Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Low back pain (LBP) remains a leading source of disability and societal cost. In the UK, physiotherapists, osteopaths, and chiropractors are front-line providers of LBP care. Despite widespread dissemination of clinical guidelines, little is known about how their clinical practice has changed over time. Methods We conducted national surveys of UK physiotherapists, osteopaths and chiropractors in 2003 and 2023, using an identical acute non-specific LBP vignette to assess reported use of investigations and interventions at both time points. Results A total of 1,758 eligible clinicians participated in 2003 (834 physiotherapists; 592 osteopaths; and 332 chiropractors), and 1,388 in 2023 (511 physiotherapists; 621 osteopaths; and 255 chiropractors). At both time-points, there were significant inter-professional differences and numerous departures from guideline recommendations. Substantial temporal changes were observed. Physiotherapists shifted towards more restrictive recommendations for work and bed-rest, towards the use of massage, away from spinal mobilization, away from specific exercises, and away from general advice on back care. Chiropractors shifted towards more restrictive recommendations for bed-rest, towards spinal mobilization and acupuncture, and away from spinal manipulation and ultrasound. Osteopaths shifted towards less restrictive recommendations for activity, work, and bed-rest, towards acupuncture, and away from spinal manipulation. Conclusions Between 2003 and 2023, UK physiotherapists, osteopaths, and chiropractors reported evolving management approaches to acute LBP. Substantial inter-professional differences and divergences from guideline recommendations were observed. Some inter-professional differences narrowed over time, suggesting partial convergence of practice.

Background The association between cervical lordosis (sagittal alignment) and neck pain is controversial. Further, it is unclear whether spinal manipulative therapy can change cervical lordosis. This study aimed to determine whether cervical lordosis changes after a course of spinal manipulation for non-specific neck pain. Methods Posterior tangents of C2 and C6 were drawn on the lateral cervical fluoroscopic images of 29 patients with subacute/chronic non-specific neck pain and 30 healthy volunteers matched for age and gender, recruited August 2011 to April 2013. The resultant angle was measured using ‘Image J’ digital geometric software. The intra-observer repeatability (measurement error and reliability) and intra-subject repeatability (minimum detectable change (MDC) over 4 weeks) were determined in healthy volunteers. A comparison of cervical lordosis was made between patients and healthy volunteers at baseline. Change in lordosis between baseline and 4-week follow-up was determined in patients receiving spinal manipulation. Results Intra-observer measurement error for cervical lordosis was acceptable (SEM 3.6°) and reliability was substantial ICC 0.98, 95 % CI 0.962–0991). The intra-subject MDC however, was large (13.5°). There was no significant difference between lordotic angles in patients and healthy volunteers ( p  = 0.16). The mean cervical lordotic increase over 4 weeks in patients was 2.1° (9.2) which was not significant ( p  = 0.12). Conclusions This study found no difference in cervical lordosis (sagittal alignment) between patients with mild non-specific neck pain and matched healthy volunteers. Furthermore, there was no significant change in cervical lordosis in patients after 4 weeks of cervical spinal manipulation.

Introduction Identifying biomechanical subgroups in chronic, non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) populations from inter-vertebral displacements has proven elusive. Quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) has excellent repeatability and provides continuous standardised inter-vertebral kinematic data from fluoroscopic sequences allowing assessment of mid-range motion. The aim of this study was to determine whether proportional continuous IV rotational patterns were different in patients and controls. A secondary aim was to update the repeatability of QF measurement of range of motion (RoM) for inter-vertebral (IV) rotation. Methods and Materials Fluoroscopic sequences were recorded of passive, recumbent coronal and sagittal motion, which was controlled for range and velocity. Segments L2–5 in 40 primary care CNSLBP patients and 40 matched controls were compared. Patients also completed the von Korff Chronic Pain Grade and Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire. Sequences were processed using automated image tracking algorithms to extract continuous inter-vertebral rotation data. These were converted to continuous proportional ranges of rotation (PR). The continuous proportional range variances were calculated for each direction and combined to produce a single variable representing their fluctuation (CPRV). Inter- and intra-rater repeatability were also calculated for the maximum IV-RoM measurements obtained during controlled trunk motion to provide an updated indication of the reliability and agreement of QF for measuring spine kinematics. Results CPRV was significantly higher in patients (0.011 vs. 0.008, Mann–Whitney two-sided p  = 0.008), implying a mechanical subgroup. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis found its sensitivity and specificity to be 0.78 % (60–90) and 0.55 % (37–73), respectively (area under the curve 0.672). CPRV was not correlated with pain severity or disability. The repeatability of maximum inter-vertebral range was excellent, but range was only significantly greater in patients at L4–5 in right side bending ( p  = 0.03). Conclusion The variation in proportional motion between lumbar vertebrae during passive recumbent trunk motion was greater in patients with CNSLBP than in matched healthy controls, indicating that biomechanical factors in passive structures play a part.

