Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeThe purpose of this review was to develop recommendations for the management of spinal disorders in low-income communities, with a focus on non-invasive pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies for non-specific low back and neck pain.MethodsWe synthesized two evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back and neck pain. Our recommendations considered benefits, harms, quality of evidence, and costs, with attention to feasibility in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries.ResultsClinicians should provide education and reassurance, advise patients to remain active, and provide information about self-care options. For acute low back and neck pain without serious pathology, primary conservative treatment options are exercise, manual therapy, superficial heat, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). For patients with chronic low back and neck pain without serious pathology, primary treatment options are exercise, yoga, cognitive behavioral therapies, acupuncture, biofeedback, progressive relaxation, massage, manual therapy, interdisciplinary rehabilitation, NSAIDs, acetaminophen, and antidepressants. For patients with spinal pain with radiculopathy, clinicians may consider exercise, spinal manipulation, or NSAIDs; use of other interventions requires extrapolation from evidence regarding effectiveness for non-radicular spinal pain. Clinicians should not offer treatments that are not effective, including benzodiazepines, botulinum toxin injection, systemic corticosteroids, cervical collar, electrical muscle stimulation, short-wave diathermy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and traction.ConclusionGuidelines developed for high-income settings were adapted to inform a care pathway and model of care for medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries by considering factors such as costs and feasibility, in addition to benefits, harms, and the quality of underlying evidence. The selection of recommended conservative treatments must be finalized through discussion with the involved community and based on a biopsychosocial approach. Decision determinants for selecting recommended treatments include costs, availability of interventions, and cultural and patient preferences.Graphical abstractThese slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

BackgroundAmong non-communicable disorders, low back and neck pain are the most common causes of severe, long-term pain and disability affecting more than a billion people globally. Yet, the burden and impact of these conditions are not well understood, especially among rural and tribal people living in low- and middle-income countries.ObjectiveThe aims of this study were to measure point prevalence of low back and neck pain among rural and tribal people in Raigad District of Maharashtra, India, and explore attitudes and beliefs of rural people towards spine pain and disability.DesignIn a cross-sectional survey of six villages in the Raigad District of Maharashtra State of India from August to October 2016, low back and neck pain were measured using the Spine Pain Questionnaire.ResultsWe surveyed 2323 participants, which did not include children and adolescents. Among rural people (n = 2073), the point prevalence of low back and neck pain was 4.9% (95% CI 3.94–5.79) and 2.9% (95% CI 2.21–8.87), respectively. Among tribal people (n = 250), prevalence was 10.0% (95% CI 6.28–13.71) for low back pain and 3.6% (95% CI 1.29–5.90) for neck pain. Lifting heavy weights and bending trunk were the most limiting activities. During informal discussions, most villagers attributed spine pain to traditional lifestyle and age. Participants continued occupational work in the presence of pain. Lack of transport facilities and cost of treatment emerged as the two most common reasons for delay in seeking treatment at nearby healthcare centres. This information will inform the development of customized spine care programmes through community-engaged partnerships and self-empowerment of the local community.

Low back pain (LBP) has been identified as one of the most costly disorders among the worldwide working population. Sitting has been associated with risk of developing LBP. The purpose of this literature review is to assemble and describe evidence of research on the association between sitting and the presence of LBP. The systematic literature review was restricted to those occupations that require sitting for more than half of working time and where workers have physical co-exposure factors such as whole body vibration (WBV) and/or awkward postures. Twenty-five studies were carefully selected and critically reviewed, and a model was developed to describe the relationships between these factors. Sitting alone was not associated with the risk of developing LBP. However, when the co-exposure factors of WBV and awkward postures were added to the analysis, the risk of LBP increased fourfold. The occupational group that showed the strongest association with LBP was Helicopter Pilots (OR=9.0, 90% CI 4.9-16.4). For all studied occupations, the odds ratio (OR) increased when WBV and/or awkward postures were analyzed as co-exposure factors. WBV while sitting was also independently associated with non-specific LBP and sciatica. Vibration dose, as well as vibration magnitude and duration of exposure, were associated with LBP in all occupations. Exposure duration was associated with LBP to a greater extent than vibration magnitude. However, for the presence of sciatica, this difference was not found. Awkward posture was also independently associated with the presence of LBP and/or sciatica. The risk effect of prolonged sitting increased significantly when the factors of WBV and awkward postures were combined. Sitting by itself does not increase the risk of LBP. However, sitting for more than half a workday, in combination with WBV and/or awkward postures, does increase the likelihood of having LBP and/or sciatica, and it is the combination of those risk factors, which leads to the greatest increase in LBP.

