Hypermobility and musculoskeletal pain in children:a systematic review

Objective: To examine the evidence of an association between hypermobility and musculoskeletal pain in children. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed using the databases PubMed, EMBASE, NHS Evidence, and Medline. Inclusion criteria were observational studies investigating hypermobility and musculoskeletal pain in children. Exclusion criteria were studies conducted on specialist groups (i.e. dancers) or hospital referrals. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using random effects models and heterogeneity was tested using ?(2)-tests. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for case-control studies. Results: Of the 80 studies identified, 15 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Of these, 13 were included in the statistical analyses. Analysing the data showed that the heterogeneity was too high to allow for interpretation of the meta-analysis (I(2) = 72%). Heterogeneity was much lower when the studies were divided into European (I(2) = 8%) and Afro-Asian subgroups (I(2) = 65%). Sensitivity analysis based on data from studies reporting from European and Afro-Asian regions showed no association in the European studies [OR 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.26] but a marked relationship between hypermobility and joint pain in the Afro-Asian group (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.45-2.77). Meta-regression showed a highly significant difference between subgroups in both meta-analyses (p <0.001). Conclusion: There seems to be no association between hypermobility and joint pain in Europeans. There does seem to be an association in Afro-Asians; however, there was a high heterogeneity. It is unclear whether this is due to differences in ethnicity, nourishment, climate or study design.

A systematic review of interventions aimed at increasing physical activity in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain-protocol

Background: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is highly prevalent, affecting around one in five people across Europe. Osteoarthritis, low back pain, neck pain and other musculoskeletal disorders are leading causes of disability
worldwide and the most common source of chronic pain. Exercise and/or physical activity interventions have the potential to address not only the pain and disability associated with chronic pain but also the increased risk of morbidity and mortality seen in this population. Although exercise and/or physical activity is widely recommended, there is currently a paucity of research that offers an evidence base upon which the development or optimisation of interventions can be based. This systematic review will investigate the components of interventions associated with changes in physical activity levels in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Methods/Design: This systematic review will be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidance. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of interventions aimed at increasing physical activity in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain will be included. Articles will be identified through a comprehensive search of the following databases: CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED. Two review authors will independently screen articles retrieved from the search for eligibility, extract relevant data on methodological issues and code interventions according to the behaviour change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques. As complex healthcare interventions can be modified by a wide variety of factors, data will be summarised statistically when the data are available, are sufficiently similar and are of sufficient quality. A narrative synthesis will be completed if there is insufficient data to permit a formal meta-analysis.

Discussion: This review will be of value to clinicians working in chronic pain services and to researchers involved in designing and evaluating interventions.

