Investigating the veracity of a sample of divergent published trial data in spinal pain

Evidence-based medicine is replete with studies assessing quality and bias, but few evaluating research integrity or trustworthiness. A recent Cochrane review of psychological interventions for chronic pain identified trials with a shared lead author with highly divergent results. We sought to systematically identify all similar trials from this author to explore their risk of bias, governance procedures, and trustworthiness. We searched OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PEDro from 2010 to December 22, 2021 for trials. We contacted the authors requesting details of trial registration, ethical approval, protocol, and access to the trial data for verification. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth group's Trustworthiness Screening Tool to guide systematic exploration of trustworthiness. Ten trials were included: 9 compared cognitive behavioural therapy and physical exercise to usual care, exercise alone, or physiotherapy and 1 compared 2 brief cognitive behavioural therapy programmes. Eight trials reported results divergent from the evidence base. Assessment of risk of bias and participant characteristics identified no substantial concerns. Responses from the lead author did not satisfactorily explain this divergence. Trustworthiness screening identified concerns about research governance, data plausibility at baseline, the results, and apparent data duplication. We discuss the findings within the context of methods for establishing the trustworthiness of research findings generally. Important concerns regarding the trustworthiness of these trials reduce our confidence in them. They should probably not be used to inform the results and conclusions of systematic reviews, in clinical training, policy documents, or any relevant instruction regarding adult chronic pain management

COVID-19 and the spinal cord injury community: Concerns about medical rationing and social isolation.

Purpose/Objective: To provide a descriptive account of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the spinal cord injury (SCI) community focused on participants’ concerns about medical discrimination and medical rationing, the impact of the pandemic on access to personal care attendants and medical supplies, and the impact of the pandemic on overall and mental health. Research Method/Design: Cross sectional, observational study among community-dwelling adults with SCI. Data were collected online between May 1, 2020 and August 31, 2020 (n = 187). The online questionnaire included questions regarding medical discrimination and rationing, the impact of the pandemic on access to care and medical supplies, and the impact of the pandemic on overall and mental health. Results: Individuals with SCI have experienced difficulty accessing medical supplies due to the pandemic, and approximately half of our participants (52%) perceived that discrimination through medical rationing was occurring. Furthermore, compared to the general U.S. population, our sample reported that the pandemic had a greater negative impact on their mental health and access to medical supplies. Conclusion/Implications: Our findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted mental health and increased concerns of social isolation as well as access to medical supplies among those with SCI. Rehabilitation psychologists must advocate alongside the disability community to limit health disparities and to conduct outreach, specifically with regard to mental health issues. Future research should focus on the effects of pandemic-related fears and social isolation, as well as resilience in the context of public health care threats

Consequences of Internet Use in College Students

The purposes of the research project were to explore how much time college students spend on the Internet and the consequences for college students who use the Internet

Investigating the veracity of a sample of divergent published trial data in spinal pain

Evidence-based medicine is replete with studies assessing quality and bias, but few evaluating research integrity or trustworthiness. A recent Cochrane review of psychological interventions for chronic pain identified trials with a shared lead author with highly divergent results. We sought to systematically identify all similar trials from this author to explore their risk of bias, governance procedures, and trustworthiness. We searched OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PEDro from 2010 to December 22, 2021 for trials. We contacted the authors requesting details of trial registration, ethical approval, protocol, and access to the trial data for verification. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth group's Trustworthiness Screening Tool to guide systematic exploration of trustworthiness. Ten trials were included: 9 compared cognitive behavioural therapy and physical exercise to usual care, exercise alone, or physiotherapy and 1 compared 2 brief cognitive behavioural therapy programmes. Eight trials reported results divergent from the evidence base. Assessment of risk of bias and participant characteristics identified no substantial concerns. Responses from the lead author did not satisfactorily explain this divergence. Trustworthiness screening identified concerns about research governance, data plausibility at baseline, the results, and apparent data duplication. We discuss the findings within the context of methods for establishing the trustworthiness of research findings generally. Important concerns regarding the trustworthiness of these trials reduce our confidence in them. They should probably not be used to inform the results and conclusions of systematic reviews, in clinical training, policy documents, or any relevant instruction regarding adult chronic pain management.</p