acute pain

急性疼痛
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    针灸有望作为减少急诊科(ED)急性疼痛的有效非药物选择。遵循CONSORT和STRICTA准则,随机对照试验(RCT)通常报告干预细节和穴位选择,但是忠于针灸干预,对干预研究的可靠性至关重要,很少报道。
    ACUITY是由NCCIH资助的,3种ED针刺的多部位可行性RCT(克利夫兰,纳什维尔,和圣地亚哥)。ACUITY针灸师接受了研究设计培训,反应灵敏的针灸手册协议,通过为跟踪保真度而创建的REDCap表单,物流和实时记录会话详细信息。
    在3个招聘地点,79名参与者接受针灸治疗:51%的女性,43%黑人/非洲裔美国人,基线时异质性急性疼痛部位:32%腰背,22%四肢,20%腹部,10%的头。务实,参与者在ED公共区域接受治疗(52%),私人房间(39%),和半私人房间(9%)。客观跟踪发现98%坚持针灸手册协议的六个组成部分:分期,插入点的数量(M=13.2,范围2-22),针头保留时间(M=23.5分钟,范围4-52),会话长度(M=40.3分钟,范围20-66),是否提供了一般性建议,并填写了会议表格。
    据我们所知,这是第一个评估和报告针灸方案保真度的RCT.保真度监测将是ACUITY2的基础,这将是未来的决定性因素,多点RCT。此外,我们建议在未来的RCT中,将针灸干预的保真度添加到CONSORT和STRICTA报告指南中.
    本研究方案注册于clinicaltrials.gov:NCT04880733。
    UNASSIGNED: Acupuncture shows promise as an effective nonpharmacologic option for reduction of acute pain in the emergency department (ED). Following CONSORT and STRICTA guidelines, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) generally report intervention details and acupoint options, but fidelity to acupuncture interventions, critical to reliability in intervention research, is rarely reported.
    UNASSIGNED: ACUITY is an NCCIH-funded, multi-site feasibility RCT of acupuncture in 3 EDs (Cleveland, Nashville, and San Diego). ACUITY acupuncturists were trained in study design, responsive acupuncture manualization protocol, logistics and real-time recording of session details via REDCap forms created to track fidelity.
    UNASSIGNED: Across 3 recruiting sites, 79 participants received acupuncture: 51 % women, 43 % Black/African American, with heterogeneous acute pain sites at baseline: 32 % low back, 22 % extremity, 20 % abdominal, 10 % head. Pragmatically, participants were treated in ED common areas (52 %), private rooms (39 %), and semi-private rooms (9 %). Objective tracking found 98 % adherence to the six components of the acupuncture manualization protocol: staging, number of insertion points (M = 13.2, range 2-22), needle retention time (M = 23.5 min, range 4-52), session length (M = 40.3 min, range 20-66), whether general recommendations were provided and completion of the session form.
    UNASSIGNED: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first RCT to assess and report fidelity to an acupuncture protocol. Fidelity monitoring will be fundamental for ACUITY2, which would be a future definitive, multi-site RCT. Furthermore, we recommend that fidelity to acupuncture interventions be added to CONSORT and STRICTA reporting guidelines in future RCTs.
    UNASSIGNED: The protocol of this study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04880733.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    荒野医学协会(WMS)召集了一个专家小组,为严峻环境中的疼痛管理制定基于证据的指南。建议根据美国胸科医师学会提出的标准所定义的支持证据的质量进行分级。这是对2014年版本的“WMS在偏远环境中治疗急性疼痛的实践指南”的更新,发表在《荒野与环境医学》2014;25:41-49。
    The Wilderness Medical Society (WMS) convened an expert panel to develop evidence-based guidelines for the management of pain in austere environments. Recommendations are graded based on the quality of supporting evidence as defined by criteria put forth by the American College of Chest Physicians. This is an update of the 2014 version of the \"WMS Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Acute Pain in Remote Environments\" published in Wilderness & Environmental Medicine 2014; 25:41-49.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    我们旨在根据COSMIN和GRADE指南验证CMPS-SF。四名经过培训的评估人员评估了52只狗的208个视频(术前M1,疼痛峰值M2,疼痛和镇痛峰值后1小时(救援)-M3和拔管后24小时-M4),分为阴性对照(n=10),软组织手术(n=22),和骨科手术(n=20)。这些视频是随机的,并且对它们的拍摄时间一无所知,分两个阶段进行评估,相隔21天根据验证性分析,CMPS-SF是一维尺度。观察者内部可靠性在0.80和0.99之间,观察者之间的可靠性在0.73和0.86之间。CMPS-SF与其他一维量表(≥0.7)之间的相关性证实了标准的有效性。得分之间的差异是M2≥M3>M4>M1(反应性),并且该量表具有结构效度(手术犬术后疼痛评分高于对照组)。内部稠度为0.7(克朗巴赫α)和0.77(麦当劳ω),除“A(ii)-注意伤口”外,项目总相关性在0.3和0.7之间。特异性和敏感性分别为78-87%和74-83%,分别。排除项目B(iii)的活动性,抢救镇痛的截止点为≥5或≥4,等级分类很高,确认量表的有效性。