Walking Exercise for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: To systematically review the evidence examining effects of walking interventions on pain and self-reported function in individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain.
Data Sources: Six electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, PEDro, Sport Discus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched from January 1980 up to March 2014.
Study Selection: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials in adults with chronic low back pain, osteoarthritis or fibromyalgia comparing walking interventions to a non-exercise or non-walking exercise control group.
Data Extraction: Data were independently extracted using a standardized form. Methodological quality was assessed using the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) system.
Data Synthesis: Twenty-six studies (2384 participants) were included and suitable data from 17 were pooled for meta-analysis with a random effects model used to calculate between group mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Data were analyzed according to length of follow-up (short-term: ≤8 weeks post randomization; medium-term: >2 months - 12 months; long-term: > 12 months). Interventions were associated with small to moderate improvements in pain at short (mean difference (MD) -5.31, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -8.06 to -2.56) and medium-term follow-up (MD -7.92, 95% CI -12.37 to -3.48). Improvements in function were observed at short (MD -6.47, 95% CI -12.00 to -0.95), medium (MD -9.31, 95% CI -14.00 to -4.61) and long-term follow-up (MD -5.22, 95% CI 7.21 to -3.23).
Conclusions: Evidence of fair methodological quality suggests that walking is associated with significant improvements in outcome compared to control interventions but longer-term effectiveness is uncertain. Using the USPSTF system, walking can be recommended as an effective form of exercise or activity for individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain but should be supplemented with strategies aimed at maintaining participation. Further work is also required examining effects on important health related outcomes in this population in robustly designed studies.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS: EFFECTS OF WALKING EXERCISE IN CHRONIC MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS: EFFECTS OF WALKING EXERCISE IN CHRONIC MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN O'Connor S.R.1, Tully M.A.2, Ryan B.3, Baxter D.G.3, Bradley J.M.1, McDonough S.M.11University of Ulster, Health & Rehabilitation Sciences Research Institute, Newtownabbey, United Kingdom, 2Queen's University, UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health (NI), Belfast, United Kingdom, 3University of Otago, Centre for Physiotherapy Research, Dunedin, New ZealandPurpose: To examine the effects of walking exercise on pain and self-reported function in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain.Relevance: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a major cause of morbidity, exerting a substantial influence on long-term health status and overall quality of life. Current treatment recommendations advocate various aerobic exercise interventions for such conditions. Walking may represent an ideal form of exercise due to its relatively low impact. However, there is currently limited evidence for its effectiveness.Participants: Not applicable.Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was undertaken by two independent reviewers according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and the recommendations of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group. Six electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, PEDro, Sport DISCUS and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for relevant papers published up to January 2010 using MeSH terms. All randomised or non-randomised studies published in full were considered for inclusion. Studies were required to include adults aged 18 years or over with a diagnosis of chronic low back pain, osteoarthritis or fibromyalgia. Studies were excluded if they involved peri-operative or post-operative interventions or did not include a comparative, non exercise or non-walking exercise control group. The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force system was used to assess methodological quality. Data for pain and self-reported function were extracted and converted to a score out of 100.Analysis: Data were pooled and analyzed using RevMan (v.5.0.24). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the X2 and I2 test statistics. A random effects model was used to calculate the mean differences and 95% CIs. Data were analyzed by length of final follow-up which was categorized as short (≤8 weeks post randomisation), mid (2-12 months) or long-term (>12 months).Results: A total of 4324 articles were identified and twenty studies (1852 participants) meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the review. Overall, studies were judged to be of at least fair methodological quality. The most common sources of likely bias were identified as lack of concealed allocation and failure to adequately address incomplete data. Data from 12 studies were suitable for meta-analysis. Walking led to reductions in pain at short (<8 weeks post randomisation) (-8.44 [-14.54, -2.33]) and mid-term (>8 weeks - 12 month) follow-up (-9.28 [-16.34, -2.22]). No effect was observed for long-term (>12 month) data (-2.49 [-7.62, 2.65]). For function, between group differences were observed for short (-11.57 [-16.06, -7.08]) and mid-term data (-13.26 [-16.91, -9.62]). A smaller effect was also observed at long-term follow-up (-5.60 [-7.70, -3.50]).Conclusions: Walking interventions were associated with statistically significant improvements in pain and function at short and mid-term follow-up. Long-term data were limited but indicated that these effects do not appear to be maintained beyond twelve months.Implications: Walking may be an effective form of exercise for individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain. However, further research is required which examines longer term follow-up and dose-response issues in this population.Key-words: 1. Walking exercise 2. Musculoskeletal pain 3. Systematic reviewFunding acknowledgements: Department of Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland.Ethics approval: Not applicable.

A review of behaviour change theories and techniques used in group based self-management programmes for chronic low back pain and arthritis

Background: Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines recommend applying theory within complex interventions to explain how behaviour change occurs. Guidelines endorse self-management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) and osteoarthritis (OA), but evidence for its effectiveness is weak. Objective: This literature review aimed to determine the use of behaviour change theory and techniques within randomised controlled trials of group-based self-management programmes for chronic musculoskeletal pain, specifically CLBP and OA. Methods: A two-phase search strategy of electronic databases was used to identify systematic reviews and studies relevant to this area. Articles were coded for their use of behaviour change theory, and the number of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) was identified using a 93-item taxonomy, Taxonomy (v1). Results: 25 articles of 22 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which only three reported having based their intervention on theory, and all used Social Cognitive Theory. A total of 33 BCTs were coded across all articles with the most commonly identified techniques being '. instruction on how to perform the behaviour', '. demonstration of the behaviour', '. behavioural practice', '. credible source', '. graded tasks' and '. body changes'. Conclusion: Results demonstrate that theoretically driven research within group based self-management programmes for chronic musculoskeletal pain is lacking, or is poorly reported. Future research that follows recommended guidelines regarding the use of theory in study design and reporting is warranted.

Functional management of ankle sprains: what volume and intensity of walking is undertaken in the first week postinjury:what volume and intensity of walking is undertaken in the first week postinjury

BACKGROUND: Acute ankle sprains are usually managed functionally, with advice to undertake progressive weight-bearing and walking. Mechanical loading is an important modular of tissue repair; therefore, the clinical effectiveness of walking after ankle sprain may be dose dependent. The intensity, magnitude and duration of load associated with current functional treatments for ankle sprain are unclear.

AIM: To describe physical activity (PA) in the first week after ankle sprain and to compare results with a healthy control group.

