RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the orientation of trials analyzing exercise for low back pain (LBP) on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Ovid MEDLINE were searched for trials published between January 1, 2010, and August 13, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials investigating exercise for adults with LBP. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently used the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool to determine the efficacy-effectiveness orientation. The same 2 reviewers assessed the risk of bias for all studies using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias 2.0 tool. DATA SYNTHESIS: The search identified 2975 records. Full-text review was conducted on 674 studies, and 159 studies were included. The proportion of trials with a strong or rather strong efficacy orientation (RITES rating=1 or 2), balanced emphasis (RITES rating=3), or strong or rather strong effectiveness (RITES rating=4 or 5) orientation on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum within each RITES domain were reported. A greater proportion of trials had an efficacy orientation when compared with effectiveness or a balanced emphasis within 4 domains: participant characteristics: efficacy 43.9%, 41.9% effectiveness, balanced 14.5%; trial setting: 69.0% efficacy, effectiveness 15.8% balanced 15.2%; flexibility of interventions: 74.2% efficacy, effectiveness 8.8%, balanced 17.0%; clinical relevance of experimental and comparison interventions: 50.3% efficacy, 33.3% effectiveness 33.3%, balanced 16.4%. A high risk of bias was found in 42.1% (n=67) of trials. CONCLUSION: Trials investigating the effect of exercise for LBP have a greater orientation toward efficacy across multiple trial design domains. Researchers should consider pragmatic designs in future trials to improve generalizability. Clinicians should consider the efficacy-effectiveness orientation when translating evidence into clinical practice.
Asunto(s)
Ejercicio Físico , Dolor de la Región Lumbar , Adulto , Humanos , Sesgo , Terapia por EjercicioRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: A prognosis provides valuable information to expected progress and anticipated outcome over the course of care. Although it is known that physical therapists can accurately prognose, it is unknown what factors are utilised in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the prognostic domains and factors that influenced a PT's clinical reasoning processes. DESIGN: Mixed Methods Design, affirming the prognostic ability of the physical therapists and the qualitative exploration of the prognostic factors considered by physical therapists. METHODS: Twenty-nine physical therapists participated in this study. Participants underwent semi-structured qualitative interviews that were coded to populate a prognostic framework. In addition, de-identified patient data was used to determine the ability of the PT to form a prognosis. Linear regression was used to determine if an initial prognostic score was related to function at discharge. RESULTS: There were significant relationships (p = <0.05) between the prognosis score and Focus on Therapeutic Outcomes (B = 2.25), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (B = 0.257), and GROC (B = 0.289) upon patient discharge. Qualitative factors were categorised into prognostic domains (prevalence): Mood, Motivation, Pain Behaviours (100%), Disease Severity (93.1%), Health Status (86.2%), Social, Occupation, Environmental (67.0%), and Genetics, Biology, Biomarkers (44.8%). Factors that did not fit established domains were reported and categorised as Other (86.2%). CONCLUSION: Our findings support the relationship between PT prognosis of patients with musculoskeletal pain and patient outcomes. In addition, the domains and factors PTs use to formulate prognosis during evaluation present a complex biopsychosocial framework, suggesting that PTs consider factors from multiple domains when forming a prognosis.