Purpose and background. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders, particularly back pain, are a significant issue for healthcare workers, with patient handling being the most frequently reported risk factor. Patient handling is often performed without assistive devices or equipment, which can cause healthcare staff to maintain awkward postures or experience high loads. This review aimed to comprehensively map the literature surrounding manual patient handling (without assistive devices) by healthcare practitioners to identify the current evidence-base on moving and handling of patients and explore what primary research had been conducted. Methods and results. JBI methodology for scoping reviews and an a priori registered protocol (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/8PR7A) was followed and AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus and EMBASE databases were searched. Literature published in English between 2002 and 2021 was included. Forty-nine records were included: 36 primary research studies, 1 systematic review and 12 ‘other’ including narrative and government reports. Primary research predominantly used observational cross-sectional designs (n = 21 studies). Most studies took place in hospitals (n = 13) and laboratories (n = 12). Nurses formed the largest population group (n = 13), with very little research on physiotherapists and other allied health professionals. Conclusion. This scoping review comprehensively reviewed the available literature in the area. Most of the included primary research was observational. Nurses were often investigated in hospitals and laboratories. Qualitative research investigating moving and handling and further biomechanical investigation into therapeutic handling by healthcare staff were identified as areas for further research. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. None. This work has been published in Physiotherapy: Johnson, K., Swinton, P., Pavlova, A. and Cooper, K., 2023. Manual patient handling in the healthcare setting: a scoping review. Physiotherapy. (120) 60–77 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2023.06.003

Background. Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) as a treatment option for severe disc-related sciatica, but there is considerable uncertainty about its effectiveness. Currently, we know very little about factors that might be associated with good or poor outcomes from ESI. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize and appraise the evidence investigating prognostic factors associated with outcomes following ESI for patients with imaging confirmed disc-related sciatica. Methods. The search strategy involved the electronic databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and reference lists of eligible studies. Selected papers were quality appraised independently by two reviewers using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Between study heterogeneity precluded statistical pooling of results. Results. 2726 citations were identified; 11 studies were eligible. Overall study quality was low with all judged to have moderate or high risk of bias. Forty-five prognostic factors were identified but were measured inconsistently. The most commonly assessed prognostic factors were related to pain and function (n=7 studies), imaging features (n=6 studies), health and lifestyle (n=5 studies), patient demographics (n=4 studies) and clinical assessment findings (n=4 studies). No prognostic factor was found to be consistently associated with outcomes following ESI. Most studies found no association or results that conflicted with other studies. Conclusions. There is little, and low quality, evidence to guide practice in terms of factors that predict outcomes in patients following ESI for disc-related sciatica. The results can help inform some of the decisions about potential prognostic factors that should be assessed in future well-designed prospective cohort studies. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

Background and Purpose. Non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) poses a significant disability and economic burden worldwide. Fear avoidance is suggested to contribute to its chronicity and reduced treatment effect. National guidelines recommend exercise as a component of multidisciplinary rehabilitation but its interaction with fear avoidance is ambiguous. This systematic review examined the effect of exercise-based interventions (EBIs) on fear avoidance NSCLBP. Methods and Results. RCTs comparing EBIs to usual care in adults with NSCLBP were included. A systematic search of CINAHL, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library (up to January 2019) revealed 10 eligible trials. Following risk of bias assessment, 6 studies were included for data extraction and narrative synthesis. EBIs were not found superior to usual care in reducing fear avoidance at any follow-up. There was evidence that reducing fear avoidance is probably not the mechanism through which EBIs affect pain and disability. In adherent patients, EBIs did not result in greater clinically relevant improvements in pain or disability than usual care, in the short- or intermediate-term. Conclusion. Addition of EBIs as part of multidisciplinary rehabilitation is not more beneficial than that of usual care in reducing fear avoidance in NSCLBP patients. However, the findings of this review are based on heterogenous studies presenting with methodological limitations. Further high-quality research is required to examine the review's findings and investigate current physiotherapy management of fear avoidance in NSCLBP. No conflicts of interest. No funding obtained

Background. About 85% of the patients with low back pain seeking medical care have nonspecific low back pain (NsLBP), implying that no definitive cause can be identified. Many pain conditions are linked with elevated serum levels of (pro-)inflammatory biomarkers. Purpose. To unravel the etiology and get better insight in the prognosis of NsLBP, the aim of this study was to assess the association between (pro-)inflammatory biomarkers and the presence and severity of NsLBP. Methods. A systematic literature search was made in Embase, Medline, Cinahl, Web-of-science, and Google scholar up to January 19th 2017. Included were studies reporting on patients >18 years with NsLBP, in which one or more pro-inflammatory biomarkers were measured in blood plasma. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). A best-evidence synthesis was used to summarize the results from the individual studies. Results. Included were 10 studies which assessed 4 different (pro-)inflammatory biomarkers. For the association between the presence of NsLBP and C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin 6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α limited, conflicting and moderate evidence, respectively, was found. For the association between the severity of NsLBP and CRP and IL-6, moderate evidence was found. For the association between the severity of NsLBP and TNF-α and RANTES conflicting and limited evidence, respectively, was found. Conclusions. This study found moderate evidence for i) a positive association between the (pro-)inflammatory biomarkers CRP and IL-6 and the severity of NsLBP, and ii) a positive association between TNF-α and the presence of NsLBP. No conflicts of interest. No funding obtained