METHODS: Participants (16-65 years) with an acute ankle sprain were randomised into two groups (standard or exercise). Both groups were advised to apply ice and compression, and walk within the limits of pain. The exercise group undertook additional therapeutic exercises. PA was measured using an activPAL accelerometer, worn for 7 days after injury. Comparisons were made with a non-injured control group.

RESULTS: The standard group were significantly less active (1.2 ± 0.4 h activity/day; 5621 ± 2294 steps/day) than the exercise (1.7 ± 0 .7 h/day, p=0.04; 7886 ± 3075 steps/day, p=0.03) and non-injured control groups (1.7 ± 0.4 h/day, p=0.02; 8844 ± 2185 steps/day, p=0.002). Also, compared with the non-injured control group, the standard and exercise groups spent less time in moderate (38.3 ± 12.7 min/day vs 14.5 ± 11.4 min/day, p=0.001 and 22.5 ± 15.9 min/day, p=0.003) and high-intensity activity (4.1 ± 6.9 min/day vs 0.1 ± 0.1 min/day, p=0.001 and 0.62 ± 1.0 min/day p=0.005).

CONCLUSION: PA patterns are reduced in the first week after ankle sprain, which is partly ameliorated with addition of therapeutic exercises. This study represents the first step towards developing evidence-based walking prescription after acute ankle sprain.

Failure of a numerical quality assessment scale to identify potential risk of bias in a systematic review: a comparison study

BACKGROUND: Assessing methodological quality of primary studies is an essential component of systematic reviews. Following a systematic review which used a domain based system [United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF)] to assess methodological quality, a commonly used numerical rating scale (Downs and Black) was also used to evaluate the included studies and comparisons were made between quality ratings assigned using the two different methods. Both tools were used to assess the 20 randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials examining an exercise intervention for chronic musculoskeletal pain which were included in the review. Inter-rater reliability and levels of agreement were determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Influence of quality on pooled effect size was examined by calculating the between group standardized mean difference (SMD).

RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability indicated at least substantial levels of agreement for the USPSTF system (ICC 0.85; 95% CI 0.66, 0.94) and Downs and Black scale (ICC 0.94; 95% CI 0.84, 0.97). Overall level of agreement between tools (ICC 0.80; 95% CI 0.57, 0.92) was also good. However, the USPSTF system identified a number of studies (n = 3/20) as "poor" due to potential risks of bias. Analysis revealed substantially greater pooled effect sizes in these studies (SMD -2.51; 95% CI -4.21, -0.82) compared to those rated as "fair" (SMD -0.45; 95% CI -0.65, -0.25) or "good" (SMD -0.38; 95% CI -0.69, -0.08).

CONCLUSIONS: In this example, use of a numerical rating scale failed to identify studies at increased risk of bias, and could have potentially led to imprecise estimates of treatment effect. Although based on a small number of included studies within an existing systematic review, we found the domain based system provided a more structured framework by which qualitative decisions concerning overall quality could be made, and was useful for detecting potential sources of bias in the available evidence.

The back 2 activity trial: education and advice versus education and advice plus a structured walking programme for chronic low back pain.:education and advice versus education and advice plus a structured walking programme for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND: Current evidence supports the use of exercise-based treatment for chronic low back pain that encourages the patient to assume an active role in their recovery. Walking has been shown it to be an acceptable type of exercise with a low risk of injury. However, it is not known whether structured physical activity programmes are any more effective than giving advice to remain active.

METHODS/DESIGN: The proposed study will test the feasibility of using a pedometer-driven walking programme, as an adjunct to a standard education and advice session in participants with chronic low back pain. Fifty adult participants will be recruited via a number of different sources. Baseline outcome measures including self reported function; objective physical activity levels; fear-avoidance beliefs and health-related quality of life will be recorded. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated under strict, double blind conditions to one of two treatments groups. Participants in group A will receive a single education and advice session with a physiotherapist based on the content of the 'Back Book'. Participants in group B will receive the same education and advice session. In addition, they will also receive a graded pedometer-driven walking programme prescribed by the physiotherapist. Follow up outcomes will be recorded by the same researcher, who will remain blinded to group allocation, at eight weeks and six months post randomisation. A qualitative exploration of participants' perception of walking will also be examined by use of focus groups at the end of the intervention. As a feasibility study, treatment effects will be represented by point estimates and confidence intervals. The assessment of participant satisfaction will be tabulated, as will adherence levels and any recorded difficulties or adverse events experienced by the participants or therapists. This information will be used to modify the planned interventions to be used in a larger randomised controlled trial.

