Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus is associated with psychological/emotional disturbances. This study aimed to assess internal consistency, reliability, and construct validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depressive Scale (HADS), as a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for evaluating emotional consequences of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized COVID-19 survivors with long COVID. The LONG-COVID-EXP-CM is a multicenter cohort study including patients hospitalized by COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic in five hospitals in Madrid. A total of 1969 (age: 61 ± 16 years, 46.5% women) COVID-19 survivors experiencing post-COVID symptoms a mean of 8.4 ± 1.5 months after hospital discharge completed HADS. Internal consistency (Cronbach α), reliability (item-internal consistency, item-discriminant validity), construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis), and floor effect and ceiling effect were calculated. The mean time for fulfilling HADS was 65 ± 12 s. A ceiling effect ranging from 1.99% to 13.74% and a floor effect ranging from 43.05% to 77.77% was observed. Based on the item-scale correlation coefficients, the Cronbach’s alpha values reflecting the internal consistency reliability were 0.890 for the anxiety scale (HADS-A) and 0.856 for the depressive scale (HADS-D) The correlation coefficient between HADS-A and HADS-D scores was excellent (r: 0.878). The confirmatory factor analysis revealed that five out of the seven fitness indexes were excellent: CFI = 0.969, NNFI = 0.963; TLI = 0.963; AGFI = 0.951; GFI = 0.972), supporting good construct validity. In conclusion, this study indicates that both anxiety and depressive symptoms scales of HADS had overall good psychometric properties to be used for assessing psychological and emotional stress in COVID-19 survivors with long COVID.

Headache is the clinical syndrome most commonly observed by neurologists in daily practice. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are commonly used for the management of headaches; however, the clinical reasoning behind these interventions is not properly applied. We conducted a narrative literature review using as data sources for academic PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, EBSCO, PEDro, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Collaboration Trials Register, and SCOPUS. This narrative literature review mainly considered systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomised clinical trials, and expert opinions published after the year 2000 discussing clinical reasoning for application of non-pharmacological interventions in individuals with tension-type, migraine, and cervicogenic headaches. After the data extraction, we organized the literature thematically as follows: (1) mapping of theoretical aspects of non-pharmacological interventions; (2) summarizing most updated literature about effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions grouped by targeted tissue and headache; (3) identifying research gaps in the existing literature and proposing hypotheses for better understanding of current clinical reasoning. We found that there are many non-pharmacological treatment strategies used for headaches, including beyond the tissue-based impairment treatments (bottom-up) and strategies targeting the central nervous system (top down). Bottom-up strategies include joint-biased, soft-tissue biased, or needling interventions, whereas top-down strategies include exercise and cognitive interventions. Evidence shows that the effectiveness of these interventions depends on the application of proper clinical reasoning, since not all strategies are effective for all headaches. For instance, evidence of non-pharmacological interventions is more controversial for migraines than for tension-type or cervicogenic headaches, since migraine pathogenesis involves activation of sub-cortical structures and the trigemino- vascular system, whereas pathogenesis of tension-type or cervicogenic headaches is most associated to musculoskeletal impairments of the cervical spine. We conclude that current literature suggests that not all non-pharmacological interventions are effective for all headaches, and that multimodal, not isolated, approaches seem to be more effective for patients with headaches. Most published studies have reported small clinical effects in the short term. This narrative literature review provides some hypotheses for discrepancies in the available literature and future research. Clinical reasoning should be applied to better understand the effects of non-pharmacological interventions.

Rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI) is used by physical therapists as a feedback tool for measuring changes in muscle morphology during therapeutic interventions such as motor control exercises (MCE). However, a structured overview of its efficacy is lacking. We aimed to systematically review the efficacy of RUSI for improving MCE programs compared with no feedback and other feedback methods. MEDLINE, PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases were searched for studies evaluating efficacy data of RUSI to improve muscular morphology, quality, and/or function of skeletal muscles and MCE success. Eleven studies analyzing RUSI feedback during MCE were included. Most studies showed acceptable methodological quality. Seven studies assessed abdominal wall muscles, one assessed pelvic floor muscles, one serratus anterior muscle, and two lumbar multifidi. Eight studies involved healthy subjects and three studies clinical populations. Eight studies assessed muscle thickness and pressure differences during MCE, two assessed the number of trials needed to successfully perform MCE, three assessed the retain success, seven assessed the muscle activity with electromyography and one assessed clinical severity outcomes. Visual RUSI feedback seems to be more effective than tactile and/or verbal biofeedback for improving MCE performance and retention success, but no differences with pressure unit biofeedback were found.

