship position, presentation, recruitment of patients to a multicentre study and completion of a higher degree), which should be completed in order to attain CCT. Conclusion This approach has engaged stakeholders to produce a progressive set of academic requirements for CCT, which are applicable across surgical specialties. Flexibility in requirements whilst retaining a high standard of evidence is desirable