Objectives To evaluate the most up-to-date burden of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and spinal cord injury (SCI) and analyse their leading causes in different countries/territories. Design An analysis of Global Burden of Disease (GBD) data. Setting The epidemiological data were gathered from GBD Results Tool (1 January, 1990─31 December 2019) covering 21 GBD regions and 204 countries/ territories. Participants Patients with TBI/SCI. Main outcomes and measures Absolute numbers and age-standardised rates/estimates of incidence, prevalence and years lived with disability (YLDs) of TBI/SCI by location in 2019, with their percentage changes from 1990 to 2019. The leading causes (eg, falls) of TBI/SCI in 204 countries/territories. Results Globally, in 2019, TBI had 27.16 million new cases, 48.99 million prevalent cases and 7.08 million YLDs. SCI had 0.91 million new cases, 20.64 million prevalent cases and 6.20 million YLDs. Global age-standardised incidence rates of TBI decreased significantly by −5.5% (95% uncertainty interval −8.9% to −3.0%) from 1990 to 2019, whereas SCI had no significant change (−6.1% (−17.3% to 1.5%)). Regionally, in 2019, Eastern Europe and High-income North America had the highest burden of TBI and SCI, respectively. Nationally, in 2019, Slovenia and Afghanistan had the highest age-standardised incidence rates of TBI and SCI, respectively. For TBI, falls were the leading cause in 74% (150/204) of countries/territories, followed by pedestrian road injuries (14%, 29/204), motor vehicle road injuries (5%, 11/204), and conflict and terrorism (2%, 4/204). For SCI, falls were the leading cause in 97% (198/204) of countries/territories, followed by conflict and terrorism (3%, 6/204). Conclusions Global age-standardised incidence rates of TBI have decreased significantly since 1990, whereas SCI had no significant change. The leading causes of TBI/SCI globally were falls, but variations did exist between countries/territories. Policy-makers should continue to prioritise interventions to reduce falls, but priorities may vary between countries/territories.

Objective To determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of psychological interventions for chronic low back pain. Design Systematic review with network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and CINAHL from database inception to 31 January 2021. Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions with any comparison intervention in adults with chronic, non-specific low back pain. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and confidence in the evidence. Primary outcomes were physical function and pain intensity. A random effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach was performed at post-intervention (from the end of treatment to <2 months post-intervention); and at short term (≥2 to <6 months post-intervention), mid-term (≥6 to <12 months post-intervention), and long term follow-up (≥12 months post-intervention). Physiotherapy care was the reference comparison intervention. The design-by-treatment interaction model was used to assess global inconsistency and the Bucher method was used to assess local inconsistency. Results 97 randomised controlled trials involving 13 136 participants and 17 treatment nodes were included. Inconsistency was detected at short term and mid-term follow-up for physical function, and short term follow-up for pain intensity, and were resolved through sensitivity analyses. For physical function, cognitive behavioural therapy (standardised mean difference 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.44), and pain education (0.62, 0.08 to 1.17), delivered with physiotherapy care, resulted in clinically important improvements at post-intervention (moderate quality evidence). The most sustainable effects of treatment for improving physical function were reported with pain education delivered with physiotherapy care, at least until mid-term follow-up (0.63, 0.25 to 1.00; low quality evidence). No studies investigated the long term effectiveness of pain education delivered with physiotherapy care. For pain intensity, behavioural therapy (1.08, 0.22 to 1.94), cognitive behavioural therapy (0.92, 0.43 to 1.42), and pain education (0.91, 0.37 to 1.45), delivered with physiotherapy care, resulted in clinically important effects at post-intervention (low to moderate quality evidence). Only behavioural therapy delivered with physiotherapy care maintained clinically important effects on reducing pain intensity until mid-term follow-up (1.01, 0.41 to 1.60; high quality evidence). Conclusions For people with chronic, non-specific low back pain, psychological interventions are most effective when delivered in conjunction with physiotherapy care (mainly structured exercise). Pain education programmes (low to moderate quality evidence) and behavioural therapy (low to high quality evidence) result in the most sustainable effects of treatment; however, uncertainty remains as to their long term effectiveness. Although inconsistency was detected, potential sources were identified and resolved. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019138074.

Overview of clinical prediction models