Übungsaufgaben zu Öffentliche Finanzen

--

Boosting treatment outcomes via the patient-practitioner relationship, treatment-beliefs or therapeutic setting. A systematic review with meta-analysis of contextual effects in chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Objective: To ascertain whether manipulating contextual effects (e.g. interaction with patients, or beliefs about treatments) boosted the outcomes of non-pharmacological and non-surgicaltreatments for chronic primary musculoskeletal pain.Design: Systematic review of randomized controlled trialsData Sources: We searched for trials in six databases, citation tracking, and clinical trials registers. We included trials that compared treatments with enhanced contextual effects with the same treatments without enhancement in adults with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain.Data synthesis: The outcomes of interest were pain intensity, physical functioning, global ratings of improvement, quality of life, depression, anxiety, and sleep. We evaluated risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 and the GRADE approach, respectively.Results: Of 17637 records, we included 10 trials with 990 participants and identified 5 ongoing trials. The treatments were acupuncture, education, exercise training, and physical therapy. The contextual effects that were improved in the enhanced treatments were patient-practitioner relationship, patient beliefs and characteristics, therapeutic setting/environment, and treatment characteristics. Our analysis showed that improving contextual effects in non-pharmacological and non-surgical treatments may not make much difference on pain intensity (mean difference [MD] : -1.77, 95%-CI: [-8.71; 5.16], k = 7 trials, N = 719 participants, Scale: 0-100, GRADE: Low)) or physical functioning (MD: -0.27, 95%-CI: [-1.02; 0.49], 95%-PI: [-2.04; 1.51], k = 6 , N = 567, Scale: 0-10, GRADE: Low) in the short-term and at later follow-ups. Sensitivity analyses revealed similar findings.Conclusion: Whilst evidence gaps exist, per current evidence it may not be possible to achieve meaningful benefit for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain by manipulating the context of non-pharmacological and non-surgical treatments

Physical demands of tennis across the different court surfaces, performance levels and sexes: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND : Tennis is a multidirectional high-intensity intermittent sport for male and female individuals played across multiple surfaces. Although several studies have attempted to characterise the physical demands of tennis, a meta-analysis is still lacking. OBJECTIVE : We aimed to describe and synthesise the physical demands of tennis across the different court surfaces, performance levels and sexes. METHODS : PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception to 19 April, 2022. A backward citation search was conducted for included articles using Scopus. The PECOS framework was used to formulate eligibility criteria. Population: tennis players of regional, national or international playing levels (juniors and adults). Exposure: singles match play. Comparison: sex (male/female), court surface (hard, clay, grass). Outcome: duration of play, on-court movement and stroke performance. Study design: cross-sectional, longitudinal. Pooled means or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. A random-effects meta-analysis with robust variance estimation was performed. The measures of heterogeneity were Cochrane Q and 95% prediction intervals. Subgroup analysis was used for different court surfaces. RESULTS : The literature search generated 7736 references; 64 articles were included for qualitative and 42 for quantitative review. Mean [95% confidence interval] rally duration, strokes per rally and effective playing time on all surfaces were 5.5 s [4.9, 6.3], 4.1 [3.4, 5.0] and 18.6% [15.8, 21.7] for international male players and 6.4 s [5.4, 7.6], 3.9 [2.4, 6.2] and 20% [17.3, 23.3] for international female players. Mean running distances per point, set and match were 9.6 m [7.6, 12.2], 607 m [443, 832] and 2292 m [1767, 2973] (best-of-5) for international male players and 8.2 m [4.4, 15.2], 574 m [373, 883] and 1249 m [767, 2035] for international female players. Mean first- and second-serve speeds were 182 km·h−1 [178, 187] and 149 km·h−1 [135, 164] for international male players and 156 km·h−1 95% confidence interval [151, 161] and 134 km·h−1 [107, 168] for international female players. CONCLUSIONS : The findings from this study provide a comprehensive summary of the physical demands of tennis. These results may guide tennis-specific training programmes. We recommend more consistent measuring and reporting of data to enable future meta-analysts to pool meaningful data. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION : The protocol for this systematic review was registered a priori at the Open Science Framework (Registration DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MDWFY).https://link.springer.com/journal/402792023-02-08hj2023Sports Medicin

Systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate contextual effects of non-pharmacological conservative interventions for musculoskeletal pain conditions

