Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses are essential resources for the clinicians. They allow to evaluate the strengths and the weaknesses of the evidence to support clinical decision-making if they are adequately reported. Little is known in the rehabilitation field about the completeness of reporting of SRs and its relationship with the risk of bias (ROB). Primary: 1) To evaluate the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SRs) published in rehabilitation journals by evaluating their adherence to the PRISMA 2009 checklist, 2) To investigate the relationship between ROB and completeness of reporting. Secondary: To study the association between completeness of reporting and journals and study characteristics. A random sample of 200 SRs published between 2011 and 2020 in 68 rehabilitation journals was indexed under the “rehabilitation” category in the InCites database. Two independent reviewers evaluated adherence to the PRISMA checklist and assessed ROB using the ROBIS tool. Overall adherence and adherence to each PRISMA item and section were calculated. Regression analyses investigated the association between completeness of reporting, ROB, and other characteristics (impact factor, publication options, publication year, and study protocol registration). The mean overall PRISMA adherence across the 200 studies considered was 61.4%. Regression analyses show that having a high overall ROB is a significant predictor of lower adherence (B=-7.1%; 95%CI -12.1, -2.0). Studies published in fourth quartile journals displayed a lower overall adherence (B= -7.2%; 95%CI -13.2, -1.3) than those published in first quartile journals; the overall adherence increased (B= 11.9%; 95%CI 5.9, 18.0) if the SR protocol was registered. No association between adherence, publication options, and publication year was found. Reporting completeness in rehabilitation SRs is suboptimal and is associated with ROB, impact factor, and study registration. Authors of SRs should improve adherence to the PRISMA guideline, and journal editors should implement strategies to optimize the completeness of reporting.

[Purpose] To present legislation comparing direct and referred access-or other measures-to physical therapy. The focus is on the management of the most burdensome musculoskeletal disorders in terms of regulations, costs, effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness. [Methods] Main biomedical databases and gray literature were searched ranging from a global scenario to the analysis of targeted geographical areas and specifically Italy and the Region Piedmont. [Results] legislation on Direct Access highlights inconsistencies among the countries belonging to World Confederation for Physical Therapy. Direct Access could be an effective, safe and efficient organization model for the management of patients with musculoskeletal diseases and seems to be more effective safer and cost effective. [Conclusion] Direct Access is a virtuous model which can help improve the global quality of physical therapy services. Further studies are required to confirm this approach and determine whether the findings of the present overview can be replicated in different countries and healthcare systems.

Direct access to physical therapy (DAPT) is the patient’s ability to self-refer to a physical therapist, without previous consultation from any other professional. This model of care has been implemented in many healthcare systems since it has demonstrated better outcomes than traditional models of care. The model of DAPT mainly focuses on the management of musculoskeletal disorders, with a huge epidemiological burden and worldwide healthcare systems workload. Among the healthcare professionals, physical therapists are one of the most accessed for managing pain and disability related to musculoskeletal disorders. Additionally, the most updated guidelines recommend DAPT as a first-line treatment because of its cost-effectiveness, safety, and patients’ satisfaction compared to other interventions. DAPT was also adopted to efficiently face the diffuse crisis of the declining number of general practitioners, reducing their caseload by directly managing patients’ musculoskeletal disorders traditionally seen by general practitioners. World Physiotherapy organization also advocates DAPT as a new approach, with physical therapy in a primary care pathway to better control healthcare expenses. Thus, it is unclear why the Italian institutions have decided to recognize new professions instead of focusing on the growth of physical therapy, a long-established and autonomous health profession. Furthermore, it is unclear why DAPT is still not fully recognized, considering the historical context and its evidence. The future is now: although still preliminary, the evidence supporting DAPT is promising. Hard skills, academic paths, scientific evidence, and the legislature argue that this paradigm shift should occur in Italy.

Background: The sit-to-stand (STS) test is usually included in the clinical assessment of balance and its instrumented analysis may support clinicians in objectively assessing the risk of falling. The aim of the present study was to assess if kinetic parameters of STS collected using a force platform, with particular focus on the raising and stabilization phase, could discriminate between young and older adults. Methods: Twenty-four adults (age ranging from 18 to 65 years old) and 28 elderly adults (older than 65 years old) performed STS on a force platform. Data on ground reaction forces, sway, displacement and velocity of the center of pressure were gathered during the raising and the stabilization phases. Results: elderly subjects showed significant greater global sway (146.97 vs 119.85; p < 0.05) and a higher velocity (vs 40.03 vs 34.35 mm/s; p < 0.05) of execution of STS. Between-group comparisons highlighted a greater postural sway in the raising phase (21.63 vs 13.58; p < 0.001) and a doubled sway during the stabilization phase (12.38 vs 4.98; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The analysis of STS performed on a force platform provides further information about the age-specific pattern of STS execution. The stabilization phase of STS seems to be the more challenging for functional independent older adults and should be considered during balance assessment. Further studies are needed to confirm findings and improve generalizability of this study.

Objective: To evaluate the effects of individual patient education for managing acute and/or subacute low back pain (LBP), compared to no intervention/placebo education, noneducational interventions, or other type of education. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized trials. Literature Search: PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL (up to September 30, 2020); reference lists of previous systematic reviews. Study Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating individual education for patients with acute and/or subacute LBP. Data Synthesis: Random-effects meta-analysis for clinically homogeneous RCTs. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Results: We included 13 RCTs. There was moderate certainty evidence that individual patient education was more effective than placebo education for pain at medium term (mean difference [MD], −0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −1.52, −0.07) and physical function at short term (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.25; 95% CI: −0.47, −0.02) and medium term (SMD, −0.26; 95% CI: −0.48, −0.04), but with no clinically relevant effects. There was low-to-moderate certainty evidence that individual patient education was superior to noneducational interventions on short-term quality of life (MD, −12.00; 95% CI: −20.05, −3.95) and medium-term sick leave (odds ratio = 0.32; 95% CI: 0.11, 0.88). We found no clinically relevant between-group effects for any other comparison (low-to-high certainty of evidence) at any follow-up. Conclusion: One or 2 hours of individual patient education probably makes little to no difference in pain and functional outcomes compared with placebo for patients with acute and/or subacute LBP. Considering its effects on other outcomes (eg, reassurance) and patients' desire for information about their condition, it is reasonable to retain patient education as part of a first-line approach when managing acute and subacute LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(7):432–445. Epub: 18 May 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10698

We want to thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues raised in the letter to the Editor of Dr. Moretti et al.