Various physical activity interventions for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis have been designed and evaluated, but the effect of such interventions on the prevention of osteoporosis in older ...people is unclear. The aim of this review was to investigate the association between physical activity and osteoporosis prevention in people aged 65 years and above.
A systematic review was conducted and searches for individual studies were conducted in PubMed (January 2010 to March 2020) and for systematic reviews were conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus (January 2008 to July 2020). Records were screened according to the following eligibility criteria: i) population: adults aged 65 years and older; ii) exposure: greater volume, duration, frequency, or intensity of physical activity; iii) comparison: no physical activity or lesser volume, duration, frequency, or intensity of physical activity; iv) outcome: osteoporosis related measures (e.g., bone mineral density). The methodological quality of included studies was assessed and meta-analysis summarised study effects. The GRADE approach was used to rate certainty of evidence.
We included a total of 59 studies, including 12 observational studies and 47 trials. Within the included trials, 40 compared physical activity with no intervention controls, 11 compared two physical activity programs, and six investigated different doses of physical activity. Included studies suggest that physical activity interventions probably improve bone health among older adults and thus prevent osteoporosis (standardised effect size 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.25, 20 trials, moderate-certainty evidence, main or most relevant outcome selected for each of the included studies). Physical activity interventions probably improve lumbar spine bone mineral density (standardised effect size 0.17, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.30, 11 trials, moderate-certainty evidence) and may improve hip (femoral neck) bone mineral density (standardised effect size 0.09, 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.21, 14 trials, low-certainty evidence). Higher doses of physical activity and programs involving multiple exercise types or resistance exercise appear to be most effective. Typical programs for which significant intervention impacts were detected in trials were undertaken for 60+ mins, 2-3 times/week for 7+ months. Observational studies suggested a positive association between long-term total and planned physical activity on bone health.
Physical activity probably plays a role in the prevention of osteoporosis. The level of evidence is higher for effects of physical activity on lumbar spine bone mineral density than for hip. Higher dose programs and those involving multiple exercises and resistance exercises appear to be more effective.
Abstract Background Context It has been proposed that depression plays an important role in the course of low back pain; however, there is considerable uncertainty on its predictive value. Purpose ...This systematic review aims to investigate the effect of depression on the course of acute and subacute low back pain. Study Design This is a systematic review. Methods We searched the following databases using optimized search strategies: AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, Health & Society Database, LILACS, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science. We only included prospective studies that investigated a cohort of participants with acute or subacute non-specific low back pain (pain of less than 12 weeks' duration). The prognostic factor of interest was depression or symptoms of depression assessed at baseline. The outcomes of interest included pain intensity, chronicity (non-recovery from low back pain), disability, return to work, health-related quality of life, and overall patient satisfaction. Two independent reviewers selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the methodological quality of the studies that were included. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors declare no conflicts of interest-associated biases. Results Seventeen articles reporting 13 cohort studies were included in this review. There was considerable variability between studies in terms of the method of assessment of depression and low back pain, statistical methods, and follow-up length, which precluded the quantitative synthesis of the results. Definition of outcomes varied across studies, but overall they could be divided into work-related outcome measures, followed by disability, pain, self-perceived recovery, and mixed outcomes. Eleven out of 17 articles (or 8 out of 13 cohorts) reported that symptoms of depression at baseline are related to worse low back pain outcomes (measured in various ways) at follow-up, and the effect sizes (odds ratio OR) ranged from 1.04 to 2.47. Only two studies that did not find a statistically significant association reported quantitative results: OR=1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98–1.08; and OR=1.02, 95% CI 0.99–1.06. All included studies, regardless of statistical significance, showed an effect in the direction of harm. Conclusions Although a definitive answer on the effect of depression on the course of low back pain is not available, the findings of this systematic review suggest that depression might have an adverse effect on the prognosis of low back pain. Future large studies that enroll an inception cohort and that employ a standardized method for assessing depression and low back pain are needed.
The management of spinal stenosis by surgery has increased rapidly in the past two decades, however, there is still controversy regarding the efficacy of surgery for this condition. Our aim was to ...investigate the efficacy and comparative effectiveness of surgery in the management of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.
Electronic searches were performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS and Cochrane Library from inception to November 2014. Hand searches were conducted on included articles and relevant reviews. We included randomised controlled trials evaluating surgery compared to no treatment, placebo/sham, or to another surgical technique in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Primary outcome measures were pain, disability, recovery and quality of life. The PEDro scale was used for risk of bias assessment. Data were pooled with a random-effects model, and the GRADE approach was used to summarise conclusions.