Background Back pain is one of the UK's costliest and least understood health problems, whose prevalence still seems to be increasing. Educational interventions for general practitioners on back pain appear to have had little impact on practice, but these did not include quality improvement learning, involve patients in the learning, record costs or document practice activities as well as patient outcomes. Methods We assessed the outcome of providing information about quality improvement techniques and evidence-based practice for back pain using the Clinical Value Compass. This included clinical outcomes (Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire), functional outcomes, costs of care and patient satisfaction. We provided workshops which used an action learning approach and collected before and after data on routine practice activity from practice electronic databases. In parallel, we studied outcomes in a separate cohort of patients with acute and sub-acute non-specific back pain recruited from the same practices over the same time period. Patient data were analysed as a prospective, split-cohort study with assessments at baseline and eight weeks following the first consultation. Results Data for 1014 patients were recorded in the practice database study, and 101 patients in the prospective cohort study. We found that practice activities, costs and patient outcomes changed little after the intervention. However, the intervention was associated with a small, but statistically significant reduction in disability in female patients. Additionally, baseline disability, downheartedness, self-rated health and leg pain had small but statistically significant effects (p < 0.05) on follow-up disability scores in some subgroups. Conclusions GP education for back pain that both includes health improvement methodologies and involves patients may yield additional benefits for some patients without large changes in patterns of practice activity. The effects in this study were small and limited and the reasons for them remain obscure. However, such is the impact of back pain and its frequency of consultation in general practice that this kind of improvement methodology deserves further consideration. Trial registration number ISRCTN: ISRCTN30420389

Background Spinal manipulation for nonspecific neck pain is thought to work in part by improving inter-vertebral range of motion (IV-RoM), but it is difficult to measure this or determine whether it is related to clinical outcomes. Objectives This study undertook to determine whether cervical spine flexion and extension IV-RoM increases after a course of spinal manipulation, to explore relationships between any IV-RoM increases and clinical outcomes and to compare palpation with objective measurement in the detection of hypo-mobile segments. Method Thirty patients with nonspecific neck pain and 30 healthy controls matched for age and gender received quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) screenings to measure flexion and extension IV-RoM (C1-C6) at baseline and 4-week follow-up between September 2012-13. Patients received up to 12 neck manipulations and completed NRS, NDI and Euroqol 5D-5L at baseline, plus PGIC and satisfaction questionnaires at follow-up. IV-RoM accuracy, repeatability and hypo-mobility cut-offs were determined. Minimal detectable changes (MDC) over 4 weeks were calculated from controls. Patients and control IV-RoMs were compared at baseline as well as changes in patients over 4 weeks. Correlations between outcomes and the number of manipulations received and the agreement (Kappa) between palpated and QF-detected of hypo-mobile segments were calculated. Results QF had high accuracy (worst RMS error 0.5o) and repeatability (highest SEM 1.1o, lowest ICC 0.90) for IV-RoM measurement. Hypo-mobility cut offs ranged from 0.8o to 3.5o. No outcome was significantly correlated with increased IV-RoM above MDC and there was no significant difference between the number of hypo-mobile segments in patients and controls at baseline or significant increases in IV-RoMs in patients. However, there was a modest and significant correlation between the number of manipulations received and the number of levels and directions whose IV-RoM increased beyond MDC (Rho=0.39, p=0.043). There was also no agreement between palpation and QF in identifying hypo-mobile segments (Kappa 0.04-0.06). Conclusions This study found no differences in cervical sagittal IV-RoM between patients with non-specific neck pain and matched controls. There was a modest dose-response relationship between the number of manipulations given and number of levels increasing IV-RoM - providing evidence that neck manipulation has a mechanical effect at segmental levels. However, patient-reported outcomes were not related to this.

Description of a workshop entitled \"Sharing Guidelines for Low Back Pain Between Primary Health Care Providers: Toward a Common Message in Primary Care\" that was held at the Fifth International Forum on Low Back Pain in Primary Care in Canada in May 2002. Despite a considerable degree of acceptance of current evidence-based guidelines, in practice, primary health care providers still do not share a common message. The objective of the workshop was to describe the outcomes of a workshop on the sharing of guidelines in primary care. The Fifth International Forum on Low Back Pain Research in Primary Care focused on relations between stakeholders in the primary care management of back pain. Participants in this workshop contributed to an open discussion on \"how and why\" evidence-based guidelines about back pain do or do not work in practice. Ways to minimise the factors that inhibit implementation were discussed in the light of whether guidelines are mono-disciplinary or multidisciplinary. Examples of potential issues for debate were contained in introductory presentations. The prospects for improving implementation and reducing barriers, and the priorities for future research, were then considered by an international group of researchers. This paper summarises the conclusions of three researcher subgroups that focused on the sharing of guidelines under the headings of: (1) the content, (2) the development process, and (3) implementation. How to share the evidence and make it meaningful to practice stakeholders is the main challenge of guideline implementation. There is a need to consider the balance between the strength of evidence in multidisciplinary guidelines and the utility/feasibility of mono-disciplinary guidelines. The usefulness of both mono-disciplinary and multidisciplinary guidelines was agreed on. However, in order to achieve consistent messages, mono-disciplinary guidelines should have a multidisciplinary parent. In other words, guidelines should be developed and monitored by a multidisciplinary team, but may be transferred to practice by mono-disciplinary messengers. Despite general agreement that multi-faceted interventions are most effective for implementing guidelines, the feasibility of doing this in busy clinical settings is questioned. Research is needed from local implementation pilots and quality monitoring studies to understand how to develop and deliver the contextual understanding required. This relates to processes of care as well as outcomes, and to social factors and policymaking as well as health care interventions. We commend these considerations to all who are interested in the challenges of achieving better-integrated, evidence-based care for people with back pain.

