Dataset Information

Rehabilitative management of back pain in children: protocol for a mixed studies systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Little is known about effective, efficient and acceptable management of back pain in children. A comprehensive and updated evidence synthesis can help to inform clinical practice.

Objective

To inform clinical practice, we aim to conduct a systematic review of the literature and synthesise the evidence regarding effective, cost-effective and safe rehabilitation interventions for children with back pain to improve their functioning and other health outcomes.

Methods and analysis

We will search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Index to Chiropractic Literature, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials and EconLit for primary studies published from inception in all languages. We will include quantitative studies (randomised controlled trials, cohort and case-control studies), qualitative studies, mixed-methods studies and full economic evaluations. To augment our search of the bibliographic electronic databases, we will search reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and consult with content experts. We will assess the risk of bias using appropriate critical appraisal tools. We will extract data about study and participant characteristics, intervention type and comparators, context and setting, outcomes, themes and methodological quality assessment. We will use a sequential approach at the review level to integrate data from the quantitative, qualitative and economic evidence syntheses.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval is not required. We will disseminate findings through activities, including (1) presentations in national and international conferences; (2) meetings with national and international decision makers; (3) publications in peer-reviewed journals and (4) posts on organisational websites and social media.

Prospero registration number

CRD42019135009.

SUBMITTER: Cancelliere C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7559046 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rehabilitative management of back pain in children: protocol for a mixed studies systematic review.

Cancelliere Carol C Wong Jessica J JJ Yu Hainan H Mior Silvano S Brunton Ginny G Shearer Heather M HM Rudoler David D Hestbæk Lise L Papaconstantinou Efrosini E Cedraschi Christine C Swain Michael M Connell Gaelan G Verville Leslie L Taylor-Vaisey Anne A Côté Pierre P

BMJ open 20201014 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>Little is known about effective, efficient and acceptable management of back pain in children. A comprehensive and updated evidence synthesis can help to inform clinical practice.<h4>Objective</h4>To inform clinical practice, we aim to conduct a systematic review of the literature and synthesise the evidence regarding effective, cost-effective and safe rehabilitation interventions for children with back pain to improve their functioning and other health outcomes.<h4>Methods ...[more]

PMID: 33055118

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent condition that has substantial impact on patients, the healthcare system and society. Pain management services (PMS), which aim to address the complex nature of back pain, are recommended in clinical practice guidelines to manage CLBP. Although the effectiveness of such services has been widely investigated in relation to CLBP, the quality of evidence underpinning the use of these services remains moderate. Therefore the aim is to summarize and critically appraise the current evidence for the cost effectiveness of pain management services for managing chronic back pain. METHODS:Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from their inception to February 2019. Full economic evaluations undertaken from any perspective conducted alongside randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or based on decision analysis models were included. Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) risk assessment and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist were used to assess the methodological quality of eligible studies. RESULTS:Five studies fulfilled eligibility criteria. The interventions varied significantly between studies in terms of the number and types of treatment modalities, intensity and the duration of the program. Interventions were compared with either standard care, which varied according to the country and the setting; or to surgical interventions. Three studies showed that pain management services are cost effective, while two studies showed that these services are not cost effective. In this review, three out of five studies had a high risk of bias based on the design of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, there were limitations in the statistical and sensitivity analyses in the economic evaluations. Therefore, the results from these studies need to be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSION:Pain management services may be cost effective for the management of low back pain. However, this systematic review highlights the variability of evidence supporting pain management services for patients with back pain. This is due to the quality of the published studies and the variability of the setting, interventions, comparators and outcomes.

Project description:IntroductionSurgical rates for low back pain (LBP) have been increasing in Europe, North America and Asia. Many patients treated surgically will require postsurgical rehabilitation. Little is known about the effectiveness of postsurgical rehabilitation interventions on health outcomes or about patients' experiences with these interventions.ObjectivesTo conduct a mixed studies systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies regarding: (1) the effectiveness and safety of postsurgical rehabilitation interventions for adults with LBP treated surgically and (2) the experiences of patients, healthcare providers, caregivers or others involved with the rehabilitation.Methods and analysisWe will search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Index to Chiropractic Literature, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials and the Rehabilitation & Sports Medicine Source for peer-reviewed empirical studies published from inception in any language. Studies using quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies will be included. We will also search reference lists of all eligible articles. Data extraction will include type of presurgical pathology, indication for surgery, surgical procedure, how the intervention was delivered and by whom, context and setting. We will conduct a quality assessment of each study and consider study quality in our evidence synthesis. We will use a sequential approach at the review level to synthesise and integrate data. First, we will synthesise the quantitative and qualitative studies independently, conducting a meta-analysis of the quantitative studies if appropriate and thematic synthesis of the qualitative studies. Then, we will integrate the quantitative and qualitative evidence by juxtaposing the findings in a matrix.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this knowledge synthesis. Findings will be disseminated through knowledge translation activities including: (1) presentations at national and international conferences and scientific meetings; (2) presentations to local and international stakeholders; (3) publications in peer-reviewed journals and (4) posts on organisational websites.Prospero registration numberCRD42019134607.