Nineteen published reports (17 trials) were included. No trials were identified comparing surgery to no treatment or placebo/sham. Pooling revealed that decompression plus fusion is not superior to decompression alone for pain (mean difference -3.7, 95% confidence interval -15.6 to 8.1), disability (mean difference 9.8, 95% confidence interval -9.4 to 28.9), or walking ability (risk ratio 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 1.9). Interspinous process spacer devices are slightly more effective than decompression plus fusion for disability (mean difference 5.7, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 10.0), but they resulted in significantly higher reoperation rates when compared to decompression alone (28% v 7%, P < 0.001). There are no differences in the effectiveness between other surgical techniques for our main outcomes.
The relative efficacy of various surgical options for treatment of spinal stenosis remains uncertain. Decompression plus fusion is not more effective than decompression alone. Interspinous process spacer devices result in higher reoperation rates than bony decompression.
Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol (acetaminophen) in the management of spinal pain and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data ...sources Medline, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2014.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of paracetamol with placebo for spinal pain (neck or low back pain) and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.Data extraction Two independent reviewers extracted data on pain, disability, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, patient adherence, and use of rescue medication. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst possible pain or disability). We calculated weighted mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool was used for assessing risk of bias, and the GRADE approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarise conclusions.Results 12 reports (13 randomised trials) were included. There was “high quality” evidence that paracetamol is ineffective for reducing pain intensity (weighted mean difference −0.5, 95% confidence interval −2.9 to 1.9) and disability (0.4, −1.7 to 2.5) or improving quality of life (0.4, −0.9 to 1.7) in the short term in people with low back pain. For hip or knee osteoarthritis there was “high quality” evidence that paracetamol provides a significant, although not clinically important, effect on pain (−3.7, −5.5 to −1.9) and disability (−2.9, −4.9 to −0.9) in the short term. The number of patients reporting any adverse event (risk ratio 1.0, 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.1), any serious adverse event (1.2, 0.7 to 2.1), or withdrawn from the study because of adverse events (1.2, 0.9 to 1.5) was similar in the paracetamol and placebo groups. Patient adherence to treatment (1.0, 0.9 to 1.1) and use of rescue medication (0.7, 0.4 to 1.3) was also similar between groups. “High quality” evidence showed that patients taking paracetamol are nearly four times more likely to have abnormal results on liver function tests (3.8, 1.9 to 7.4), but the clinical importance of this effect is uncertain.Conclusions Paracetamol is ineffective in the treatment of low back pain and provides minimal short term benefit for people with osteoarthritis. These results support the reconsideration of recommendations to use paracetamol for patients with low back pain and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee in clinical practice guidelines.Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42013006367.
Frailty and sarcopenia are common age-related conditions associated with adverse outcomes. Physical activity has been identified as a potential preventive strategy for both frailty and sarcopenia. ...The authors aimed to investigate the association between physical activity and prevention of frailty and sarcopenia in people aged 65 years and older.
The authors searched for systematic reviews (January 2008 to November 2019) and individual studies (January 2010 to March 2020) in PubMed. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials and longitudinal studies that investigated the effect of physical activity on frailty and/or sarcopenia in people aged 65 years and older. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate certainty of evidence.
Meta-analysis showed that physical activity probably prevents frailty (4 studies; frailty score pooled standardized mean difference, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.43; P = .017, I2 = 57%, moderate certainty evidence). Only one trial investigated physical activity for sarcopenia prevention and did not provide conclusive evidence (risk ratio 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-12.19). Five observational studies showed positive associations between physical activity and frailty or sarcopenia prevention.
Physical activity probably prevents frailty among people aged 65 years and older. The impact of physical activity on the prevention of sarcopenia remains unknown, but observational studies indicate the preventive role of physical activity.
Objective
To investigate the contribution of symptoms of depression to future episodes of low back pain (LBP).
Methods
A search was conducted of AMED, CINAHL, Embase, Health and Society (H&S), ...LILACS, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. We included cohort studies investigating the effect of symptoms of depression on the development of new episodes of LBP, either lifetime incidence or a recurrent episode, in a population free of LBP at baseline. We accepted the original study's definition for a new episode of LBP, and for classifying patients as LBP‐free at study entry. Two independent investigators extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Meta‐analyses with random effects were used to pool risk estimates.
Results
We included 19 studies, with 11 incorporated in the meta‐analyses. Overall pooled results showed that symptoms of depression increased the risk of developing LBP (odds ratio OR 1.59, 95% confidence interval 95% CI 1.26–2.01). The risk was similar in studies that used the diagnostic interview method (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.14–2.42) and in studies using self‐report screening questionnaires (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.05–2.70). No statistically significant relationship was observed when we pooled studies that employed nonspecific screening questionnaires (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.48–2.87). Three studies provided results in incremental categories of symptoms of depression and the pooled OR for the most severe level of depression (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.58–3.99) was higher than for the lowest level (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.89–2.56).
Conclusion
Individuals with symptoms of depression have an increased risk of developing an episode of LBP in the future, with the risk being higher in patients with more severe levels of depression.
To inform implementation and future research, this scoping review investigates the volume of evidence for physical activity interventions among adults aged 60+. Our research questions are: (1) what ...is the evidence regarding interventions designed to increase total physical activity in adults aged 60+ years, in accordance with three of the four strategic objectives of GAPPA (active societies, active environments, active people); (2) what is the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of physical activity programmes and services designed for older adults?; and (3) What are the evidence gaps requiring further research?
We searched PEDro, MEDLINE, CINAHL and Cochrane from 1 January 2010 to 1 November 2020 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of physical activity interventions in adults aged 60+. We identified interventions designed to: (1) increase physical activity; and (2) deliver physical activity programmes and services in home, community or outpatient settings. We extracted and coded data from eligible reviews according to our proposed framework informed by TIDieR, Prevention of Falls Network Europe (PROFANE), and WHO's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). We classified the overall findings as positive, negative or inconclusive.
We identified 39 reviews of interventions to increase physical activity and 342 reviews of programmes/services for older adults. Interventions were predominantly structured exercise programmes, including balance strength/resistance training, and physical recreation, such as yoga and tai chi. There were few reviews of health promotion/coaching and health professional education/referral, and none of sport, workplace, sociocultural or environmental interventions. Fewer reported outcomes of total physical activity, social participation and quality of life/well-being. We noted insufficient coverage in diverse and disadvantaged samples and low-middle income countries.
There is a modest but growing volume of evidence regarding interventions designed to increase total physical activity in older adults, although more interventional studies with long term follow-up are needed, particularly for GAPPA 1. Active Societies and GAPPA 2. Active Environments. By comparison, there is abundant evidence for GAPPA 3. specific programmes and services, but coverage of sport and workplace interventions, and diverse samples and settings is lacking. Comprehensive reviews of individual studies are now needed as well as research targeting neglected outcomes, populations and settings.
Paracetamol for low back pain Saragiotto, Bruno T; Machado, Gustavo C; Ferreira, Manuela L ...
Cochrane database of systematic reviews,
2016-Jun-07
6
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Analgesic medication is the most frequently prescribed treatment for low back pain (LBP), of which paracetamol (acetaminophen) is recommended as the first choice medication. However, there is ...uncertainty about the efficacy of paracetamol for LBP.
To investigate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol for non-specific LBP.
We conducted searches on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which includes the Back and Neck Review Group trials register), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS, and IPA from their inception to 7 August 2015. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers and trial registry websites (WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov).
We only considered randomised trials comparing the efficacy of paracetamol with placebo for non-specific LBP. The primary outcomes were pain and disability. We also investigated quality of life, function, adverse effects, global impression of recovery, sleep quality, patient adherence, and use of rescue medication as secondary outcomes.
Two review authors independently performed the data extraction and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We also evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We converted scales for pain intensity to a common 0 to 100 scale. We quantified treatment effects using mean difference for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. We used effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals as a measure of treatment effect for the primary outcomes. When the treatment effects were smaller than 9 points on a 0 to 100 scale, we considered the effect as small and not clinically important.
Our searches retrieved 4449 records, of which three trials were included in the review (n = 1825 participants), and two trials were included in the meta-analysis. For acute LBP, there is high-quality evidence for no difference between paracetamol (4 g per day) and placebo at 1 week (immediate term), 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks (short term) for the primary outcomes. There is high-quality evidence that paracetamol has no effect on quality of life, function, global impression of recovery, and sleep quality for all included time periods. There were also no significant differences between paracetamol and placebo for adverse events, patient adherence, or use of rescue medication. For chronic LBP, there is very low-quality evidence (based on a trial that has been retracted) for no effect of paracetamol (1 g single intravenous dose) on immediate pain reduction. Finally, no trials were identified evaluating patients with subacute LBP.
We found that paracetamol does not produce better outcomes than placebo for people with acute LBP, and it is uncertain if it has any effect on chronic LBP.
While it is now clear that paracetamol is ineffective for spinal pain, there is not consensus on the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for this condition. We performed a ...systematic review with meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of NSAIDs for spinal pain.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and LILACS for randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of NSAIDs with placebo for spinal pain. Reviewers extracted data, assessed risk of bias and evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A between-group difference of 10 points (on a 0-100 scale) was used for pain and disability as the smallest worthwhile effect, as well as to calculate numbers needed to treat. Random-effects models were used to calculate mean differences or risk ratios with 95% CIs.