The purpose of this review was to identify risk factors, prognostic factors, and comorbidities associated with common spinal disorders. A scoping review of the literature of common spinal disorders was performed through September 2016. To identify search terms, we developed 3 terminology groups for case definitions: 1) spinal pain of unknown origin, 2) spinal syndromes, and 3) spinal pathology. We used a comprehensive strategy to search PubMed for meta-analyses and systematic reviews of case-control studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials for risk and prognostic factors and cross-sectional studies describing associations and comorbidities. Of 3,453 candidate papers, 145 met study criteria and were included in this review. Risk factors were reported for group 1: non-specific low back pain (smoking, overweight/obesity, negative recovery expectations), non-specific neck pain (high job demands, monotonous work); group 2: degenerative spinal disease (workers' compensation claim, degenerative scoliosis), and group 3: spinal tuberculosis (age, imprisonment, previous history of tuberculosis), spinal cord injury (age, accidental injury), vertebral fracture from osteoporosis (type 1 diabetes, certain medications, smoking), and neural tube defects (folic acid deficit, anti-convulsant medications, chlorine, influenza, maternal obesity). A range of comorbidities was identified for spinal disorders. Many associated factors for common spinal disorders identified in this study are modifiable. The most common spinal disorders are co-morbid with general health conditions, but there is a lack of clarity in the literature differentiating which conditions are merely comorbid versus ones that are risk factors. Modifiable risk factors present opportunities for policy, research, and public health prevention efforts on both the individual patient and community levels. Further research into prevention interventions for spinal disorders is needed to address this gap in the literature.

PurposeThe purpose of this review was to develop recommendations for non-invasive management of pain due to osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) that could be applied in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and best evidence synthesis of systematic reviews on the non-invasive management of OVCF. Eligible reviews were critically appraised using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Low risk of bias systematic reviews and high-quality primary studies that were identified in the reviews were used to develop recommendations.ResultsFrom 6 low risk of bias systematic reviews and 14 high-quality primary studies we established that for acute pain management, in addition to rest and analgesic medication, orthoses may provide temporary pain relief, in addition to early mobilization. Calcitonin can be considered as a supplement to analgesics; however, cost is of concern. Once acute pain control is achieved, exercise can be effective for improving function and quality of life.ConclusionThe findings from this study will help to inform the GSCI care pathway and model of care for use in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries. Conservative management of acute pain and recovery of function in adults with OVCF should include early mobilization, exercise, spinal orthosis for pain relief, and calcitonin for analgesic-refractory acute pain.Graphical AbstractThese slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) have a significant impact on physical therapists, but few studies have addressed the issue. Research is needed to determine the scope of the problem and the effects of specific risk factors. The objectives of this study were: (1) to determine the 1-year incidence rate of WMSDs in physical therapists and (2) to determine the effects of specific risk factors. This was a prospective cohort study with 1-year follow-up. Subjects were randomly selected American Physical Therapy Association members (N=882). Exposure assessment included demographic data, physical risk factors, job strain, and specific physical therapy tasks. The primary outcome was WMSDs, with a severity rating of at least 4/10 and present at least once a month or lasting longer than a week. The response rate to the baseline questionnaire was 67%. Ninety-three percent of the subjects who responded to the baseline questionnaire responded to the follow-up questionnaire. The 1-year incidence rate of WMSDs was 20.7%. Factors that increased the risk for WMSDs included patient transfers, patient repositioning, bent or twisted postures, joint mobilization, soft tissue work, and job strain. The primary limitation of this study was the number of therapists who had a change in their job situation during the follow-up year. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are prevalent in physical therapists. Physical therapy exposures, patient handling, and manual therapy, in particular, increase the risk for WMSDs.

Background The safety of the manual treatment techniques such as spinal manipulation has been discussed and there is a need for more information about potential adverse events after manual therapy. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to investigate differences in occurrence of adverse events between three different combinations of manual treatment techniques used by manual therapists (i.e. chiropractors, naprapaths, osteopaths, physicians and physiotherapists) for patients seeking care for back and/or neck pain. In addition women and men were compared regarding the occurrence of adverse events. Methods Participants were recruited among patients, ages 18–65, seeking care at the educational clinic of the Scandinavian College of Naprapathic Manual Medicine in Stockholm. The patients (n = 767) were randomized to one of three treatment arms 1) manual therapy (i.e. spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, stretching and massage) (n = 249), 2) manual therapy excluding spinal manipulation (n = 258) and 3) manual therapy excluding stretching (n = 260). Treatments were provided by students in the seventh semester of total eight. Adverse events were measured with a questionnaire after each return visit and categorized in to five levels; 1) short minor, 2) long minor, 3) short moderate, 4) long moderate and 5) serious adverse events, based on the duration and/or severity of the event. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine the association between adverse event and treatments arms. Results The most common adverse events were soreness in muscles, increased pain and stiffness. No differences were found between the treatment arms concerning the occurrence of adverse event. Fifty-one percent of patients, who received at least three treatments, experienced at least one adverse event after one or more visits. Women more often had short moderate adverse events (OR = 2.19 (95% CI: 1.52-3.15)), and long moderate adverse events (OR = 2.49 (95% CI: 1.77-3.52)) compared to men. Conclusion Adverse events after manual therapy are common and transient. Excluding spinal manipulation or stretching do not affect the occurrence of adverse events. The most common adverse event is soreness in the muscles. Women reports more adverse events than men. Trial registration This trial was registered in a public registry (Current Controlled Trials) ( ISRCTN92249294 ).

