Objective To assess the effectiveness of interventions for acute and subacute non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP) based on pain and disability outcomes. Design A systematic review of the literature with network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception until 17 October 2020. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving adults with NS-LBP who experienced pain for less than 6 weeks (acute) or between 6 and 12 weeks (subacute). Results Forty-six RCTs (n=8765) were included; risk of bias was low in 9 trials (19.6%), unclear in 20 (43.5%), and high in 17 (36.9%). At immediate-term follow-up, for pain decrease, the most efficacious treatments against an inert therapy were: exercise (standardised mean difference (SMD) −1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) −2.41 to –0.40), heat wrap (SMD −1.38; 95% CI −2.60 to –0.17), opioids (SMD −0.86; 95% CI −1.62 to –0.10), manual therapy (SMD −0.72; 95% CI −1.40 to –0.04) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (SMD −0.53; 95% CI −0.97 to –0.09). Similar findings were confirmed for disability reduction in non-pharmacological and pharmacological networks, including muscle relaxants (SMD -0.24; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.04). Mild or moderate adverse events were reported in the opioids (65.7%), NSAIDs (54.3%) and steroids (46.9%) trial arms. Conclusion With uncertainty of evidence, NS-LBP should be managed with non-pharmacological treatments which seem to mitigate pain and disability at immediate-term. Among pharmacological interventions, NSAIDs and muscle relaxants appear to offer the best harm–benefit balance.

Background: Several systematic reviews (SRs), with and without meta-analyses, have investigated the use of wearable devices to improve physical activity, and there is a need for frequent and updated syntheses on the topic. Objective: We aimed to evaluate whether using wearable devices increased physical activity and reduced sedentary behaviour in adults. Methods: We conducted an umbrella review searching PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library, MedRxiv, Rxiv and bioRxiv databases up to February 5th, 2023. We included all SRs that evaluated the efficacy of interventions when wearable devices were used to measure physical activity in adults aged over 18 years. The primary outcomes were physical activity and sedentary behaviour measured as the number of steps per day, minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per week, and minutes of sedentary behaviour (SB) per day. We assessed the methodological quality of each SR using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR 2) and the certainty of evidence of each outcome measure using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations). We interpreted the results using a decision-making framework examining the clinical relevance and the concordances or discordances of the SR effect size. Results: Fifty-one SRs were included, of which 38 included meta-analyses (302 unique primary studies). Of the included SRs, 72.5% were rated as ‘critically low methodological quality’. Overall, with a slight overlap of primary studies (corrected cover area: 3.87% for steps per day, 3.12% for MVPA, 4.06% for SB) and low-to-moderate certainty of the evidence, the use of WDs may increase PA by a median of 1,312.23 (IQR 627–1854) steps per day and 57.8 (IQR 37.7 to 107.3) minutes per week of MVPA. Uncertainty is present for PA in pathologies and older adults subgroups and for SB in mixed and older adults subgroups (large confidence intervals). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the use of WDs may increase physical activity in middle-aged adults. Further studies are needed to investigate the effects of using WDs on specific subgroups (such as pathologies and older adults) in different follow-up lengths, and the role of other intervention components.

Virtual reality (VR) is an innovative neurorehabilitation modality that has been variously examined in systematic reviews. We assessed VR effectiveness and safety after cerebral stroke. In this overview of systematic reviews, we searched eleven databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, ISI Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Pedro, Otseeker, Healthevidence.org, Epistemonikos) and grey literature from inception to January 17, 2023. Studies eligible for inclusion were systematic reviews published in English that included adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of stroke (acute to chronic phase) undergoing any kind of immersive, semi-immersive or non-immersive VR intervention with or without conventional therapy versus conventional therapy alone. The primary outcome was motor upper limb function and activity. The secondary outcomes were gait and balance, cognitive and mental function, limitation of activities, participation, and adverse events. We calculated the degree of overlap between reviews based on the corrected covered area (CCA). Methodological quality was assessed using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) and the Certainty of Evidence (CoE) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Discordances between results were examined using a conceptual framework based on the Jadad algorithm. This overview is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022329263. Of the 58 reviews included (n = 345 unique primary studies), 42 (72.4%) had conducted meta-analysis. More than half of the reviews (58.6%) were published between 2020 and 2022 and many (77.6%) were judged critically low in quality by AMSTAR 2. Most reported the Fugl Meyer Assessment scale (FMA-UE) to measure upper limb function and activity. For the primary outcome, there was a moderate overlap of primary studies (CCA 9.0%) with discordant findings. Focusing on upper limb function (FMA-UE), VR with or without conventional therapy seems to be more effective than conventional therapy alone, with low to moderate CoE and probable to definite clinical relevance. For secondary outcomes there was uncertainty about the superiority or no difference between groups due to substantial heterogeneity of measurement scales (eg, methodological choices). A few reviews (n = 6) reported the occurrence of mild adverse events. Current evidence suggests that multiple meta-analyses agreed on the superiority of VR with or without conventional therapy over conventional therapy on FME-UE for upper limb. Clinicians may consider embedding VR technologies into their practice as appropriate with patient's goals, abilities, and preferences. However, caution is needed given the poor methodological quality of reviews. 10.13039/501100003196 Italian Ministry of Health .

