Feasibility study of early outpatient review and early cardiac rehabilitation after cardiac surgery: mixed-methods research design-a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Following cardiac surgery, patients currently attend an outpatient review 6 weeks after hospital discharge, where recovery is assessed and suitability to commence cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is determined. CR is then started from 8 weeks. Following a median sternotomy, cardiac surgery patients are required to refrain from upper body exercises, lifting of heavy objects and other strenuous activities for 12 weeks. A delay in starting CR can prolong the recovery process, increase dependence on family/carers and can cause frustration. However, current guidelines for activity and exercise after median sternotomy have been described as restrictive, anecdotal and increasingly at odds with modern clinical guidance for CR. This study aims to examine the feasibility of bringing forward outpatient review and starting CR earlier. METHODS AND ANALYSES: This is a multicentre, randomised controlled, open feasibility trial comparing postoperative outpatient review 6 weeks after hospital discharge, followed by CR commencement from 8 weeks (control arm) versus, postoperative outpatient review 3 weeks after hospital discharge, followed by commencement of CR from 4 weeks (intervention arm). The study aims to recruit 100 eligible patients, aged 18-80 years who have undergone elective or urgent cardiac surgery involving a full median sternotomy, over a 7-month period across two centres. Feasibility will be measured by consent, recruitment, retention rates and attendance at appointments and CR sessions. Qualitative interviews with trial participants and staff will explore issues around study processes and acceptability of the intervention and the findings integrated with the feasibility trial outcomes to inform the design of a future full-scale randomised controlled trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was granted by East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee on 10 January 2019. The findings will be presented at relevant conferences disseminated via peer-reviewed research publications, and to relevant stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN80441309

Inter-examiner reproducibility of tests for lumbar motor control

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many studies show a relation between reduced lumbar motor control (LMC) and low back pain (LBP). However, test circumstances vary and during test performance, subjects may change position. In other words, the reliability - i.e. reproducibility and validity - of tests for LMC should be based on quantitative data. This has not been considered before. The aim was to analyse the reproducibility of five different quantitative tests for LMC commonly used in daily clinical practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The five tests for LMC were: repositioning (RPS), sitting forward lean (SFL), sitting knee extension (SKE), and bent knee fall out (BKFO), all measured in cm, and leg lowering (LL), measured in mm Hg. A total of 40 subjects (14 males, 26 females) 25 with and 15 without LBP, with a mean age of 46.5 years (SD 14.8), were examined independently and in random order by two examiners on the same day. LBP subjects were recruited from three physiotherapy clinics with a connection to the clinic's gym or back-school. Non-LBP subjects were recruited from the clinic's staff acquaintances, and from patients without LBP.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The means and standard deviations for each of the tests were 0.36 (0.27) cm for RPS, 1.01 (0.62) cm for SFL, 0.40 (0.29) cm for SKE, 1.07 (0.52) cm for BKFO, and 32.9 (7.1) mm Hg for LL. All five tests for LMC had reproducibility with the following ICCs: 0.90 for RPS, 0.96 for SFL, 0.96 for SKE, 0.94 for BKFO, and 0.98 for LL. Bland and Altman plots showed that most of the differences between examiners A and B were less than 0.20 cm.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These five tests for LMC displayed excellent reproducibility. However, the diagnostic accuracy of these tests needs to be addressed in larger cohorts of subjects, establishing values for the normal population. Also cut-points between subjects with and without LBP must be determined, taking into account age, level of activity, degree of impairment and participation in sports. Whether reproducibility of these tests is as good in daily clinical practice when used by untrained examiners also needs to be examined.</p

Global Air Quality and COVID-19 Pandemic : Do We Breathe Cleaner Air?

The global spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has challenged most countries worldwide. It was quickly recognized that reduced activities (lockdowns) during the Coronavirus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic produced major changes in air quality. Our objective was to assess the impacts of COVID-19 lockdowns on groundlevel PM2.5, NO2, and O-3 concentrations on a global scale. We obtained data from 34 countries, 141 cities, and 458 air monitoring stations on 5 continents (few data from Africa). On a global average basis, a 34.0% reduction in NO2 concentration and a 15.0% reduction in PM2.5 were estimated during the strict lockdown period (until April 30, 2020). Global average O-3 concentration increased by 86.0% during this same period. Individual country and continent-wise comparisons have been made between lockdown and business-as-usual periods. Universally, NO2 was the pollutant most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. These effects were likely because its emissions were from sources that were typically restricted (i.e., surface traffic and non-essential industries) by the lockdowns and its short lifetime in the atmosphere. Our results indicate that lockdown measures and resulting reduced emissions reduced exposure to most harmful pollutants and could provide global-scale health benefits. However, the increased O-3 may have substantially reduced those benefits and more detailed health assessments are required to accurately quantify the health gains. At the same, these restrictions were obtained at substantial economic costs and with other health issues (depression, suicide, spousal abuse, drug overdoses, etc.). Thus, any similar reductions in air pollution would need to be obtained without these extensive economic and other consequences produced by the imposed activity reductions.Peer reviewe

The intra- and inter-rater reliability of five clinical muscle performance tests in patients with and without neck pain

BACKGROUND: This study investigates the reliability of muscle performance tests using cost- and time-effective methods similar to those used in clinical practice. When conducting reliability studies, great effort goes into standardising test procedures to facilitate a stable outcome. Therefore, several test trials are often performed. However, when muscle performance tests are applied in the clinical setting, clinicians often only conduct a muscle performance test once as repeated testing may produce fatigue and pain, thus variation in test results. We aimed to investigate whether cervical muscle performance tests, which have shown promising psychometric properties, would remain reliable when examined under conditions similar to those of daily clinical practice. METHODS: The intra-rater (between-day) and inter-rater (within-day) reliability was assessed for five cervical muscle performance tests in patients with (n = 33) and without neck pain (n = 30). The five tests were joint position error, the cranio-cervical flexion test, the neck flexor muscle endurance test performed in supine and in a 45°-upright position and a new neck extensor test. RESULTS: Intra-rater reliability ranged from moderate to almost perfect agreement for joint position error (ICC ≥ 0.48-0.82), the cranio-cervical flexion test (ICC ≥ 0.69), the neck flexor muscle endurance test performed in supine (ICC ≥ 0.68) and in a 45°-upright position (ICC ≥ 0.41) with the exception of a new test (neck extensor test), which ranged from slight to moderate agreement (ICC = 0.14-0.41). Likewise, inter-rater reliability ranged from moderate to almost perfect agreement for joint position error (ICC ≥ 0.51-0.75), the cranio-cervical flexion test (ICC ≥ 0.85), the neck flexor muscle endurance test performed in supine (ICC ≥ 0.70) and in a 45°-upright position (ICC ≥ 0.56). However, only slight to fair agreement was found for the neck extensor test (ICC = 0.19-0.25). CONCLUSIONS: Intra- and inter-rater reliability ranged from moderate to almost perfect agreement with the exception of a new test (neck extensor test), which ranged from slight to moderate agreement. The significant variability observed suggests that tests like the neck extensor test and the neck flexor muscle endurance test performed in a 45°-upright position are too unstable to be used when evaluating neck muscle performance