Red Flags (RFs) are signs and symptoms related to the screening of serious underlying pathologies mimicking a musculoskeletal pain. The current literature wonders about the usefulness of RFs, due t...

Background: During COVID-19 pandemic, physiotherapy lecturers faced the challenge of rapidly shifting from face-to-face to online education. This retrospective case-control study aims to compare students’ satisfaction and performances shown in an online course to a control group of students who underwent the same course delivered face-to-face in the previous five years. Methods: Between March and April 2020, a class (n = 46) of entry-level physiotherapy students (University of Verona - Italy), trained by an experienced physiotherapist, had 24-hours online lessons. Students exposed to the same course in the previous five academic years (n = 112), delivered with face-to-face conventional lessons, served as a historical control. The course was organized in 3 sequential phases: (1) PowerPoint presentations were uploaded to the University online platform, (2) asynchronous video recorded lectures were provided on the same platform, and (3) between online lectures, the lecturer and students could communicate through an email chat to promote understanding, dispel any doubts and collect requests for supplementary material (e.g., scientific articles, videos, webinars, podcasts). Outcomes were: (1) satisfaction as routinely measured by University with a national instrument and populated in a database; (2) performance as measured with an oral examination. Results: We compared satisfaction with the course, expressed on a 5-point Likert scale, resulting in no differences between online and face-to-face teaching (Kruskal-Wallis ² = 0.24, df = 1, p = 0.62). We weighted up students’ results by comparing their mean performances with the mean performances of the same course delivered face-to-face in the previous five years, founding a statistical significance in favour of online teaching (Wilcoxon rank sum test W = 1665, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Online teaching in entry-level Physiotherapy seems to be a feasible option to face COVID-19 pandemic, as satisfies students as well as face-to-face courses and leading to a similar performance. Entry-level Bachelors in Physiotherapy may consider moving to eLearning to facilitate access to higher education. Universities will have to train lecturers to help them develop appropriate pedagogical skills, and supply suitable support in terms of economic, organizational, and technological issues, aimed at guaranteeing a high level of education to their students. Trial registration: Retrospectively registered.

Background: Running is one of the most popular sports worldwide. Despite low back pain (LBP) represents the most common musculoskeletal disorder in population and in sports, there is currently sparse evidence about prevalence, incidence and risk factors for LBP among runners. The aims of this systematic review were to investigate among runners: prevalence and incidence of LBP and specific risk factors for the onset of LBP. Methods: A systematic review has been conducted according to the guidelines of the PRISMA statement. The research was conducted in the following databases from their inception to 31st of July 2019: PubMed; CINAHL; Google Scholar; Ovid; PsycINFO; PSYNDEX; Embase; SPORTDiscus; Scientific Electronic Library Online; Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The checklists of The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools were used to investigate the risk of bias of the included studies. Results: Nineteen studies were included and the interrater agreement for full-text selection was good (K = 0.78; 0.61–0.80 IC 95%). Overall, low values of prevalence (0.7–20.2%) and incidence (0.3–22%) of LBP among runners were reported. Most reported risk factors were: running for more than 6 years; body mass index > 24; higher physical height; not performing traditional aerobics activity weekly; restricted range of motion of hip flexion; difference between leg-length; poor hamstrings and back flexibility. Conclusions: Prevalence and incidence of LBP among runners are low compared to the others running related injuries and to general, or specific population of athletes. View the low level of incidence and prevalence of LBP, running could be interpreted as a protective factor against the onset of LBP. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018102001.

Exercise is one of the main rehabilitative interventions, commonly used to improve performance and motor learning. During the application of attentional focus strategies, External Focus of Attention (EFA) aiming at the movement effect has been reported to have more efficacy than Internal Focus of Attention (IFA) aiming at movement characteristics in healthy subjects. There are not many studies that compare the EFA and IFA instructions in people with Musculoskeletal (MSK) and Central Nervous System disorders (CNS). The purpose of this systematic review is to determine if IFA or EFA, in patients with CNS or MSK, may improve performance and have some effects on motor learning. Databases used for research: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PEDro, PsycINFO, SCOPUS. Inclusion criteria: Randomized Controlled Trial, quasi-Randomized Controlled Trial, enrolled subjects with CNS or with MSK and compared the efficacy of EFA and IFA. The studies suggest that the EFA is better than IFA in affecting the movement execution in patients with MSK, while conflicted findings emerge in presence of CNS disorders. Studies included in the qualitative analysis showed heterogeneous methodological features in study design and conductance, so results must be interpreted with caution.

Background. Direct access in physiotherapy (DAPT) occurs when a patient has the ability to self-refer to physical therapy without physician referral. This model of care in musculoskeletal diseases (MSDs) has shown better outcomes than the traditional-based medical model of care that requires physician referral to access physiotherapist services. This traditional physician referral often results in a delay in care. Unfortunately, DAPT is still not permitted in many countries. Objectives. The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness, safety, and the accuracy of DAPT compared to the physician-led model of care for the management of patients with musculoskeletal disorders. The secondary objective of the present study is to define the physiotherapists’ characteristics or qualifications involved in DAPT. Materials and methods. Databases searched included: Medline, Scopus and Web of Science. Databases were searched from their inception to July 2022. Research strings were developed according to the PICO model of clinical questions (patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome). Free terms or synonyms (e.g., physical therapy; primary health care; direct access; musculoskeletal disease; cost-effectiveness) and when possible MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms were used and combined with Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT). Risk of bias assessment was carried out through Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB-2) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies. Authors conducted a qualitative analysis of the results through narrative analysis and narrative synthesis. The narrative analysis was provided for an extraction of the key concepts and common meanings of the different studies, while the summary narrative provided a textual combination of data. In addition, a quantitative analysis was conducted comparing the analysis of the mean and differences between the means. Results. Twenty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Results show that DAPT had a high referral accuracy and a reduction in the rate of return visits. The medical model had a higher use of imaging, drugs, and referral to another specialist. DAPT was found to be more cost-effective than the medical model. DAPT resulted in better work-related outcomes and was superior when considering patient satisfaction. There were no adverse events noted in any of the studies. In regard to health outcomes, there was no difference between models. ROB-2 shows an intermediate risk of bias risk for the RCTs with an average of 6/9 points for the NOS scale for observational studies. Conclusion. DAPT is a safe, less expensive, reliable triage and management model of care that results in higher levels of satisfaction for patients compared to the traditional medical model. Prospero Registration Number: CRD42022349261.