A Systematic Review of the Reporting Quality of Observational Studies That Use Mediation Analyses

Mediation analysis is a common statistical method used to investigate mechanisms of health exposure and interventions. The reporting quality of mediation studies used in randomised controlled trials has been considered heterogeneous and incomplete. The reporting quality of mediation analysis in observational studies is unknown. We conducted a systematic review to describe the reporting standards of recently published observational studies that used mediation analysis to understand the mechanism of health exposures. We searched for studies published between June 2017 and June 2019 indexed in EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. Two reviewers screened articles and selected a random sample of 50 eligible studies for inclusion. We included studies across 13 healthcare fields and ten different health conditions. Most studies (74%) collected data on healthy individuals to assess their risk of developing a health disorder. Psychosocial and behavioural factors (self-control, self-esteem, alcohol consumption, pain) were the most prevalent exposures (n = 30, 60%), outcomes (n = 23, 46%) and mediators (n = 29, 58%). Most studies used a cross-sectional design (64%, n = 32), and a few studies reported sample size calculations (4%, n = 8). In 20% (n = 10) of the studies, adjustment for confounders was reported. Only 10% (n = 5) of studies reported the assumptions underlying the mediation analysis, and 14% (n = 7) of studies conducted some sensitivity analysis to assess the degree which unmeasured confounders would affect the estimate of the mediation effect. Mediation analysis is a common method used to investigate mechanisms in prevention research. The reporting of mediation analysis in observational studies is incomplete and may impact reproducibility, evidence synthesis and implementation

Why is exercise prescribed for people with chronic low back pain? A review of the mechanisms of benefit proposed by clinical trialists

Background: Exercise is recommended for the management of chronic low back pain (CLBP). Trialists have proposed numerous mechanisms to explain why exercise improves pain and function in people with CLBP, but these are yet to be synthesised. Objective: To synthesise the proposed mechanisms of benefit for exercise in people with CLBP. Design: Review. Methods: The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was searched from inception to July 2019. Randomised controlled trials of adults with CLBP, indexed in PEDro as ‘fitness training’, were included. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data from each study. Data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively using thematic analysis. Results: 186 studies were identified and 110 were included in the analysis. Thirty-six studies (33%) did not provide a mechanism of benefit for exercise in people with CLBP. Of the remaining studies, most provided more than one mechanism, from which 33 unique mechanisms were identified. These were grouped into five themes which, from most to least common, were: neuromuscular (n = 105 (44%)); psychosocial (n = 87 (36%)); neurophysiological (n = 22 (9%)); cardiometabolic (n = 15 (6%)); and tissue healing (n = 12 (5%)). The effects of these proposed mechanisms on outcomes for people with CLBP were seldom examined. Conclusions: This review identified a variety of mechanisms proposed in clinical trials to explain why ‘fitness training’ works for people with CLBP, but these mechanisms were seldom tested. Randomised controlled trials investigating the mediating effects of these mechanisms may be warranted to better understand why exercise works for CLBP

Staphylococcus aureus in the oral cavity: a three-year retrospective analysis of clinical laboratory data

OBJECTIVE: A retrospective analysis of laboratory data to investigate the isolation of Staphylococcus aureus from the oral cavity and facial area in specimens submitted to a regional diagnostic oral microbiology laboratory. METHODS: A hand search of laboratory records for a three-year period (1998-2000) was performed for specimens submitted to the regional diagnostic oral microbiology laboratory based at Glasgow Dental Hospital and School. Data were collected from forms where S. aureus was isolated. These data included demographics, referral source, specimen type, methicillin susceptibility and clinical details. RESULTS: For the period 1998-2000, there were 5,005 specimens submitted to the laboratory. S. aureus was isolated from 1,017 specimens, of which 967 (95%) were sensitive to methicillin (MSSA) and 50 (5%) were resistant to methicillin (MRSA). The 1,017 specimens were provided from 615 patients. MRSA was isolated from 37 (6%) of patients. There was an increasing incidence of S. aureus with age, particularly in the greater than 70 years age group. The most common specimen from which MSSA was isolated was an oral rinse (38%) whilst for MRSA isolates this was a tongue swab (28%). The clinical condition most commonly reported for MSSA isolates was angular cheilitis (22%). Erythema, swelling, pain or burning of the oral mucosa was the clinical condition most commonly reported for MRSA isolates (16%). Patients from whom the MSSA isolates were recovered were most commonly (55%) seen in the oral medicine clinic at the dental hospital, whilst patients with MRSA were more commonly seen in primary care settings such as nursing homes, hospices and general dental practice (51%). CONCLUSION: In line with more recent surveys, this retrospective study suggests that S. aureus may be a more frequent isolate from the oral cavity than hitherto suspected. A small proportion of the S. aureus isolates were MRSA. There were insufficient data available to determine whether the S. aureus isolates were colonising or infecting the oral cavity. However, the role of S. aureus in several diseases of the oral mucosa merits further investigation

