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.

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.

To explore the relationships between the risk of bias and treatment effect estimates for exercise therapy interventions on pain intensity and physical functioning outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with chronic low back pain. Cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study. The 230 RCTs (31,674 participants) in the 2021 'Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain' Cochrane Review were included. Study design characteristics, sample size, prospective trial registration, flowchart information, interventions and comparisons were extracted. Independent pairs of reviewers assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. The meta-regression included 220 (pain intensity) and 203 (physical functioning) effect sizes. Unadjusted and adjusted meta-regression models showed no significant associations between the bias domains and pain intensity effect sizes. Only domain 'bias in the measurement of the outcome' was significantly associated with physical functioning (standardised mean difference: -0.40, 95% confidence interval: -0.77 to -0.02) when adjusted for flowchart reported (yes/no), prospective trial registration, sample size, and comparator type. The risk of bias in the measurement of the outcome could lead to slight overestimates of the effect size for physical functioning. Clinicians should consider this when they read and assess RCT results in this field. We encourage meta-researchers to replicate our findings using a consistent approach for evaluating the risk of bias (i.e. the RoB 2 tool) in other musculoskeletal conditions and interventions to investigate their generalisability.

To develop a screening tool for pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) in female athletes for use by sports medicine clinicians (eg, musculoskeletal/sports physiotherapists, sports and exercise medicine physicians), which guides referral to a PFD specialist (eg, pelvic floor/women’s health physiotherapist, gynaecologist, urogynaecologist, urologist).Between February and April 2022, an international two-round modified Delphi study was conducted to assess expert opinion on which symptoms, risk factors and clinical and sports-related characteristics (items) should be included in a screening tool. We defined consensus a priori as >67% response agreement to pass each round.41 and 34 experts participated in rounds 1 and 2, respectively. Overall, seven general statements were endorsed as relevant by most participants highlighting the importance of screening for PFD in female athletes. Through consensus, the panel developed the Pelvic Floor Dysfunction-ScrEeNing Tool IN fEmale athLetes (PFD-SENTINEL) and agreed to a cluster of PFD symptoms (n=5) and items (risk factors, clinical and sports-related characteristics; n=28) that should prompt specialist care. A clinical algorithm was also created: a direct referral is recommended when at least one symptom or 14 items are reported. If these thresholds are not reached, continuous monitoring of the athlete’s health is indicated.Despite increasing awareness and clinical relevance, barriers to identify PFD in female athletes are still present. The PFD-SENTINEL is a new resource for sports medicine clinicians who regularly assess female athletes and represents the first step towards early PFD identification and management. Further studies to validate the tool are needed.