What is the effect of sensory feedback training on chronic low back pain? : A systematic review.

Study design: Systematic review and qualitative narrative synthesis. Objective: To evaluate if sensory feedback training (SFT) decreases the outcomes pain and function. Summary of Background Data: The studies that were integrated have used different kind of sensory feedback training. Methods: A systematic search was performed on the databases MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL and Embase, and was completed by screening the references of the records. Randomised controlled trials comparing SFT with other interventions, no treatment or sham therapy in patients with chronic low back pain were included. The outcomes for pain and function were extracted and analysed qualitatively. Results: The search revealed 42 records of which 6 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies included 7 groups that, after having received SFT, all show a decreasing effect for pain and function, 3 groups fulfil the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), whereas there is one in the compared groups. Conclusion: Although the SFT groups reported a reduction in pain and function, the results were either not significant or did not correspond to the MCID. Study limitations render firm conclusions unsafe.Study design: Systematic review and qualitative narrative synthesis. Objective: To evaluate if sensory feedback training (SFT) decreases the outcomes pain and function. Summary of Background Data: The studies that were integrated have used different kind of sensory feedback training. Methods: A systematic search was performed on the databases MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL and Embase, and was completed by screening the references of the records. Randomised controlled trials comparing SFT with other interventions, no treatment or sham therapy in patients with chronic low back pain were included. The outcomes for pain and function were extracted and analysed qualitatively. Results: The search revealed 42 records of which 6 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies included 7 groups that, after having received SFT, all show a decreasing effect for pain and function, 3 groups fulfil the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), whereas there is one in the compared groups. Conclusion: Although the SFT groups reported a reduction in pain and function, the results were either not significant or did not correspond to the MCID. Study limitations render firm conclusions unsafe

What is the effect of sensory discrimination training on chronic low back pain? A systematic review

Sensory discrimination training (SDT) for people with chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a novel approach based on theories of the cortical reorganization of the neural system. SDT aims to reverse cortical reorganization, which is observed in chronic pain patients. SDT is still a developing therapeutic approach and its effects have not been systematically reviewed. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate if SDT decreases pain and improves function in people with CLBP. Methods A systematic review was performed on the available literature to evaluate the effects of SDT. Randomised controlled trials compared the effectiveness of SDT on pain and function in people with CLBP with the effectiveness of other physiotherapy interventions, no treatment, or sham therapy. The methodological quality of the included studies and the clinical relevance of reported treatment effects were investigated. Results The original search revealed 42 records of which 6 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies showed that SDT caused statistically significant improvements in pain and function, but only two studies reported clinically relevant improvements. The applied SDT varied considerably with regard to dosage and content. The methodological quality of the included studies also varied, which hampered the comparability of results. Conclusions Although SDT seems to improve pain and function in people with CLBP, study limitations render firm conclusions unsafe. Future studies should pay closer attention to power and sample selection as well as to the content and dosage of the SDT intervention. We recommend a large, well-powered, prospective randomized control study that uses a standardized SDT approach to address the hypothesis that SDT causes clinically relevant improvements in pain and function.BioMed Central open acces

Clinical relevance and implementation into daily practice of pharmacist-prescribed medication for the management of minor ailments

Background: Autonomous pharmacist prescribing was legally introduced in Switzerland in 2019 with the reclassification from prescription medication to pharmacist prescribing of 105 medications for sixteen indications. Its aim was to limit medical consultations and healthcare costs.Objectives: To evaluate the clinical relevance of the pharmacy prescribing medications compared to the over-the-counter medications (OTCs) and to evaluate its implementation into daily practice.Methods: A comparison was undertaken by clinical pharmacists to evaluate chemical and galenical equivalences between pharmacy prescribing medications and OTCs using compendium. ch and pharmavista. ch. Then, a scoping review was carried out in October 2021 to determine clinical relevance according to clinical guidelines’ recommendations. Clinical relevance was completed by determining if pharmacy prescribing medications were part of a homogeneous therapeutic class (no differences in efficacy and safety considered in clinical guidelines, but rather inter-molecular differences) that included an OTC medication. To identify the most clinically relevant pharmacy prescribing medications, first-line treatments were considered. The implementation into daily practice in Swiss community pharmacies was evaluated through an online questionnaire distributed via e-mail from the national pharmacists’ association and LinkedIn®. It included 15 questions divided in: pharmacy demographics, experience on pharmacy prescribing, use of prescribing medications and opinion about the them.Results: Of the 105 pharmacy prescribing medications, 20 (19.0%) were first-line treatments without OTC equivalences. Six of them were OTCs reclassified for safety reasons. Ten medications (9.5%) showed a negative clinical relevance (they were not first-line therapeutic options to support pharmacist when managing patients or considered as to be avoided) compared to the OTCs available. For the questionnaire, 283 pharmacists from the German (40.3%), French (37.1%) and Italian-speaking regions (16.9%) answered. In the previous 6 months, 41.7% pharmacies had delivered 10–50 medications and 30.0% between 1 and 10 medications. In situations where patients could be equally treated with a pharmacy prescribing medication or OTC (with an identical OTC, similar OTC or an OTC for the same therapeutic group): 75.6%, 74.9% and 84.8% of pharmacists, respectively, would have chosen OTCs because it required less documentation and it did not require patients’ payment for the service. In addition, pharmacists’ lack of training was also mentioned as barrier for providing the service.Conclusion: Most pharmacist prescribing medications do not present clinical advantages compared to OTCs. In addition, other barriers for implementation were also pharmacists’ training and patient medications costs