IntroductionSurgical rates for low back pain (LBP) have been increasing in Europe, North America and Asia. Many patients treated surgically will require postsurgical rehabilitation. Little is known about the effectiveness of postsurgical rehabilitation interventions on health outcomes or about patients’ experiences with these interventions.ObjectivesTo conduct a mixed studies systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies regarding: (1) the effectiveness and safety of postsurgical rehabilitation interventions for adults with LBP treated surgically and (2) the experiences of patients, healthcare providers, caregivers or others involved with the rehabilitation.Methods and analysisWe will search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Index to Chiropractic Literature, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials and the Rehabilitation & Sports Medicine Source for peer-reviewed empirical studies published from inception in any language. Studies using quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies will be included. We will also search reference lists of all eligible articles. Data extraction will include type of presurgical pathology, indication for surgery, surgical procedure, how the intervention was delivered and by whom, context and setting. We will conduct a quality assessment of each study and consider study quality in our evidence synthesis. We will use a sequential approach at the review level to synthesise and integrate data. First, we will synthesise the quantitative and qualitative studies independently, conducting a meta-analysis of the quantitative studies if appropriate and thematic synthesis of the qualitative studies. Then, we will integrate the quantitative and qualitative evidence by juxtaposing the findings in a matrix.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this knowledge synthesis. Findings will be disseminated through knowledge translation activities including: (1) presentations at national and international conferences and scientific meetings; (2) presentations to local and international stakeholders; (3) publications in peer-reviewed journals and (4) posts on organisational websites.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019134607.

IntroductionDespite the profound burden of disease, a strategic global response to optimise musculoskeletal (MSK) health and guide national-level health systems strengthening priorities remains absent. Auspiced by the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health (G-MUSC), we aimed to empirically derive requisite priorities and components of a strategic response to guide global and national-level action on MSK health.MethodsDesign: mixed-methods, three-phase design.Phase 1: qualitative study with international key informants (KIs), including patient representatives and people with lived experience. KIs characterised the contemporary landscape for MSK health and priorities for a global strategic response.Phase 2: scoping review of national health policies to identify contemporary MSK policy trends and foci.Phase 3: informed by phases 1–2, was a global eDelphi where multisectoral panellists rated and iterated a framework of priorities and detailed components/actions.ResultsPhase 1: 31 KIs representing 25 organisations were sampled from 20 countries (40% low and middle income (LMIC)). Inductively derived themes were used to construct a logic model to underpin latter phases, consisting of five guiding principles, eight strategic priority areas and seven accelerators for action.Phase 2: of the 165 documents identified, 41 (24.8%) from 22 countries (88% high-income countries) and 2 regions met the inclusion criteria. Eight overarching policy themes, supported by 47 subthemes, were derived, aligning closely with the logic model.Phase 3: 674 panellists from 72 countries (46% LMICs) participated in round 1 and 439 (65%) in round 2 of the eDelphi. Fifty-nine components were retained with 10 (17%) identified as essential for health systems. 97.6% and 94.8% agreed or strongly agreed the framework was valuable and credible, respectively, for health systems strengthening.ConclusionAn empirically derived framework, co-designed and strongly supported by multisectoral stakeholders, can now be used as a blueprint for global and country-level responses to improve MSK health and prioritise system strengthening initiatives.

Purpose To describe characteristics and activity limitations of new patients with musculoskeletal conditions presenting to the World Spine Care (WSC) clinic located in the underserved community of Moca, Dominican Republic. Methods We conducted a prospective case series of consecutive adults between October 12 and December 5, 2015. A survey of valid and reliable measures including: Body pain diagram, Wong-Baker FACES® pain rating scale, Spine Functional Index (SFI), Lower Limb Functional Index (LLFI), Upper Limb Functional Index (ULFI) and the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12v2) was administered to collect socio-demographics, expectation of recovery, comorbidities, and self-reported health status data. Results Forty-two patients (23 females and 19 males) were included. The most common primary complaint was lower back pain (40.5%; 17/42) and 57% (24/42) of individuals reported pain that interfered with their ability to function and engage in daily activities. Half of the patients presented with two complaints. Complaints were similar between genders. Most patients (64%; 27/42) reported chronic pain (> 6 months) and 97% (41/42) reported believing that they would recover. Twenty-one percent (9/42) self-reported being diagnosed with depression and/or anxiety at some point in their life. In addition, most (57%; 24/42) individuals reported below average physical and mental health related quality of life. Conclusions This study is the first to describe characteristics of patients seeking care at the WSC clinic in Moca, Dominican Republic. Most patients attending the clinic suffer from persistent spine complaints that interfere with their ability to function and engage in daily activities. Nevertheless, the patients have positive expectations of recovery.