Background and aims. The EU-funded Back-UP project aims to develop a cloud computer platform to guide the treatment of low back and neck pain (LBNP) in first contact care and early rehabilitation. In order to identify evidence-based treatment options that can be recommended and are accessible to people with LBNP across Europe, we conducted a systematic review of recently published guidelines. Methods. Electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, HMIC, Epistemonikos, PEDro, TRIP, NICE, SIGN, WHO, Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) and DynaMed Plus were searched. We searched for guidelines published by European health professional or guideline development organisations since 2013, focusing on the primary care management of adult patients presenting with back or neck pain (including whiplash associated symptoms, radicular pain, and pregnancy-related LBP). The AGREE-II tool was used to assess the quality of guideline development and reporting. Results. Searches generated 3098 unique citations that were screened for eligibility. A total of 189 full-texts were retrieved, and 18 guidelines were included in the review (from the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, and the Netherlands). Data extraction showed considerable variation in guideline development processes, especially regarding the methods used for identifying, appraising, and synthesising evidence, and for formulating, agreeing, and grading recommendations. Conclusions. Recommendations for the management of LBNP cover a wide range of treatment options, with self-management advice, analgesics, and exercise proposed as core treatments by most guidelines. A narrative synthesis, taking into account consistency, strength, and quality of guideline recommendations, will be presented. No conflicts of interest. Funding: This abstract presents independent research within the Back-UP project, which has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 777090. This document reflects only the views of the authors, and the European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of its contents. The information in this document is provided “as is”, without warranty of any kind, and accept no liability for loss or damage suffered by any person using this information

Background to the study. The use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) to measure effectiveness of care, and supporting patient management is being advocated increasingly. When evaluating outcome it is important to identify a PROM with good measurement properties. Purpose of the study. To review the measurement properties of the low back and neck versions of the Bournemouth Questionnaire. Methods. Bibliographic databases (e.g. EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycInfo) were searched for articles evaluating the measurement properties of the Bournemouth Questionnaire. Articles were excluded that did not evaluate measurement properties of this instrument. The methodological quality of the studies selected was evaluated using the COSMIN checklist with the four point rating scale. Studies were rated as “excellent”, “good”, “fair” or “poor” based on completion of the checklist. Results. The initial search produced 6265 hits. A total of 13 studies were included in the final evaluation. Seven studies used the Bournemouth Questionnaire neck version, and six studies involved the back version. Cross-cultural translation was reported in six studies, reliability data were reported in eight studies, and responsiveness in ten studies. Conclusion. The review's findings suggest that the Bournemouth Questionnaire has suitable measurement properties for benchmarking practice in musculoskeletal settings. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. This study was sponsored by the National Council for Osteopathic Research (. www.ncor.org.uk. )

Background and purpose. To identify methods used to measure free living sedentary behaviour in people with back pain and review the validity and reliability of identified measures. Methods. Databases including CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus and the Sedentary Behaviour and Research Network website (. www.sedentarybehaviour.org. ) were searched for relevant published articles up to June 2014. Studies which measured sedentary behaviour in people with back pain were included. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Checklist was used to assess psychometric properties. Results. Six papers were identified; two of high methodological quality. The most common method of data collection was self-report, using activity diaries or questionnaires. Sedentary behaviour measured by accelerometry ranged from 6.7 to 10.7 hours per day whereas results from self-report measures ranged from 5 to 9.4 hours per day. According to the COSMIN checklist, the psychometric properties of the measurement instruments were rated fair to excellent. Conclusion. People with back pain spend a large proportion of their waking day participating in sedentary behaviour. Therefore valid and reliable sedentary behaviour measurements, such as those identified in this study, are essential for assessing the effectiveness of public health interventions and for future population monitoring. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: Department for Employment and Learning

Background. Osteoarthritis (OA) and chronic low back pain (CLBP > 12 weeks duration) are two of the most common and costly chronic musculoskeletal conditions globally. Healthcare service demands mean that group-based multiple condition interventions are of increasing clinical interest and a priority for research, but no reviews have evaluated the effectiveness of group-based physiotherapy-led self-management interventions (GPSMI) for both conditions concurrently. Rapid review methodologies are an increasingly valid means of expediting knowledge dissemination and are particularly useful for addressing focused research questions. Methods. The electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from the earliest date possible to August 26. th. 2013. Structured group-based interventions that aimed to promote self-management and that were delivered by health-care professionals (including at least one physiotherapist) involving adults with OA and/or CLBP were eligible for inclusion. The screening and selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Results. 22 studies were found (10 OA, 12 CLBP). The most commonly assessed outcomes were pain, disability, quality of life and physical function. No significant difference was found between the effectiveness of GPSMI and individual physiotherapy or usual general practitioner care for any outcome. Conclusion. GPSMI is as clinically effective as individual physiotherapy, but the best methods of measuring clinical effectiveness warrant further investigation. Further research is also needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of GPSMI and its implications. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This review was conducted as part of Health Research Award HRA_HSR/2012/24 from the Health Research Board of Ireland