DISCUSSION: This paper describes the rationale and design of a study which will test the feasibility of using a structured, pedometer-driven walking programme in participants with chronic low back pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: [ISRCTN67030896].

Femoral exostosis causing vastus medialis pain in an active young lady: a case report.

BACKGROUND:
Musculoskeletal conditions are a common reason for consultation to General Practitioners (GPs)/family physicians in primary care. Osteochondromas are the most common benign bone tumours and usually occur in the metaphyseal region of long bones. Despite the distal femur being the commonest location to find these benign bone tumours, this is the first case report in the literature specifically describing vastus medialis muscle pain as the presenting symptom due to underlying bursa formation secondary to local pressure effects.

CASE PRESENTATION:
Twenty nine year old female of white British ethnic origin, presenting to a primary care clinic with a three year history of intermittent left distal medial thigh pain.

CONCLUSION:
The benign bone tumour, femoral exostosis/osteochondroma, was diagnosed via Magnaetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and treated conservatively, with surgical excision an option if not resolving. GPs/family physicians need to be aware of this diagnosis and that femoral exostosis/osteochondroma can present to primary care physicians, particularly within the second decade of life.

Islands of pain in a sea of change: Behaviour analysis and bereavement,

The paper Bereavement: A behavioural process (Dillenburger & Keenan, 1994) was first published within a vacuum of behaviour analytic thinking or research in this field. The paper was meant to be a first step in stimulating others to contribute to the understanding of one of the most complex, yet most universal, human behavioural processes. The only behaviour analyst addressing the issues directly was Calkin (1990). Recently, after reading our original 1994 paper, Beth Sulzer-Azaroff suggested that we should solicit comments directly from the behaviour analytic community. This we did with the help of Erik Arntzen and now the reprint and the commentaries in this edition of the European Journal of Behaviour Analysis (EJBA) fully embrace and extend the contribution of behaviour analysis to the understanding of the behavioural process that is bereavement.

Randomized controlled trial of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for acute low back pain.

Study Design. A multi-center assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted. Objectives. To investigate the relative effectiveness of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for patients with acute low back pain when used as sole treatments and in combination. Summary of Background Data. Both manipulative therapy and interferential therapy are commonly used treatments for low back pain. Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulative therapy is available only for the short term. There is no evidence for interferential therapy and no study has investigated the effectiveness of interferential therapy combined with manipulative therapy. Methods. Consenting subjects (n=240) were randomly assigned to receive a copy of the Back Book and either manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80) or combined manipulative therapy and interferential therapy (CT; n=80). Follow-up outcome questionnaires were posted at discharge, 6 and 12 months. Results. The groups were balanced at baseline for low back pain and demographic characteristics. All interventions were found to significantly reduce functional disability and pain and increase quality of life at discharge and to maintain these improvements at 6 and 12 months. No significant differences were found between groups for reported LBP recurrence, work absenteeism, medication consumption, exercise participation and healthcare use at 12 months. Conclusions. For acute low back pain, interferential therapy whether used in isolation or in combination with manipulative therapy was as effective as manipulative therapy alone (in addition to the Back Book).

A descriptive study of the usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques within a randomised clinical trial in acute low back pain

The majority of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy have not adequately de?ned the terms ‘mobilization’ and ‘manipulation’, nor distinguished between these terms in reporting the trial interventions. The purpose of this study was to describe the spinal manipulative therapy techniques utilized within a RCT of manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80), and a combination of both (CT; n=80) for people with acute low back pain (LBP). Spinal manipulative therapy was de?ned as any ‘mobilization’ (low velocity manual force without a thrust) or ‘manipulation’ (high velocity
thrust) techniques of the spine described by Maitland and Cyriax.
The 16 physiotherapists, all members of the Society of Orthopaedic Medicine, utilized three spinal manipulative therapy patterns in the RCT: Maitland Mobilization (40.4%, n=59), Maitland Mobilization/Cyriax Manipulation (40.4%, n=59) and Cyriax Manipulation (19.1%, n=28). There was a signi?cant difference between the MT and CT groups in their usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques (w2=9.178; df=2;P=0.01); subjects randomized to the CT group received three times more Cyriax Manipulation (29.2%, n=21/72) than those randomized to the MT group (9.5%, n=7/74; df=1; P=0.003).
The use of mobilization techniques within the trial was comparable with their usage by the general population of physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland for LBP management. However, the usage of manipulation techniques was considerably higher than reported in physiotherapy surveys and may re?ect the postgraduate training of trial therapists.