Objective. To evaluate the effects of combining dry needling with other physical therapy interventions versus the application of the other interventions or dry needling alone applied over trigger points (TrPs) associated to neck pain. Databases and Data Treatment. Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials where at least one group received dry needling combined with other interventions for TrPs associated with neck pain. Outcomes included pain intensity, pain-related disability, pressure pain thresholds, and cervical range of motion. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, methodological quality was assessed with PEDro score, and the quality of evidence was assessed by using the GRADE approach. Between-groups mean differences (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were calculated. Results. Eight trials were included. Dry needling combined with other interventions reduced pain intensity at short-term (SMD 1.46, 95 CI 2.25 to 0.67) and midterm (SMD 0.38, 95 CI 0.74 to 0.03) but not immediately after or at long-term compared with the other interventions alone. A small effect on pain-related disability was observed at short-term (SMD 0.45, 95 CI 0.87 to 0.03) but not at midterm or long-term. The inclusion of dry needling was also effective for improving pressure pain thresholds only at short-term (MD 112.02kPa, 95 CI 27.99 to 196.06). No significant effects on cervical range of motion or pain catastrophism were observed. Conclusion. Low-to-moderate evidence suggests a positive effect to the combination of dry needling with other interventions for improving pain intensity, pain-related disability, pressure pain thresholds, and cervical range of motion in people with neck pain associated with TrPs at short-term. No midterm or long-term effects were observed.

Percutaneous electrolysis is an emerging intervention proposed for the management of tendinopathies. Tendon pathology is characterized by a significant cell response to injury and gene expression. No study investigating changes in expression of those genes associated with collagen regeneration and remodeling of extracellular matrix has been conducted. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate gene expression changes after the application of percutaneous electrolysis on experimentally induced Achilles tendinopathy with collagenase injection in an animal model. Fifteen Sprague Dawley male rats were randomly divided into three different groups (no treatment vs. percutaneous electrolysis vs. needling). Achilles tendinopathy was experimentally induced with a single bolus of collagenase injection. Interventions consisted of 3 sessions (one per week) of percutaneous electrolysis or just needling. The rats were euthanized, and molecular expression of genes involved in tendon repair and remodeling, e.g., Cox2, Mmp2, Mmp9, Col1a1, Col3a1, Vegf and Scx, was examined at 28 days after injury. Histological tissue changes were determined with hematoxylin–eosin and safranin O analyses. The images of hematoxylin–eosin and Safranin O tissue images revealed that collagenase injection induced histological changes compatible with a tendinopathy. No further histological changes were observed after the application of percutaneous electrolysis or needling. A significant increase in molecular expression of Cox2, Mmp9 and Vegf genes was observed in Achilles tendons treated with percutaneous electrolysis to a greater extent than after just needling. The expression of Mmp2, Col1a1, Col3a1, or Scx genes also increased, but did not reach statistical significance. This animal study demonstrated that percutaneous electrolysis applied on an experimentally induced Achilles tendinopathy model could increase the expression of some genes associated with collagen regeneration and remodeling of extracellular matrix. The observed gene overexpression was higher with percutaneous electrolysis than with just needling.

To compare the clinical effects of needling interventions eliciting local twitch responses (LTRs) versus needling without eliciting LTRs when applied to muscle trigger points (TrPs) associated with spinal pain of musculoskeletal origin. Electronic databases were searched for randomized or non-randomized clinical trials where one group received needling intervention where LTRs were elicited and was compared with another group receiving the same intervention without elicitation of LTRs in spinal pain disorders associated with TrPs. Outcomes included pain intensity, pain-related disability, and pressure pain thresholds. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool or ROBINS-I tool, methodological quality was assessed with the PEDro score, and quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Six trials were included. The application of a needling intervention eliciting LTRs was associated with a significant reduction in pain intensity immediately after treatment (mean difference (MD): −2.03 points, 95% confidence interval (CI): −3.77 to −0.29; standardized MD (SMD): −1.35, 95% CI: −2.32 to −0.38, p = 0.02) when compared to the same needling intervention without elicitation of LTRs. No effect at short-term follow-up (MD: −0.20 points, 95% CI: −1.46 to 1.06, p = 0.75) was observed. No significant differences based on elicitation or non-elicitation of LTRs were found in related disability (SMD: −0.05, 95% CI: −0.41 to 0.30, p = 0.77) or pressure pain thresholds (MD: 23.39 kPa, 95% CI: −13.68 to 60.47, p = 0.22). Low-level evidence suggests an immediate effect of obtaining LTRs during needling interventions on pain intensity, with no significant effects on related disability or pressure pain sensitivity in spinal pain disorders associated with muscle TrPs. OSF Registry—https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5ZX9N