Table1_Clinical relevance and implementation into daily practice of pharmacist-prescribed medication for the management of minor ailments.XLSX

Background: Autonomous pharmacist prescribing was legally introduced in Switzerland in 2019 with the reclassification from prescription medication to pharmacist prescribing of 105 medications for sixteen indications. Its aim was to limit medical consultations and healthcare costs.Objectives: To evaluate the clinical relevance of the pharmacy prescribing medications compared to the over-the-counter medications (OTCs) and to evaluate its implementation into daily practice.Methods: A comparison was undertaken by clinical pharmacists to evaluate chemical and galenical equivalences between pharmacy prescribing medications and OTCs using compendium. ch and pharmavista. ch. Then, a scoping review was carried out in October 2021 to determine clinical relevance according to clinical guidelines’ recommendations. Clinical relevance was completed by determining if pharmacy prescribing medications were part of a homogeneous therapeutic class (no differences in efficacy and safety considered in clinical guidelines, but rather inter-molecular differences) that included an OTC medication. To identify the most clinically relevant pharmacy prescribing medications, first-line treatments were considered. The implementation into daily practice in Swiss community pharmacies was evaluated through an online questionnaire distributed via e-mail from the national pharmacists’ association and LinkedIn®. It included 15 questions divided in: pharmacy demographics, experience on pharmacy prescribing, use of prescribing medications and opinion about the them.Results: Of the 105 pharmacy prescribing medications, 20 (19.0%) were first-line treatments without OTC equivalences. Six of them were OTCs reclassified for safety reasons. Ten medications (9.5%) showed a negative clinical relevance (they were not first-line therapeutic options to support pharmacist when managing patients or considered as to be avoided) compared to the OTCs available. For the questionnaire, 283 pharmacists from the German (40.3%), French (37.1%) and Italian-speaking regions (16.9%) answered. In the previous 6 months, 41.7% pharmacies had delivered 10–50 medications and 30.0% between 1 and 10 medications. In situations where patients could be equally treated with a pharmacy prescribing medication or OTC (with an identical OTC, similar OTC or an OTC for the same therapeutic group): 75.6%, 74.9% and 84.8% of pharmacists, respectively, would have chosen OTCs because it required less documentation and it did not require patients’ payment for the service. In addition, pharmacists’ lack of training was also mentioned as barrier for providing the service.Conclusion: Most pharmacist prescribing medications do not present clinical advantages compared to OTCs. In addition, other barriers for implementation were also pharmacists’ training and patient medications costs.</p

DataSheet1_Clinical relevance and implementation into daily practice of pharmacist-prescribed medication for the management of minor ailments.PDF

Background: Autonomous pharmacist prescribing was legally introduced in Switzerland in 2019 with the reclassification from prescription medication to pharmacist prescribing of 105 medications for sixteen indications. Its aim was to limit medical consultations and healthcare costs.Objectives: To evaluate the clinical relevance of the pharmacy prescribing medications compared to the over-the-counter medications (OTCs) and to evaluate its implementation into daily practice.Methods: A comparison was undertaken by clinical pharmacists to evaluate chemical and galenical equivalences between pharmacy prescribing medications and OTCs using compendium. ch and pharmavista. ch. Then, a scoping review was carried out in October 2021 to determine clinical relevance according to clinical guidelines’ recommendations. Clinical relevance was completed by determining if pharmacy prescribing medications were part of a homogeneous therapeutic class (no differences in efficacy and safety considered in clinical guidelines, but rather inter-molecular differences) that included an OTC medication. To identify the most clinically relevant pharmacy prescribing medications, first-line treatments were considered. The implementation into daily practice in Swiss community pharmacies was evaluated through an online questionnaire distributed via e-mail from the national pharmacists’ association and LinkedIn®. It included 15 questions divided in: pharmacy demographics, experience on pharmacy prescribing, use of prescribing medications and opinion about the them.Results: Of the 105 pharmacy prescribing medications, 20 (19.0%) were first-line treatments without OTC equivalences. Six of them were OTCs reclassified for safety reasons. Ten medications (9.5%) showed a negative clinical relevance (they were not first-line therapeutic options to support pharmacist when managing patients or considered as to be avoided) compared to the OTCs available. For the questionnaire, 283 pharmacists from the German (40.3%), French (37.1%) and Italian-speaking regions (16.9%) answered. In the previous 6 months, 41.7% pharmacies had delivered 10–50 medications and 30.0% between 1 and 10 medications. In situations where patients could be equally treated with a pharmacy prescribing medication or OTC (with an identical OTC, similar OTC or an OTC for the same therapeutic group): 75.6%, 74.9% and 84.8% of pharmacists, respectively, would have chosen OTCs because it required less documentation and it did not require patients’ payment for the service. In addition, pharmacists’ lack of training was also mentioned as barrier for providing the service.Conclusion: Most pharmacist prescribing medications do not present clinical advantages compared to OTCs. In addition, other barriers for implementation were also pharmacists’ training and patient medications costs.</p