A systematic review highlights the need to improve the quality and applicability of trials of physical therapy interventions for low back pain

Objectives: The objective of this study was to review and assess the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials that test physical therapy interventions for low back pain. Study Design and Setting: This is a systematic review of trials of physical therapy interventions to prevent or treat low back pain (of any duration or type) in participants of any age indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Existing PEDro scale ratings were used to evaluate methodological quality. Results: This review identified 2,215 trials. The majority of trials were for adults (n = 2136, 96.4%), low back pain without specific etiology (n = 1,863, 84.1%), and chronic duration (n = 947, 42.8%). The quality of trials improved over time; however, most were at risk of bias. Less than half of the trials concealed allocation to intervention (n = 813, 36.7%), used intention-to-treat principles (n = 778, 35.1%), and blinded assessors (n = 810, 36.6%), participants (n = 174, 7.9%), and therapists (n = 39, 1.8%). These findings did not vary by the type of therapy. Conclusion: Most trials that test physical therapy interventions for low back pain have methodological limitations that could bias treatment effect estimates. Greater attention to methodological features, such as allocation concealment and the reporting of intention-to-treat effects, would improve the quality of trials testing physical therapy interventions for low back pain

“My Back is Fit for Movement”: A Qualitative Study Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial for Chronic Low Back Pain

A new wave of treatments has emerged to target nervous system alterations and maladaptive conceptualizations about pain for chronic low back pain. The acceptability of these treatments is still uncertain. We conducted a qualitative study alongside a randomized controlled trial to identify perceptions of facilitators or barriers to participation in a non-pharmacological intervention that resulted in clinically meaningful reductions across 12 months for disability compared to a sham intervention. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants from the trial's active arm after they completed the 12-week program. We included a purposeful sample (baseline and clinical characteristics) (n = 20). We used reflexive thematic analysis informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability for health care interventions. We identified positive and negative emotional/cognitive responses associated with treatment acceptability and potential efficacy, including emotional support, cognitive empowerment, readiness for self-management, and acceptance of face-to-face and online components designed to target the brain. These findings suggest the importance of psychoeducation and behavior change techniques to create a positive attitude towards movement and increase the perception of pain control; systematic approaches to monitor and target misconceptions about the interventions during treatment; and psychoeducation and behavior change techniques to maintain the improvements after the cessation of formal care. Perspective: This article presents the experiences of people with chronic low back pain participating in a new non-pharmacological brain-targeted treatment that includes face-to-face and self-directed approaches. The facilitators and barriers of the interventions could potentially inform adaptations and optimization of treatments designed to target the brain to treat chronic low back pain

Efficacy, acceptability, and safety of muscle relaxants for adults with non-specific low back pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AbstractObjective To investigate the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of muscle relaxants for low back pain. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and WHO ICTRP from inception to 23 February 2021. Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised controlled trials of muscle relaxants compared with placebo, usual care, waiting list, or no treatment in adults (≥18 years) reporting non-specific low back pain. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations, respectively. Random effects meta-analytical models through restricted maximum likelihood estimation were used to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Outcomes included pain intensity (measured on a 0-100 point scale), disability (0-100 point scale), acceptability (discontinuation of the drug for any reason during treatment), and safety (adverse events, serious adverse events, and number of participants who withdrew from the trial because of an adverse event). Results 49 trials were included in the review, of which 31, sampling 6505 participants, were quantitatively analysed. For acute low back pain, very low certainty evidence showed that at two weeks or less non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics were associated with a reduction in pain intensity compared with control (mean difference -7.7, 95% confidence interval-12.1 to-3.3) but not a reduction in disability (-3.3, -7.3 to 0.7). Low and very low certainty evidence showed that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might increase the risk of an adverse event (relative risk 1.6, 1.2 to 2.0) and might have little to no effect on acceptability (0.8, 0.6 to 1.1) compared with control for acute low back pain, respectively. The number of trials investigating other muscle relaxants and different durations of low back pain were small and the certainty of evidence was reduced because most trials were at high risk of bias. Conclusions Considerable uncertainty exists about the clinical efficacy and safety of muscle relaxants. Very low and low certainty evidence shows that non-benzodiazepine antispasmodics might provide small but not clinically important reductions in pain intensity at or before two weeks and might increase the risk of an adverse event in acute low back pain, respectively. Large, high quality, placebo controlled trials are urgently needed to resolve uncertainty. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019126820 and Open Science Framework https://osf.io/mu2f5/