Data set and code for systematic review and meta-analysis for contextual effect

The importance of context (placebo effects) in conservative interventions for musculoskeletal pain:A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and ObjectiveContextual effects (e.g. patient expectations) may play a role in treatment effectiveness. This study aimed to estimate the magnitude of contextual effects for conservative, non-pharmacological interventions for musculoskeletal pain conditions. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared placebo conservative non-pharmacological interventions to no treatment for musculoskeletal pain. The outcomes assessed included pain intensity, physical functioning, health-related quality of life, global rating of change, depression, anxiety and sleep at immediate, short-, medium- and/or long-term follow-up.Databases and Data TreatmentMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, CENTRAL and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception to September 2021. Trial registry searches, backward and forward citation tracking and searches for prior systematic reviews were completed. The Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool was implemented.ResultsThe study included 64 RCTs (N = 4314) out of 8898 records. For pain intensity, a mean difference of (MD: −5.32, 95% confidence interval (CI): −7.20, −3.44, N = 57 studies with 74 outcomes, GRADE: very low) was estimated for placebo interventions. A small effect in favour of the placebo interventions for physical function was estimated (SMD: −0.22, 95% CI: −0.35, −0.09; N = 37 with 48 outcomes, GRADE: very low). Similar results were found for a broad range of patient-reported outcomes. Meta-regression analyses did not explain heterogeneity among analyses.ConclusionThe study found that the contextual effect of non-pharmacological conservative interventions for musculoskeletal conditions is likely to be small. However, given the known effect sizes of recommended evidence-based treatments for musculoskeletal conditions, it may still contribute an important component.SignificanceContextual effects of non-pharmacological conservative interventions for musculoskeletal conditions are likely to be small for a broad range of patient-reported outcomes (pain intensity, physical function, quality of life, global rating of change and depression). Contextual effects are unlikely, in isolation, to offer much clinical care. But these factors do have relevance in an overall treatment context as they provide almost 30% of the minimally clinically important difference

Contextual effects: how to, and how not to, quantify them

Abstract The importance of contextual effects and their roles in clinical care controversial. A Cochrane review published in 2010 concluded that placebo interventions lack important clinical effects overall, but that placebo interventions can influence patient-reported outcomes such as pain and nausea. However, systematic reviews published after 2010 estimated greater contextual effects than the Cochrane review, which stems from the inappropriate methods employed to quantify contextual effects. The effects of medical interventions (i.e., the total treatment effect) can be divided into three components: specific, contextual, and non-specific. We propose that the most effective method for quantifying the magnitude of contextual effects is to calculate the difference in outcome measures between a group treated with placebo and a non-treated control group. Here, we show that other methods, such as solely using the placebo control arm or calculation of a ‘proportional contextual effect,’ are limited and should not be applied. The aim of this study is to provide clear guidance on best practices for estimating contextual effects in clinical research

Contextual effects: how to, and how not to, quantify them

AbstractThe importance of contextual effects and their roles in clinical care controversial. A Cochrane review published in 2010 concluded that placebo interventions lack important clinical effects overall, but that placebo interventions can influence patient-reported outcomes such as pain and nausea. However, systematic reviews published after 2010 estimated greater contextual effects than the Cochrane review, which stems from the inappropriate methods employed to quantify contextual effects. The effects of medical interventions (i.e., the total treatment effect) can be divided into three components: specific, contextual, and non-specific. We propose that the most effective method for quantifying the magnitude of contextual effects is to calculate the difference in outcome measures between a group treated with placebo and a non-treated control group. Here, we show that other methods, such as solely using the placebo control arm or calculation of a ‘proportional contextual effect,’ are limited and should not be applied. The aim of this study is to provide clear guidance on best practices for estimating contextual effects in clinical research

Physical Demands of Tennis Across the Different Court Surfaces, Performance Levels and Sexes:A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

Background: Tennis is a multidirectional high-intensity intermittent sport for male and female individuals played across multiple surfaces. Although several studies have attempted to characterise the physical demands of tennis, a meta-analysis is still lacking.Objective: We aimed to describe and synthesise the physical demands of tennis across the different court surfaces, performance levels and sexes.Methods: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception to 19 April, 2022. A backward citation search was conducted for included articles using Scopus. The PECOS framework was used to formulate eligibility criteria. Population: tennis players of regional, national or international playing levels (juniors and adults). Exposure: singles match play. Comparison: sex (male/female), court surface (hard, clay, grass). Outcome: duration of play, on-court movement and stroke performance. Study design: cross-sectional, longitudinal. Pooled means or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. A random-effects meta-analysis with robust variance estimation was performed. The measures of heterogeneity were Cochrane Q and 95% prediction intervals. Subgroup analysis was used for different court surfaces.Results: The literature search generated 7736 references; 64 articles were included for qualitative and 42 for quantitative review. Mean [95% confidence interval] rally duration, strokes per rally and effective playing time on all surfaces were 5.5 s [4.9, 6.3], 4.1 [3.4, 5.0] and 18.6% [15.8, 21.7] for international male players and 6.4 s [5.4, 7.6], 3.9 [2.4, 6.2] and 20% [17.3, 23.3] for international female players. Mean running distances per point, set and match were 9.6 m [7.6, 12.2], 607 m [443, 832] and 2292 m [1767, 2973] (best-of-5) for international male players and 8.2 m [4.4, 15.2], 574 m [373, 883] and 1249 m [767, 2035] for international female players. Mean first- and second-serve speeds were 182 km·h−1 [178, 187] and 149 km·h−1 [135, 164] for international male players and 156 km·h−1 95% confidence interval [151, 161] and 134 km·h−1 [107, 168] for international female players.Conclusions: The findings from this study provide a comprehensive summary of the physical demands of tennis. These results may guide tennis-specific training programmes. We recommend more consistent measuring and reporting of data to enable future meta-analysts to pool meaningful data. Clinical Trial Registration: The protocol for this systematic review was registered a priori at the Open Science Framework (Registration DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MDWFY).</p