Background: Musculoskeletal pain conditions are the largest contributors to disability and healthcare burden globally. Exercise interventions improve physical function and quality of life in individuals with musculoskeletal pain, yet optimal exercise prescription variables (e.g. duration, frequency, intensity) are unclear. Objective: We aimed to examine evidence gaps, methodological quality and exercise prescription recommendations in systematic reviews of exercise for musculoskeletal pain. Methods: In our prospectively registered umbrella review, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to 14 February 2023. Backward citation tracking was performed. We included peer-reviewed, English language, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared exercise with conservative treatment, placebo or other exercise interventions in adults with musculoskeletal pain. Data were extracted from the following groups of reviews based on their reporting of exercise prescription data and analysis of the relationship between prescription variables and outcomes: (1) those that did not report any exercise prescription data, (2) those that reported exercise prescription data but did not perform a quantitative analysis and (3) those that performed a quantitative analysis of the relationship between exercise prescription variables and outcomes. Outcome measures were physical function, pain, mental health, adverse effects and adherence to treatment. AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) was used to assess methodological quality. Results: From 6757 records, 274 systematic reviews were included. 6.6% of reviews did not report any exercise prescription data, and only 10.9% quantitatively analyzed the relationship between prescription variables and the outcome(s). The overall methodological quality was critically low in 85% of reviews. Conclusion: High methodological quality evidence is lacking for optimal exercise training prescription variables in individuals with musculoskeletal pain. To better inform practice and evidence gaps, future systematic reviews should (1) identify optimum exercise prescription variables, for example, via dose–response (network) meta-analysis, (2) perform high-quality reviews per AMSTAR-2 criteria and (3) include outcomes of mental health, adverse events and exercise adherence. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021287440 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021287440).

This prospectively registered systematic review and meta-analysis examines whether exercise (EX) training has an additive effect to osteoanabolic and/or an

Introduction Chronic low back pain disorders (CLBDs) present a substantial societal burden; however, optimal treatment remains debated. To date, pairwise and network meta-analyses have evaluated individual treatment modes, yet a comparison of a wide range of common treatments is required to evaluate their relative effectiveness. Using network meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments (acupuncture, education or advice, electrophysical agents, exercise, manual therapies/manipulation, massage, the McKenzie method, pharmacotherapy, psychological therapies, surgery, epidural injections, percutaneous treatments, traction, physical therapy, multidisciplinary pain management, placebo, ‘usual care’ and/or no treatment) on pain intensity, disability and/or mental health in patients with CLBDs. Methods and analysis Six electronic databases and reference lists of 285 prior systematic reviews were searched. Eligible studies will be randomised controlled/clinical trials (including cross-over and cluster designs) that examine individual treatments or treatment combinations in adult patients with CLBDs. Studies must be published in English, German or Chinese as a full-journal publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data, and, where feasible, network meta-analyses will be performed. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance, including the network meta-analysis extension (PRISMA-NMA). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis will be implemented for assessing the quality of the findings. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review of the published data. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication. PROSPERO registration number PROSPERO registration number CRD42020182039.

Sports and exercise training research is constantly evolving to maintain, improve, or regain psychophysical, social, and emotional performance. Exercise training research requires a balance between the benefits and the potential risks. There is an inherent risk of scientific misconduct and adverse events in most sports; however, there is a need to minimize it. We aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the clinical and ethical challenges in sports and exercise research. We also enlist solutions to improve method design in clinical trials and provide checklists to minimize the chances of scientific misconduct. At the outset, historical milestones of exercise science literature are summarized. It is followed by details about the currently available regulations that help to reduce the risk of violating good scientific practices. We also outline the unique characteristics of sports-related research with a narrative of the major differences between sports and drug-based trials. An emphasis is then placed on the importance of well-designed studies to improve the interpretability of results and generalizability of the findings. This review finally suggests that sports researchers should comply with the available guidelines to improve the planning and conduct of future research thereby reducing the risk of harm to research participants. The authors suggest creating an oath to prevent malpractice, thereby improving the knowledge standards in sports research. This will also aid in deriving more meaningful implications for future research based on high-quality, ethically sound evidence.

Chronic low back disorders are the leading cause of direct and indirect healthcare burden globally. Exercise training improves pain intensity, mental health and physical function. However, the optimal prescription variables are unknown. We aim to compare the efficacy of various exercise dosages for chronic low back disorders to identify the optimal prescription variables. Six databases (Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE and CENTRAL), trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) and reference lists of prior systematic reviews will be searched, and we will conduct forward and backward citation tracking. We will include peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials (individual, cluster or cross-over trials) published in English or German language comparing exercise training to other exercise training or non-exercise training interventions (conservative, non-surgical, non-pharmacological, non-invasive treatments, placebo, sham, usual/standard care, no-treatment control, waitlist control) in adults with chronic low back disorders. Outcomes will include pain intensity, disability, mental health, adverse events, adherence rate, dropout rate and work capacity. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool will be employed. The dose will be categorised as cumulative dose (total and weekly minutes of exercise training) and individual dose prescription variables (intervention duration, session duration, frequency and intensity). Dose-response model-based network meta-analysis will be used to assess the comparative efficacy of different exercise doses to determine a dose–response relationship. The certainty of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Information about optimal exercise training dosage will help in enhancing treatment outcomes.

Background: Astronauts have a higher risk of cervical intervertebral disc herniation. Several mechanisms have been attributed as causative factors for this increased risk. However, most of the previous studies have examined potential causal factors for lumbar intervertebral disc herniation only. Hence, we aim to conduct a study to identify the various changes in the cervical spine that lead to an increased risk of cervical disc herniation after spaceflight. Methods: A cohort study with astronauts will be conducted. The data collection will involve four main components: a) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); b) cervical 3D kinematics; c) an Integrated Protocol consisting of maximal and submaximal voluntary contractions of the neck muscles, endurance testing of the neck muscles, neck muscle fatigue testing and questionnaires; and d) dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) examination. Measurements will be conducted at several time points before and after astronauts visit the International Space Station. The main outcomes of interest are adaptations in the cervical discs, muscles and bones. Discussion: Astronauts are at higher risk of cervical disc herniation, but contributing factors remain unclear. The results of this study will inform future preventive measures for astronauts and will also contribute to the understanding of intervertebral disc herniation risk in the cervical spine for people on Earth. In addition, we anticipate deeper insight into the aetiology of neck pain with this research project. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00026777. Registered on 08 October 2021.