    We aimed to validate the CMPS-SF according to COSMIN and GRADE guidelines. Four trained evaluators assessed 208 videos (pre-operative-M1, peak of pain-M2, 1 h after the peak of pain and analgesia (rescue)-M3, and 24 h post-extubation-M4) of 52 dogs, divided into negative controls (n = 10), soft tissue surgeries (n = 22), and orthopedic surgeries (n = 20). The videos were randomized and blinded as to when they were filmed, and were evaluated in two stages, 21 days apart. According to confirmatory analysis, the CMPS-SF is a unidimensional scale. Intra-observer reliability was between 0.80 and 0.99 and inter-observer reliability between 0.73 and 0.86. Criterion validity was confirmed by the correlation between the CMPS-SF and other unidimensional scales (≥0.7). The differences between the scores were M2 ≥ M3 > M4 > M1 (responsiveness), and the scale presented construct validity (higher postoperative pain scores in dogs undergoing surgery versus control). Internal consistency was 0.7 (Cronbach\'s α) and 0.77 (McDonald\'s ω), and the item-total correlation was between 0.3 and 0.7, except for \"A(ii)-Attention to wound\". Specificity and sensitivity were 78-87% and 74-83%, respectively. The cut-off point for rescue analgesia was ≥5 or ≥4 excluding item B(iii) mobility, and the GRADE classification was high, confirming the validity of the scale.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    手术人群,尤其是受伤幸存者,通常会出现复杂的创伤,这增加了长期使用和滥用阿片类药物的风险。在过去几年中,阿片类药物处方指南的变化对创伤后的疼痛管理产生了不同的结果,限制因素是临床人群的异质性和接受阿片类药物的个体的治疗需求。本分析通过医院创伤提供者和单位工作人员对当前阿片类药物处方指南和创伤背景下的实践的定性反馈,阐明了临床指南与临床实践之间的差距。
    这项研究旨在在威斯康星州的四个一级和二级创伤医院中实施阿片类药物滥用的试点筛查工具。作为家长研究的一部分,在每个研究地点进行了焦点小组,以探索实施新型筛查工具的促进者和障碍,以及检查当前的阿片类药物处方指南,培训,以及创伤和急性护理提供者可用的资源。使用改良的扎根理论方法对焦点小组的转录本进行独立编码和分析,以确定与创伤和急性护理中阿片类药物处方指南的促进者和障碍相关的主题。
    确定了三个主要主题,这些主题对创伤性损伤中与阿片类药物相关的处方和护理有影响;这些主题包括(1)急性治疗策略;(2)围绕疼痛管理的患者相互作用;(3)创伤对疼痛管理方法的多因素性质。
    威斯康星州四个创伤中心的提供者和工作人员呼吁在创伤和急性护理中制定创伤特异性阿片类药物处方指南。阿片类药物的普遍处方和这些环境中长期疼痛管理的挑战需要额外的社区综合研究来指导联邦指南的制定。
    治疗/护理管理,V级
    UNASSIGNED: Surgical populations and particularly injury survivors often present with complex trauma that elevates their risk for prolonged opioid use and misuse. Changes in opioid prescribing guidelines during the past several years have yielded mixed results for pain management after trauma, with a limiting factor being the heterogeneity of clinical populations and treatment needs in individuals receiving opioids. The present analysis illuminates this gap between clinical guidelines and clinical practice through qualitative feedback from hospital trauma providers and unit staff members regarding current opioid prescribing guidelines and practices in the setting of traumatic injury.
    UNASSIGNED: The parent study aimed to implement a pilot screening tool for opioid misuse in four level I and II trauma hospitals throughout Wisconsin. As part of the parent study, focus groups were conducted at each study site to explore the facilitators and barriers of implementing a novel screening tool, as well as to examine the current opioid prescribing guidelines, trainings, and resources available for trauma and acute care providers. Focus group transcripts were independently coded and analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach to identify themes related to the facilitators and barriers of opioid prescribing guidelines in trauma and acute care.
    UNASSIGNED: Three major themes were identified as impactful to opioid-related prescribing and care provided in the setting of traumatic injury; these include (1) acute treatment strategies; (2) patient interactions surrounding pain management; and (3) the multifactorial nature of trauma on pain management approaches.
    UNASSIGNED: Providers and staff at four Wisconsin trauma centers called for trauma-specific opioid prescribing guidelines in the setting of trauma and acute care. The ubiquitous prescription of opioids and challenges in long-term pain management in these settings necessitate additional community-integrated research to inform development of federal guidelines.