Feasibility of an Audit and Feedback Intervention to Facilitate Journal Policy Change Towards Greater Promotion of Transparency and Openness in Sports Science Research

Objectives: To evaluate (1) the feasibility of an audit-feedback intervention to facilitate sports science journal policy change, (2) the reliability of the Transparency of Research Underpinning Social Intervention Tiers (TRUST) policy evaluation form, and (3) the extent to which policies of sports science journals support transparent and open research practices. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, audit-feedback, feasibility study of transparency and openness standards of the top 38 sports science journals by impact factor. The TRUST form was used to evaluate journal policies support for transparent and open research practices. Feedback was provided to journal editors in the format of a tailored letter. Inter-rater reliability and agreement of the TRUST form was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients and the standard error of measurement, respectively. Time-based criteria, fidelity of intervention delivery and qualitative feedback were used to determine feasibility. Results: The audit-feedback intervention was feasible based on the time taken to rate journals and provide tailored feedback. The mean (SD) score on the TRUST form (range 0–27) was 2.05 (1.99), reflecting low engagement with transparent and open practices. Inter-rater reliability of the overall score of the TRUST form was moderate [ICC (2,1) = 0.68 (95% CI 0.55–0.79)], with standard error of measurement of 1.17. However, some individual items had poor reliability. Conclusion: Policies of the top 38 sports science journals have potential for improved support for transparent and open research practices. The feasible audit-feedback intervention developed here warrants large-scale evaluation as a means to facilitate change in journal policies. Registration: OSF (https://osf.io/d2t4s/)

Comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for adults with non-specific acute low back pain: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022. Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks). Data extraction and synthesis Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method. Results 98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference −26.1 (95% confidence intervals −34.0 to −18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (−26.1 (−38.5 to −13.6)), pregabalin (−24.7 (−34.6 to −14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes. Conclusions The comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines.MAW was supported by a Postgraduate Scholarship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, a School of Medical Sciences Top-Up Scholarship from the University of New South Wales, and a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia. MKB was supported by a PhD Candidature Scholarship and Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia. MCF was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia, and the Edward C Dunn Foundation Scholarship. RRNR was supported by the School of Medical Sciences Postgraduate Research Scholarship from the University of New South Wales and a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia. HBL was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. SSh was supported by the International Association for the Study of Pain John J Bonica Postdoctoral Fellowship. CGM was supported by an NHMRC Leadership 3 Fellowship (App 1194283). SMG was supported by a Research Fellowship from the Rebecca L Cooper Foundation. AN was supported by personal fellowship (P400PM_186723) from the Swiss National Science Foundation. This study received project support funding from a 2020 Exercise Physiology Research (Consumables) Grant from the University of New South Wales, which was used to obtain translations of studies published in languages other than English. The funder had played no part in the design, conduct, or analysis of the study

Comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for adults with acute non-specific low back pain: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources: Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022. Eligibility criteria for study selection: Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks). Data extraction and synthesis: Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method. Results: 98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference -26.1 (95% confidence intervals -34.0 to -18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (-26.1 (-38.5 to -13.6)), pregabalin (-24.7 (-34.6 to -14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes. Conclusions: The comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD4201914525

Paracetamol, NSAIDS and opioid analgesics for chronic low back pain: A network meta-analysis

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To answer the clinical question: ‘what analgesic medicine shall I prescribe this patient with chronic low back pain to reduce their pain?’. The objectives are to determine the analgesic effects, safety, effect on function, and relative rank according to analgesic effect, safety and effect on function of a single course of opioid analgesics, NSAIDs or paracetamol or combinations of these medicines