RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) carries significant socioeconomic relevance and leads to substantial difficulties for those who are affected by it. The effectiveness of app-based treatments has been confirmed, and clinicians are recommended to use such interventions. As 88.8% of the German population uses smartphones, apps could support therapy. The available apps in mobile app stores are poorly regulated, and their quality can vary. Overviews of the availability and quality of mobile apps for Australia, Great Britain, and Spain have been compiled, but this has not yet been done for Germany. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to provide an overview of the availability and content-related quality of apps for the treatment of NSLBP in the German language. METHODS: A systematic search for apps on iOS and Android was conducted on July 6, 2022, in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined before the search. Apps in the German language that were available in both stores were eligible. To check for evidence, the apps found were assessed using checklists based on the German national guideline for NSLBP and the British equivalent of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The quality of the apps was measured using the Mobile Application Rating Scale. To control potential inaccuracies, a second reviewer resurveyed the outcomes for 30% (3/8) of the apps and checked the inclusion and exclusion criteria for these apps. The outcomes, measured using the assessment tools, are presented in tables with descriptive statistics. Furthermore, the characteristics of the included apps were summarized. RESULTS: In total, 8 apps were included for assessment. Features provided with different frequencies were exercise tracking of prefabricated or adaptable workout programs, educational aspects, artificial intelligence-based therapy or workout programs, and motion detection. All apps met some recommendations by the German national guideline and used forms of exercises as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline. The mean value of items rated as "Yes" was 5.75 (SD 2.71) out of 16. The best-rated app received an answer of "Yes" for 11 items. The mean Mobile Application Rating Scale quality score was 3.61 (SD 0.55). The highest mean score was obtained in "Section B-Functionality" (mean 3.81, SD 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Available apps in the German language meet guideline recommendations and are mostly of acceptable or good quality. Their use as a therapy supplement could help promote the implementation of home-based exercise protocols. A new assessment tool to obtain ratings on apps for the treatment of NSLBP, combining aspects of quality and evidence-based best practices, could be useful. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework Registries sq435; https://osf.io/sq435.
Asunto(s)
Inteligencia Artificial , Dolor de la Región Lumbar , Humanos , Australia , Terapia por Ejercicio , Lenguaje , Dolor de la Región Lumbar/terapiaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Most studies investigating natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) have used room air, whereas carbon dioxide (CO(2)) is traditionally preferred for laparoscopic insufflation. OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of CO(2) versus room air for NOTES and comparison with standard laparoscopic pneumoperitoneum. DESIGN: Prospective experiments in an acute porcine model. INTERVENTIONS: For transgastric peritoneoscopy, either CO(2) or room air were insufflated via the endoscope for a constant intraperitoneal pressure of 12 mm Hg in 16 pigs. Another 8 pigs received laparoscopic insufflation with CO(2). Identification of intra-abdominal organs during NOTES was documented. Additionally, standardized video recordings of peritoneoscopy were evaluated by an independent blinded observer. Complete cardiopulmonary status was assessed every 3 minutes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Quality of transgastric peritoneoscopy and cardiopulmonary response. RESULTS: In the NOTES room air group, significantly more target organs (18/64, 28%) were missed than in the NOTES CO(2) group (8/64, 13%; P = .028). However, blinded video analysis showed no difference between the groups. An increase in systemic vascular resistance index during pneumoperitoneum in the NOTES room air group was less pronounced than in the NOTES CO(2) group, almost reaching the level of significance (P = .050). With respect to hemodynamics, there were no significant differences between the NOTES CO(2) group and the laparoscopy CO(2) group. LIMITATIONS: Nonsurvival animal experiments. CONCLUSIONS: Pressure-controlled endoscopic insufflation of CO(2) for NOTES showed minor advantages compared with insufflation of room air regarding intra-abdominal visualization, but resulted in an increase in cardiac afterload. However, the cardiorespiratory responses during endoscopic insufflation of CO(2) were similar to the widely accepted standard laparoscopic CO(2) insufflation.