    UNASSIGNED: Therapeutic/care management, level V.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Practice Guideline
    背景:由美国牙科协会科学与研究所召集的小组,匹兹堡大学,和宾夕法尼亚大学进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,并制定了循证建议,用于简单和手术拔牙后急性牙痛的药物管理和临时管理(即,无法立即获得最终的牙科治疗)与青少年牙髓和根尖疾病有关的牙痛,成年人,和老年人。
    方法:小组进行了4次系统评价,以确定阿片类和非阿片类镇痛药的效果,局部麻醉药,皮质类固醇,和局部麻醉药治疗急性牙痛。面板使用了“建议分级”,评估,开发和评估方法,以评估证据的确定性和建议的等级,评估,制定和评估决策证据框架,以制定建议。
    结果:专家组使用现有的最佳证据制定了建议和良好实践声明。与阿片类药物相比,使用非阿片类药物存在有利的净平衡。特别是,与阿片类药物相比,非甾体类抗炎药单独使用或联合使用对乙酰氨基酚可能能更好地缓解疼痛,安全性更好.
    结论:非阿片类药物是治疗拔牙后急性牙痛和临时治疗牙痛的一线疗法。当一线治疗不足以减轻疼痛或存在非甾体类抗炎药禁忌症时,应保留阿片类药物的使用。临床医生应避免常规使用阿片类药物的处方,并且在向青少年和年轻人处方阿片类药物时应格外谨慎。
    A panel convened by the American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh, and the University of Pennsylvania conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses and formulated evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain after simple and surgical tooth extraction(s) and for the temporary management (ie, definitive dental treatment not immediately available) of toothache associated with pulp and periapical diseases in adolescents, adults, and older adults.
    The panel conducted 4 systematic reviews to determine the effect of opioid and nonopioid analgesics, local anesthetics, corticosteroids, and topical anesthetics on acute dental pain. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence-to-Decision Framework to formulate recommendations.
    The panel formulated recommendations and good practice statements using the best available evidence. There is a beneficial net balance favoring the use of nonopioid medications compared with opioid medications. In particular, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with acetaminophen likely provide superior pain relief with a more favorable safety profile than opioids.
    Nonopioid medications are first-line therapy for managing acute dental pain after tooth extraction(s) and the temporary management of toothache. The use of opioids should be reserved for clinical situations when the first-line therapy is insufficient to reduce pain or there is contraindication of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Clinicians should avoid the routine use of just-in-case prescribing of opioids and should exert extreme caution when prescribing opioids to adolescents and young adults.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:回顾不同物理治疗对急性和亚急性下腰痛的有效性,并为物理治疗师制定临床处方的临床建议和专家共识。
    方法:在PubMed和Cochrane图书馆进行了系统搜索,以查找在过去15年中发表的研究。
    方法:系统评价和荟萃分析,纳入了评估急性和亚急性下腰痛患者的随机对照试验.两名评审员使用相同的纳入标准独立筛选相关研究。使用物理治疗证据数据库和多重系统评价工具对随机对照试验和系统评价的质量评价进行分级。分别。最终的推荐等级是基于22名国际专家的德尔菲共识讨论结果。
    结果:纳入21项系统评价和21项随机对照试验。对于急性下腰痛,建议使用脊柱手法治疗和低水平激光治疗。核心稳定性练习/电机控制,脊椎手法治疗,按摩可用于治疗亚急性下腰痛。
    结论:共识声明为医务人员提供了适用于急性和亚急性下腰痛的物理治疗建议。这份共识声明需要在5-10年后定期更新。
    OBJECTIVE: To review the effectiveness of different physical therapies for acute and sub-acute low back pain supported by evidence, and create clinical recommendations and expert consensus for physiotherapists on clinical prescriptions.
    METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and the Cochrane Library for studies published within the previous 15 years.
    METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials assessing patients with acute and sub-acute low back pain were included. Two reviewers independently screened relevant studies using the same inclusion criteria. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool were used to grade the quality assessment of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews, respectively. The final recommendation grades were based on the consensus discussion results of the Delphi of 22 international experts.
    RESULTS: Twenty-one systematic reviews and 21 randomized controlled trials were included. Spinal manipulative therapy and low-level laser therapy are recommended for acute low back pain. Core stability exercise/motor control, spinal manipulative therapy, and massage can be used to treat sub-acute low back pain.