Project description:BackgroundThe relationship between motor performance and back pain in children and adolescents remains unclear. This article describes the protocol for a systematic review to summarize the knowledge about the association between motor performance, such as agility, flexibility, balance, strength, muscle endurance, and cardiorespiratory fitness, and back pain. Thus, our aim is to identify the influence of motor performance on back pain among children and adolescents.MethodsTwo independent researchers will search MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL databases, with no period or language restrictions. We will include cross-sectional, cohort, case-control, and controlled clinical trial studies based on the following criteria: (a) participants from 6 to 19 years of age, (b) assessment of motor performance, (c) assessment of back pain, and (d) report measures of associations between motor performance and back pain. Study quality and risk of bias will be assessed using an adapted version of the Downs and Black instrument. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations will be used to assess the strength of the body of evidence. Meta-analyses of association measures will be performed for each type of motor performance, separately for different study types. The results will be reported using forest to show the pooled effect of findings and funnel plots to assess precision of the data. If studies are not homogeneous, results from the meta-analyses will not be reported. Associations will then be synthesized descriptively using a pragmatic approach.DiscussionThis systematic review will provide critical insights into the association between motor performance and back pain among children and adolescents; this information may help support clinical practice guidelines as well as public health programs.Ethics and disseminationProtocol was written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020178496.

Project description:IntroductionLow back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and multifaceted health condition affecting over 619 million people globally. Today, pain evaluation heavily relies on subjective measures, so more advanced diagnosis and treatment methods are required. Electrodermal activity (EDA) could represent a potential objective tool to assess LBP. Despite its promise, EDA has been less studied in this context, and the methodologies vary across studies. The systematic review described thus aims to determine the relationship between EDA and LBP as well as the potential utility of EDA as a tool for evaluating LBP. The various EDA measurement methodologies employed to detect LBP will also be analysed to ultimately identify the most reliable and effective approaches.Methods and analysisThe primary databases include PubMed, Web of Science (all databases) and Scopus. The search strategy will be tailored to identify articles written in English or Spanish without imposing any time restrictions. The snowballing technique will also be used to identify additional studies by reviewing the reference lists of relevant articles or citing articles.Eligible studies will encompass adults with both acute and chronic LBP. A diverse range of research designs will be considered, focusing on the relationship between EDA and LBP. PEDro scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 (RoB2) will be used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias in the studies, respectively. Data synthesis will be based on a structured presentation of participant characteristics, methodological details and EDA-related variables.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol of systematic review, registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, adheres to the PRISMA checklist. The study findings will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals. The search process is forecast to end on 30 November 2024. Adhering to Spanish guidelines, ethical approval is deemed unnecessary for our secondary analyses, given the de-identification and anonymous analysis of all data.Prospero registration numberCRD42023464812.

Project description:IntroductionAcute, non-low back-related musculoskeletal pain is common and associated with significant socioeconomic costs. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for acute musculoskeletal pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for acute musculoskeletal pain (excluding low back pain). We will identify eligible, English-language, trials by a systematic search of the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Medline, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to February 2018. Eligible trials will: (1) enrol patients presenting with acute, non-low back-related musculoskeletal pain (duration of pain ≤4 weeks), and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions or an intervention and a placebo/sham arm. Fractures will be considered ineligible, unless they are non-surgical and therapy is directed at pain relief. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion to achieve consensus. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the quality of evidence supporting treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effect meta-analysis to establish the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions on patient-important outcomes; and (2) multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will use a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies. We will use STATA V.14.2 for all analyses.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics approval is required for this systematic review, as no confidential patient data will be used. The results of this systematic review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and will inform a clinical practice guideline.Prospero registration numberCRD42018094412.

Project description:IntroductionThis protocol describes the methods for a mixed study systematic review aiming to explore the definitions and measurements of recovery in patients with low back pain, and how perspectives of recovery differ between patients and providers. This review will be the first to review the concept of recovery in patients with low back pain across both quantitative and qualitative literature.Methods and analysisThis protocol has been designed and reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. The following databases will be electronically searched from database inception until 30 November 2021: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PEDro. Grey literature will be searched for through targeted searching of ProQuest Dissertations and Theses and handsearching of the references of all included studies. Studies will be included if they include a patient population of >50% with low back pain (with or without leg pain), and mention the concept of recovery within the abstract, methods or results. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be used for quality assessment of both quantitative and qualitative included studies. Two independent reviewers will conduct the search, screen titles/abstracts and extract relevant data from full texts. Discrepancies between reviewers will be settled by a third reviewer with spinal pain expertise. For syntheses, thematic analysis will be used to analyse both qualitative and quantitative investigations to explore meanings, measurement and perspectives of recovery from a diverse evidence base. There is no clinical trial associated with this protocol.Ethics and disseminationThere are no ethical issues associated with this systematic review, and ethics approval was not required. Once completed, the results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal within the realm of spinal pain to help guide future research inquiries.Prospero registration numberCRD42022295804.

Dataset Information

Rehabilitative management of back pain in children: protocol for a mixed studies systematic review.

Introduction

Objective

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Prospero registration number

Publications

Rehabilitative management of back pain in children: protocol for a mixed studies systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets