RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Kinesio taping (KT) is an approach that has been used in the rehabilitation of patients with chronic stroke. The aim of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of KT alone or combined with other interventions for patients with chronic stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The search was performed on CENTRAL, EMBASE, PEDro, and five other databases and two trial registries up to July 2022. We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of KT compared to control interventions. The primary outcomes were upper limb function and gait. We assessed the risk of bias in the included studies using the PEDro scale. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs undertaken in six different countries. PEDro score ranged from 4 to 9 points. There is very-low certainty evidence that KT has no effect on gait, balance, and postural control. We found very-low certainty evidence of a slightly benefit when used in addition to other therapies for gait, balance and postural control, and pain intensity. CONCLUSIONS: Our study findings show KT does not have enough robust evidence for improving upper limb function, gait, balance and postural control, and pain intensity in chronic stroke patients.Implications for rehabilitationKinesio taping (KT) is a method that has gained popularity among some health professionals to treat patients poststroke.There is very-low certainty evidence that KT alone has no effect on gait, balance and postural control compared to no treatment.There is very-low certainty evidence that KT plus other therapies may be slightly beneficial for gait, balance and postural control, and pain intensity intervention.Only one study reported there were no adverse events such as skin reactions or local ulceration for patients poststroke.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: It is unclear why patients with low back pain seek care in emergency departments. OBJECTIVES: We aim to describe the demographic, physical, and psychological characteristics, and reasons for seeking care at emergency departments due to an episode of low back pain. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study conducted in an emergency department of a public hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, from September 2018 to May 2019. All patients who presented with a new episode of low back pain as the main complaint for seeking care at the emergency department on regular weekdays were invited to participate. We collected data on sociodemographic characteristics, general health characteristics, psychosocial risk factors, and reasons for visiting the emergency department. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients participated. We observed that most patients (68%) were women, with a mean age of 55 years, and who had previous episodes of low back pain (86%). Most patients went to the emergency department because they were worried about their pain (78%) and because they could not control their pain (73%). Patients also choose the emergency department because it is always available, it is free, and provided them good care. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with low back pain seek care at emergency departments because they were worried about their pain and because the department is always open and does not require appointment. Understanding these reasons is an important step for the implementation of future public policies to make health care more efficient, to reduce unnecessary expenses and to avoid low-value care.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To describe management strategies used in public emergency departments in a middle-income country for patients with acute non-specific low back pain. DESIGN: A descriptive, cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a prospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A study with 600 patients with low back pain presenting in four public emergency departments from São Paulo, Brazil was conducted. OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic tests, pharmacological interventions, and/or referral to other healthcare professionals were collected. Descriptive analyses were used to report all outcomes. RESULTS: Of all patients, 12.5% (n=75) underwent some diagnostic imaging tests. Medication was administered to 94.7% (n=568) of patients. The most common medications were non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (71.3%; n=428), opioids (29%; n=174) and corticosteroids (22.5%; n=135). Only 7.5% (n=45) of patients were referred to another type of care. CONCLUSION: There is a need for research data on low back pain from middle-income countries. There was an acceptable rate of prescription for diagnostic imaging tests. However, there were high medication prescriptions and small rates of referrals to other healthcare services. Our findings indicate that there is still a need to implement best practices in the management of acute low back pain at public emergency departments in Brazil.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Most studies investigating the course of recent-onset low back pain (LBP) included patients from primary care. We aimed to describe the prognosis in people with recent-onset LBP presenting to emergency departments (EDs) and to identify prognostic factors for nonrecovery. This inception cohort study with a 1-year follow-up recruited 600 consecutive acute LBP patients presenting to 4 EDs. The outcomes measured the days to recover from pain, recover from disability, return to previous work hours and duties, and complete recovery. Within 12 months, 73% of participants (95% confidence interval [CI] = 69-77) recovered from pain, 86% (95% CI = 82-90) recovered from disability, 79% (95% CI = 71-87) returned to previous work hours and duties, and 70% (95% CI = 66-74) completely recovered. The median recovery times were 67 days (95% CI = 54-80) to recover from pain, 37 days (95% CI = 31-43) to recover from disability, 37 days (95% CI = 25-49) to return to previous work hours and duties, and 70 days (95% CI = 57-83) to recover completely. Higher pain levels, a higher perceived risk of persistent LBP, more days of reduced activity due to LBP, more pain sites, and higher duration of LBP were associated with complete nonrecovery within 6 months. PERSPECTIVE: This information relates to prognosis and to likely recovery times for patients with recent-onset LBP in EDs. The findings also confirm previous factors associated with poor outcomes in patients with recent-onset LBP.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe the profile of patients with acute low back pain (LBP) who sought emergency departments (EDs) in Brazilian public hospitals. We also described the profile of these patients according to the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: LBP is the most common musculoskeletal condition worldwide and is one of the main complaints in EDs. There is a lack of evidence describing the profile of these patients from low- to middle-income countries. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study involving patients with a new episode of nonspecific acute LBP that was conducted between August 2014 and August 2016. Variables related to clinical, psychological, sociodemographic and work status characteristics were investigated through structured, in-person oral questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 600 patients were included in the study. The majority of the patients were women (58%), with a median of eight points on pain intensity (measured on an 11-point scale) and 17 points on disability (measured on a 24-item questionnaire). With regards to the SBST evaluation, 295 (49.2%) patients were classified as being at high risk of developing an unfavorable prognosis with a median pain intensity of nine points on pain intensity, 20 points on disability, and seven points on depression (measured on an 11-point scale). Despite this, the majority of the patients (74%) continued working normally without interference from LBP. CONCLUSION: Identifying the profile of patients seeking care in EDs can help to define effective management for LBP in low- and middle-income countries. Patients with nonspecific acute LBP who seek EDs in Brazil present high levels of pain intensity and disability. Most patients were classified as having a high risk of developing an unfavorable prognosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: (1) To analyse the clinical utility of the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) in emergency departments by describing changes in classification over time and; (2) to identify what would be the best time to use the SBST to predict long-term clinical outcomes in patients with acute nonspecific low back pain (LBP) seeking emergency care. METHODS: A 6 months prospective inception cohort study was conducted. 200 participants with LBP seeking emergency medical treatment were included. Pain intensity, disability and SBST were collected at baseline, 6 and 26 weeks. Categories of improvement, clinical worsening, and stability were created to calculate the changes in the SBST subgroups. Linear regression models were built to analyse the predictive ability of SBST when applied at baseline, 6 weeks as well as changes in the subgroup from baseline to 6 weeks. These models were adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: 45% of patients were classified as high risk of chronicity at baseline. Most patients classified as medium (86.7%) or high (52.4%) risk changed their risk subgroup after 6 weeks and most of them improved. The SBST improved the prediction for all outcomes when applied at 6 weeks (R2 = 22.1% for disability and R2 = 15.6% for pain intensity), but not at baseline. CONCLUSION: Most of patients seeking care in emergency departments with a new episode of acute LBP improved after 6 weeks. The use of SBST to guide initial treatment and to predict clinical outcomes are most indicated when the instrument is applied after 6 weeks after presentation to emergency care. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary material.

Asunto(s)