Analysis of calcified dental plaque (calculus) specimens from Neanderthals shows marked regional differences in diet and microbiota and evidence of self-medication in one individual, and identifies prevalent microorganisms and their divergence between Neanderthals and modern humans. Prehistoric plaque reveals Neanderthal diet The Neanderthal diet has been much debated, with evidence for a meat-rich diet conflicting with evidence from tooth wear that suggests more varied fare. Laura Weyrich and colleagues sequenced DNA from the dental calculus of five Neanderthal individuals from across Europe to provide a genetic reconstruction of their diet and health. They found that a Neanderthal from Spy in Belgium dined on rhinoceros and mutton, whereas another, from El Sidrón in Spain, ate pine nuts, moss and mushrooms. Their results also suggest that the Spanish Neanderthal had a dental abscess and a stomach bug that they were self-medicating with poplar, a natural painkiller, and the antibiotic-producing Penicillium bacteria. The team also uncovered the oldest microbial genome to date, that of Methanobrevibacter oralis at 48,000 years old. Recent genomic data have revealed multiple interactions between Neanderthals and modern humans 1 , but there is currently little genetic evidence regarding Neanderthal behaviour, diet, or disease. Here we describe the shotgun-sequencing of ancient DNA from five specimens of Neanderthal calcified dental plaque (calculus) and the characterization of regional differences in Neanderthal ecology. At Spy cave, Belgium, Neanderthal diet was heavily meat based and included woolly rhinoceros and wild sheep (mouflon), characteristic of a steppe environment. In contrast, no meat was detected in the diet of Neanderthals from El Sidrón cave, Spain, and dietary components of mushrooms, pine nuts, and moss reflected forest gathering 2 , 3 . Differences in diet were also linked to an overall shift in the oral bacterial community (microbiota) and suggested that meat consumption contributed to substantial variation within Neanderthal microbiota. Evidence for self-medication was detected in an El Sidrón Neanderthal with a dental abscess 4 and a chronic gastrointestinal pathogen ( Enterocytozoon bieneusi ). Metagenomic data from this individual also contained a nearly complete genome of the archaeal commensal Methanobrevibacter oralis (10.2× depth of coverage)—the oldest draft microbial genome generated to date, at around 48,000 years old. DNA preserved within dental calculus represents a notable source of information about the behaviour and health of ancient hominin specimens, as well as a unique system that is useful for the study of long-term microbial evolution.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is uncontrolled in many parts of the world; control is compounded in some areas by the higher transmission potential of the B.1.1.7 variant 1 , which has now been reported in 94 countries. It is unclear whether the response of the virus to vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 on the basis of the prototypic strain will be affected by the mutations found in B.1.1.7. Here we assess the immune responses of individuals after vaccination with the mRNA-based vaccine BNT162b2 2 . We measured neutralizing antibody responses after the first and second immunizations using pseudoviruses that expressed the wild-type spike protein or a mutated spike protein that contained the eight amino acid changes found in the B.1.1.7 variant. The sera from individuals who received the vaccine exhibited a broad range of neutralizing titres against the wild-type pseudoviruses that were modestly reduced against the B.1.1.7 variant. This reduction was also evident in sera from some patients who had recovered from COVID-19. Decreased neutralization of the B.1.1.7 variant was also observed for monoclonal antibodies that target the N-terminal domain (9 out of 10) and the receptor-binding motif (5 out of 31), but not for monoclonal antibodies that recognize the receptor-binding domain that bind outside the receptor-binding motif. Introduction of the mutation that encodes the E484K substitution in the B.1.1.7 background to reflect a newly emerged variant of concern (VOC 202102/02) led to a more-substantial loss of neutralizing activity by vaccine-elicited antibodies and monoclonal antibodies (19 out of 31) compared with the loss of neutralizing activity conferred by the mutations in B.1.1.7 alone. The emergence of the E484K substitution in a B.1.1.7 background represents a threat to the efficacy of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Sera from vaccinated individuals and some monoclonal antibodies show a modest reduction in neutralizing activity against the B.1.1.7 variant of SARS-CoV-2; but the E484K substitution leads to a considerable loss of neutralizing activity.