We included 35 randomised placebo-controlled trials. NSAIDs reduced pain and disability, but provided clinically unimportant effects over placebo. Six participants (95% CI 4 to 10) needed to be treated with NSAIDs, rather than placebo, for one additional participant to achieve clinically important pain reduction. When looking at different types of spinal pain, outcomes or time points, in only 3 of the 14 analyses were the pooled treatment effects marginally above our threshold for clinical importance. NSAIDs increased the risk of gastrointestinal reactions by 2.5 times (95% CI 1.2 to 5.2), although the median duration of included trials was 7 days.
NSAIDs are effective for spinal pain, but the magnitude of the difference in outcomes between the intervention and placebo groups is not clinically important. At present, there are no simple analgesics that provide clinically important effects for spinal pain over placebo. There is an urgent need to develop new drug therapies for this condition.
Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is vastly recommended as the first-line analgesic for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. However, there has been controversy about this recommendation given recent studies ...have revealed small effects of paracetamol when compared with placebo. Nonetheless, past studies have not systematically reviewed and appraised the literature to investigate the effects of this drug on specific osteoarthritis sites, that is, hip or knee, or on the dose used.
To assess the benefits and harms of paracetamol compared with placebo in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts to 3 October 2017, and ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal on 20 October 2017.
We included randomised controlled trials comparing paracetamol with placebo in adults with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Major outcomes were pain, function, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and abnormal liver function tests.
Two review authors used standard Cochrane methods to collect data, and assess risk of bias and quality of the evidence. For pooling purposes, we converted pain and physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function) scores to a common 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst possible pain or disability) scale.
We identified 10 randomised placebo-controlled trials involving 3541 participants with hip or knee osteoarthritis. The paracetamol dose varied from 1.95 g/day to 4 g/day, and the majority of trials followed participants for three months only. Most trials did not clearly report randomisation and concealment methods and were at unclear risk of selection bias. Trials were at low risk of performance, detection, and reporting bias.At 3 weeks' to 3 months' follow-up, there was high-quality evidence that paracetamol provided no clinically important improvements in pain and physical function. Mean reduction in pain was 23 points (0 to 100 scale, lower scores indicated less pain) with placebo and 3.23 points better (5.43 better to 1.02 better) with paracetamol, an absolute reduction of 3% (1% better to 5% better, minimal clinical important difference 9%) and relative reduction of 5% (2% better to 8% better) (seven trials, 2355 participants). Physical function improved by 12 points on a 0 to 100 scale (lower scores indicated better function) with placebo and was 2.9 points better (0.95 better to 4.89 better) with paracetamol, an absolute improvement of 3% (1% better to 5% better, minimal clinical important difference 10%) and relative improvement of 5% (2% better to 9% better) (7 trials, 2354 participants).High-quality evidence from eight trials indicated that the incidence of adverse events was similar between groups: 515/1586 (325 per 1000) in the placebo group versus 537/1666 (328 per 1000, range 299 to 360) in the paracetamol group (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.11). There was less certainty (moderate-quality evidence) around the risk of serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and the rate of abnormal liver function tests, due to wide CIs or small event rates, indicating imprecision. Seventeen of 1480 (11 per 1000) people treated with placebo and 28/1729 (16 per 1000, range 8 to 29) people treated with paracetamol experienced serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.53; 6 trials). The incidence of withdrawals due to adverse events was 65/1000 participants in with placebo and 77/1000 (range 59 to 100) participants with paracetamol (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.55; 7 trials). Abnormal liver function occurred in 18/1000 participants treated with placebo and 70/1000 participants treated with paracetamol (RR 3.79, 95% CI 1.94 to 7.39), but the clinical importance of this effect was uncertain. None of the trials reported quality of life.Subgroup analyses indicated that the effects of paracetamol on pain and function did not differ according to the dose of paracetamol (3.0 g/day or less versus 3.9 g/day or greater).
Based on high-quality evidence this review confirms that paracetamol provides only minimal improvements in pain and function for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis, with no increased risk of adverse events overall. Subgroup analysis indicates that the effects on pain and function do not differ according to the dose of paracetamol. Due to the small number of events, we are less certain if paracetamol use increases the risk of serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and rate of abnormal liver function tests.Current clinical guidelines consistently recommend paracetamol as the first-line analgesic medication for hip or knee osteoarthritis, given its low absolute frequency of substantive harm. However, our results call for reconsideration of these recommendations.
PDF
