Introduction: The exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SRs) presents challenges for decision makers seeking to answer clinical, public health or policy questions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad et al. to choose the best SR across multiple. Our study aims to replicate author assessments using the Jadad algorithm to determine: (i) if we chose the same SR as the authors; and (ii) if we reach the same results. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and Cochrane Database of SRs. We included any study using the Jadad algorithm. We used consensus building strategies to operationalise the algorithm and to ensure a consistent approach to interpretation. Results: We identified 21 studies that used the Jadad algorithm to choose one or more SRs. In 62% (13/21) of cases, we were unable to replicate the Jadad assessment and ultimately chose a different SR than the authors. Overall, 18 out of the 21 (86%) independent Jadad assessments agreed in direction of the findings despite 13 having chosen a different SR. Conclusions: Our results suggest that the Jadad algorithm is not reproducible between users as there are no prescriptive instructions about how to operationalise the algorithm. In the absence of a validated algorithm, we recommend that healthcare providers, policy makers, patients and researchers address conflicts between review findings by choosing the SR(s) with meta-analysis of RCTs that most closely resemble their clinical, public health, or policy question, are the most recent, comprehensive (i.e. number of included RCTs), and at the lowest risk of bias.

Background: The role of rehabilitation after surgery in patients with low back pain is well recognized. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize and update the existing evidence according to the type of clinical condition and rehabilitation approach. Methods: This systematic review included RCTs on the effectiveness of rehabilitation after surgery for lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and spondylolisthesis. We searched the literature for randomized controlled trials indexed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL, CENTRAL, Scopus, PEDro, and Web of Science databases, up to April 15, 2023. We used Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool to assess each study. We conducted a quantitative synthesis when population, intervention, control, and outcome were sufficiently homogeneous; otherwise, we conducted a qualitative analysis. Results: Forty-five studies (3.036 subjects) were included and analyzed according to the population considered: lumbar stenosis (1 trial), spondylolisthesis (3 trials), and disc herniation (41 trials). Regarding lumbar stenosis, a supervised active exercise program appears to improve outcomes related to pain, disability, and quality of life both in the short- and mid-term (1 study, n = 60). Concerning spondylolisthesis, kinesiophobia is reduced in the home exercises group compared to usual care, at 3-months follow-up (3 studies, n = 98). For disk herniation, supervised exercises are better than non-supervised exercises to reduce pain (MD -1.14; 95% CIs -1.65, -0.62; 5 trials, n = 250) and disability (SMD -0.70; 95% CIs -1.14, -0.26; 4 trials, n = 175). Supervised exercises are better than advice in reducing pain (SMD -0.91; 95% CIs -1.61, -0.21; 5 trials, n = 341) and disability (SMD -0.80; 95% CIs -1.59, -0.01; 4 trials, n = 261), in the short-term. Supervised exercises are equal to no treatment in reducing pain and disability, at 3 and 6 months after intervention (2 trials, n = 166). These results are supported by a very low to low quality of evidence. Conclusions: Our research suggests that supervised exercise may be effective in improving patient’s pain and disability after lumbar surgery, but RCTs regarding lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar spondylolisthesis are still scarce, with significant heterogeneity of proposed interventions.

Background: Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is the most prevalent autoimmune neurological condition in the world, leading to a wide variety of symptoms, including balance disorders. Objective: To evaluate the angular vestibulo–ocular reflex (aVOR) of all six semicircular canals (SCCs) through Head Impulse (HIMP) and Suppression HIMP (SHIMP) paradigms and any correlations with clinical balance scales. Methods: All participants were assessed using the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and Mini-BESTest (MBT). Vestibular function was measured by video Head Impulse Test (vHIT), obtaining aVOR gain for each SSC. Results: Twenty-seven PwMS (mean age 47.93 ± 8.51 years old, 18 females) were recruited. Most of the patients (81.48%) presented abnormal aVOR gains for at least one SSC. A moderate to strong correlation between aVOR gains of the left anterior SSC and, respectively, the MBT and the BBS was found. The subgroup analysis, based on the EDSS class, confirmed the correlation with the BBS in the patients with the most significant disability. Conclusions: People with MS may present impairments of the aVOR in one or more semicircular canals. The aVOR gain impairment of the vertical semicircular canals correlates with balance and gait disorders identified through clinical scales in PwMS.

Introduction An increasing growth of systematic reviews (SRs) presents notable challenges for decision-makers seeking to answer clinical questions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad to assess discordance in results across SRs on the same question. Our study aims to (1) replicate assessments done in a sample of studies using the Jadad algorithm to determine if the same SR would have been chosen, (2) evaluate the Jadad algorithm in terms of utility, efficiency and comprehensiveness, and (3) describe how authors address discordance in results across multiple SRs. Methods and analysis We will use a database of 1218 overviews (2000–2020) created from a bibliometric study as the basis of our search for studies assessing discordance (called discordant reviews). This bibliometric study searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for overviews. We will include any study using Jadad (1997) or another method to assess discordance. The first 30 studies screened at the full-text stage by two independent reviewers will be included. We will replicate the authors’ Jadad assessments. We will compare our outcomes qualitatively and evaluate the differences between our Jadad assessment of discordance and the authors’ assessment. Ethics and dissemination No ethics approval was required as no human subjects were involved. In addition to publishing in an open-access journal, we will disseminate evidence summaries through formal and informal conferences, academic websites, and across social media platforms. This is the first study to comprehensively evaluate and replicate Jadad algorithm assessments of discordance across multiple SRs.

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) are being published at an accelerated rate. Decision-makers may struggle with comparing and choosing between multiple SRs on the same topic. We aimed to understand how healthcare decision-makers (eg, practitioners, policymakers, researchers) use SRs to inform decision-making and to explore the potential role of a proposed artificial intelligence (AI) tool to assist in critical appraisal and choosing among SRs. Methods We developed a survey with 21 open and closed questions. We followed a knowledge translation plan to disseminate the survey through social media and professional networks. Results Our survey response rate was lower than expected (7.9% of distributed emails). Of the 684 respondents, 58.2% identified as researchers, 37.1% as practitioners, 19.2% as students and 13.5% as policymakers. Respondents frequently sought out SRs (97.1%) as a source of evidence to inform decision-making. They frequently (97.9%) found more than one SR on a given topic of interest to them. Just over half (50.8%) struggled to choose the most trustworthy SR among multiple. These difficulties related to lack of time (55.2%), or difficulties comparing due to varying methodological quality of SRs (54.2%), differences in results and conclusions (49.7%) or variation in the included studies (44.6%). Respondents compared SRs based on the relevance to their question of interest, methodological quality, and recency of the SR search. Most respondents (87.0%) were interested in an AI tool to help appraise and compare SRs. Conclusions Given the identified barriers of using SR evidence, an AI tool to facilitate comparison of the relevance of SRs, the search and methodological quality, could help users efficiently choose among SRs and make healthcare decisions.

Background/Objectives: Vestibular rehabilitation, an evidence-based physical therapy approach, plays a crucial role in managing and recovering from gaze and balance disorders, including those of central origin. This study, targeted at the community of Italian healthcare practitioners, is vital in understanding the application of vestibular rehabilitation in neurological disorders and in identifying knowledge gaps, barriers, and future directions. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study directed at healthcare professionals involved in neurorehabilitation in Italy. The survey consisted of 29 items grouped in 4 sections, which was estimated to take approximately 10 min to complete. The questions covered socio-demographic information, professional information, clinical practice, and future perspectives on vestibular rehabilitation. Results: Out of the 435 respondents, 290 completed the survey. Most of the respondents reported either no (32.87%) or little (42.91%) experience in vestibular rehabilitation. However, most participants (72.98%) recognized the importance of vestibular rehabilitation in treating neurological disorders. The most common condition treated was stroke (46.39%), while balance training (52.69%) and visual input exercises (26.35%) were the two most frequently used strategies. The main barriers to implementing vestibular rehabilitation in clinical practice were equipment cost and insufficient skills. Conclusions: Vestibular physical therapy is a promising complementary approach in neurorehabilitation. However, the study reveals a perceived lack of basic training in vestibular assessment and therapy. This suggests that more efforts are needed to bridge this knowledge gap and make necessary equipment more accessible.