Background. In the USA more than half the states have legislated scoliosis school screening with the remaining states having either voluntary screening or no recommendations. The four primary care providers for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis in the USA (AAOS, SRS, POSNA, AAP) do not support any recommendation against scoliosis screening, given the available literature. In Australia a national self detection program is implemented but in the UK school screening has been abolished since the 1980's. Opponents to scoliosis screening have focused on concerns about a low predictive value of screening, the cost effectiveness of referral, the possibility of unnecessary brace treatment and the effect of exposure to radiation when radiographs are obtained. Objectives. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the evidence for and against scoliosis screening. Methods. The following databases were searched: Cochrane Library, ARIF, TRIP, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Reference lists of articles were searched for relevant systematic reviews and research articles. Results. One systematic review (2008). 1. suggests that there is evidence (level 1B) that intensive scoliosis specific exercise methods can reduce the progression of mild scoliosis (<30 degrees Cobb). Further a Cochrane review (2010). 2. suggests that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of bracing. Conclusions. Based on the evidence of this review, a 4 tier model for school screening is proposed that includes the distribution of information leaflets, screening by a school nurse, topographical assessment, referral to the primary care doctor and finally if the patient is still screening positive, referral to a scoliosis surgeon. Category: Deformity/screening. Ethics approval: none needed for a review. Interest statement: none

Scoliosis school screening is either mandatory or recommended in 32 states in the USA. The remaining states having either got voluntary screening or no recommendations. The four primary care providers for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis in the USA do not support any recommendation against scoliosis screening, given the available literature. In Australia a national self detection program is implemented but in the UK school screening has been abolished since the 1980's. Opponents to scoliosis screening have focused on concerns about a low predictive value of screening, the cost effectiveness of referral, the possibility of unnecessary brace treatment and the effect of exposure to radiation when radiographs are obtained. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the evidence for and against scoliosis screening. The following databases were searched: Cochrane Library, ARIF, TRIP, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Reference lists of articles were searched for relevant systematic reviews and research articles. One systematic review (2008). 1. suggests that there is evidence (level 1B) that intensive scoliosis specific exercise methods can reduce the progression of mild scoliosis (<30 degrees Cobb). Further a Cochrane review (2010) suggests that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of bracing. Based on the evidence of this review, a 4 tier model for school screening is proposed that addresses the “opponents” concerns. The model includes the distribution of information leaflets, screening by a school nurse, topographical assessment, referral to the primary care doctor and finally if the patient is still screening positive, referral to a scoliosis surgeon. Exercises reduce the progression rate of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis:

Purpose and background. Although low back pain (LBP) with leg pain, is considered by most a poor prognostic indicator, it is at the same time believed to have a favourable natural resolution, and is often treated along similar lines to non-specific LBP, in line with current guidelines. It is unclear whether patients with LBP and leg pain are a distinct subgroup that might benefit from early identification and targeted interventions. We set out to investigate the impact of LBP with leg pain on health outcomes and health resources compared with that of LBP alone, and to explore which factors contribute to the observed disability outcomes. Methods. A systematic literature search of all English language peer reviewed publications was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL for the years 1994 to 2009. Results. Of the 89 papers retrieved, 9 were included in the review. The heterogeneity of data allowed only for narrative analysis of findings. All studies reported worsening baseline health status in terms of poorer self-assessment and increasing use of health care the further the radiation of leg pain. Differences in quality of life measures were higher for physical than for mental health dimensions. Pain and disability outcome at follow up assessment appeared to be less favourable in this group than for individuals with LBP alone. Conclusion. LBP with leg pain is associated with poorer health outcomes and increased use of health resources. These findings argue for early identification of these cases by health care professionals and for pursuing effective treatments rather than simply treating similarly to non-specific LBP

Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) are an increasing public health problem. Recently, randomised controlled trials on the use of kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty in the treatment of these fractures have been published, but no definitive conclusions have been reached on the role of these interventions. The major problem encountered when trying to perform a meta-analysis of the available studies for the use of cementoplasty in patients with a VCF is that conservative management has not been standardised. Forms of conservative treatment commonly used in these patients include bed rest, analgesic medication, physiotherapy and bracing.

In this review, we report the best evidence available on the conservative care of patients with osteoporotic VCFs and associated back pain, focusing on the role of the most commonly used spinal orthoses. Although orthoses are used for the management of these patients, to date, there has been only one randomised controlled trial published evaluating their value. Until the best conservative management for patients with VCFs is defined and standardised, no conclusions can be drawn on the superiority or otherwise of cementoplasty techniques over conservative management.