Which is the most effective conservative intervention for patients with non-specific chronic neck pain (CNSNP)? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Adults with CNSNP of at least 3 months duration. All available pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. The secondary outcome was adverse events. Overall, 119 RCTs (12,496 patients; 32 interventions) were included. Risk of bias was low in 50.4% of trials, unclear in 22.7% and high in 26.9%. Compared with inert treatment, a combination of active and/or passive multimodal non-pharmacological inventions (eg, exercise and manual therapy) were effective for pain on a 0-to-10 scale at 1 month (MD range 0.84 to 3.74) and at 3 to 6 months (MD range 1.06 to 1.49), and effective on disability on a 0-to-100 scale at 1 month (MD range 10.26 to 14.09) and 3 to 6 months (MD range 5.60 to 16.46). These effects ranged from possible to definite clinical relevance. Compared with inert treatment, anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with another non-pharmacological treatment did not reduce pain at 1 month or 3 to 6 months. At 12 months, no superiority was found over inert treatment on both outcomes. Most mild adverse events were experienced following acupuncture/dry needling intervention. On average, the evidence varied from low to very low certainty. While multimodal non-pharmacological interventions may reduce pain and disability for up to 3 to 6 months of follow-up when compared with inert treatment, the evidence was very uncertain about their effects. Better quality and larger trials are needed to improve the certainty of evidence. PROSPERO CRD42019124501.

Background: Several systematic reviews (SRs) assessing the use of telemedicine for musculoskeletal conditions have been published in recent years. However, the landscape of evidence on multiple clinical outcomes remains unclear. Objective: We aimed to summarize the available evidence from SRs on telemedicine for musculoskeletal disorders. Methods: We conducted an umbrella review of SRs with and without meta-analysis by searching PubMed and EMBASE up to July 25, 2022, for SRs of randomized controlled trials assessing telemedicine. We collected any kind of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), and objective measures, including direct and indirect costs. We assessed the methodological quality with the AMSTAR 2 tool (A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2). Findings were reported qualitatively. Results: Overall, 35 SRs published between 2015 and 2022 were included. Most reviews (n=24, 69%) were rated as critically low quality by AMSTAR 2. The majority of reviews assessed “telerehabilitation” (n=29) in patients with osteoarthritis (n=13) using PROMs (n=142 outcomes mapped with n=60 meta-analyses). A substantive body of evidence from meta-analyses found telemedicine to be beneficial or equal in terms of PROMs compared to conventional care (n=57 meta-analyses). Meta-analyses showed no differences between groups in PREMs (n=4), while objectives measures (ie, “physical function”) were mainly in favor of telemedicine or showed no difference (9/13). All SRs showed notably lower costs for telemedicine compared to in-person visits. Conclusions: Telemedicine can provide more accessible health care with noninferior results for various clinical outcomes in comparison with conventional care. The assessment of telemedicine is largely represented by PROMs, with some gaps for PREMs, objective measures, and costs. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022347366; https://osf.io/pxedm/

To analyze the reporting characteristics of Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II appraisals in rehabilitation and explore how much quality ratings of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) vary applying different cut-offs. We conducted a methodological study re-analyzing data of an overview of AGREE II CPG appraisals in rehabilitation. Reporting characteristics of appraisals and methods used for quality rating were abstracted. We applied the most frequent cut-offs retrieved on all CPG sample to explore changes in quality ratings (i.e., high/low). We included 40 appraisals (n = 544 CPGs).The AGREE II overall assessment 1 (overall CPG quality) was reported in 26 appraisals (65%) and the overall assessment 2 (recommendation for use) in 17 (42.5%). Twenty-five appraisals (62.5%) reported the use of cut-offs based on domains and/or overall assessments. Application of the most reported cut-offs led to variability in quality ratings in 26% of the CPGs, of which 92% CPGs shifted their rating from low to high-quality and 8% shifted from high to low-quality. Rehabilitation stakeholders should take care to select the highest quality CPG in view of the poor reporting of AGREE II overall assessment 1 and 2 and moderate variability of quality ratings.