    CONCLUSIONS: The consensus statements provided medical staff with appliable recommendations of physical therapy for acute and sub-acute low back pain. This consensus statement will require regular updates after 5-10 years.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    疼痛是全球成年人致残的主要原因,有效的治疗方案仍然难以捉摸。数据协调工作,例如通过核心结果集(COS),可以通过强调交叉疼痛机制和治疗来改善护理。现有的疼痛相关的COS通常集中在特定的条件,这可能会阻碍各种疼痛状态之间的数据协调。
    我们的目标是开发四个域/子域的总体COS(即,衡量什么)超越不同疼痛类别内的疼痛状况。我们主办了一次会议,以评估这四种COS在疼痛研究和临床实践中的需求。通过系统文献综述(SLR)确定了潜在的COS域/子域,会议与会者,和Delphi参与者。我们在网上进行了一次,三步Delphi过程,就要包含在四个最终COS中的领域达成共识。调查受访者是从SLR和疼痛相关的社交网络中确定的,包括多学科卫生保健专业人员,研究人员,和有痛苦经历(PWLE)的人。由COS专家和PWLE组成的咨询委员会在整个过程中提供了建议。
    最终COS中的域通常与疼痛有关,生活质量,和身体功能/活动限制,疼痛类别之间存在一些差异。这项努力是第一个产生四个独立的,总体COS,以鼓励不同疼痛类别内和之间的国际数据协调。
    在研究和临床实践中采用COS将促进世界各地和疼痛研究之间的比较和数据整合,以优化资源。加快治疗发现,改善疼痛护理。
    创新药物倡议2联合承诺;欧盟地平线2020研究创新计划,欧洲制药工业和协会联合会(EFPIA)为IMI-PainCare提供了资金。RDT承认Esteve和TEVA的资助。
    UNASSIGNED: Pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide among adults and effective treatment options remain elusive. Data harmonization efforts, such as through core outcome sets (COS), could improve care by highlighting cross-cutting pain mechanisms and treatments. Existing pain-related COS often focus on specific conditions, which can hamper data harmonization across various pain states.
    UNASSIGNED: Our objective was to develop four overarching COS of domains/subdomains (i.e., what to measure) that transcend pain conditions within different pain categories. We hosted a meeting to assess the need for these four COS in pain research and clinical practice. Potential COS domains/subdomains were identified via a systematic literature review (SLR), meeting attendees, and Delphi participants. We conducted an online, three step Delphi process to reach a consensus on domains to be included in the four final COS. Survey respondents were identified from the SLR and pain-related social networks, including multidisciplinary health care professionals, researchers, and people with lived experience (PWLE) of pain. Advisory boards consisting of COS experts and PWLE provided advice throughout the process.
    UNASSIGNED: Domains in final COS were generally related to aspects of pain, quality of life, and physical function/activity limitations, with some differences among pain categories. This effort was the first to generate four separate, overarching COS to encourage international data harmonization within and across different pain categories.
    UNASSIGNED: The adoption of the COS in research and clinical practice will facilitate comparisons and data integration around the world and across pain studies to optimize resources, expedite therapeutic discovery, and improve pain care.
    UNASSIGNED: Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Join Undertaking; European Union Horizon 2020 research innovation program, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) provided funding for IMI-PainCare. RDT acknowledges grants from Esteve and TEVA.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:髋部骨折患者常在急诊科就诊。尽管疼痛评分很高,院前疼痛管理往往是不充分的。在荷兰,紧急医疗服务(EMS)表现出高水平的培训,由全面的疼痛治疗方案支持。这项研究旨在评估对协议的依从性,并假设髋部骨折患者的院前疼痛管理既充分又充分。
    方法:这是一项对疑似髋部骨折患者的回顾性观察性队列研究。比较了救护车中的初始评分与到达ED时的数字评定量表(NRS)疼痛评分的中位数差异。此外,对救护车疼痛方案的依从性进行了研究。
    结果:从2016年9月到2021年3月,包括436名救护车运送的髋部骨折患者,其中81%的人通过EMS接受了镇痛药。EMS测量的初始疼痛评分中位数为8;在ED演示时,该数字降至5,显著下降(ρ<0.001)。如果评估院前NRS疼痛评分,66.5%的患者按照方案治疗。在80%的患者中,协议没有被正确遵循,主要是由于缺少NRS疼痛评分。
    结论:在疑似髋部骨折患者中,最初院前疼痛评分较高,大多数患者接受EMS止痛药.这导致疼痛的显著减少。在院前阶段评估NRS疼痛评分的患者中,近67%疼痛管理按照协议进行.然而,在80%的总人口中,疼痛方案没有得到遵守,主要是由于缺少NRS疼痛评分。
    OBJECTIVE: Patients with hip fractures frequently present at the emergency department (ED). Despite high pain scores, prehospital pain management is often inadequate and insufficient. In the Netherlands, the emergency medical services (EMS) exhibit a high level of training, supported by a comprehensive pain treatment protocol. This study aimed to assess adherence to the protocol and hypothesized that prehospital pain management in hip fracture patients was both sufficient and adequate.
    METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study of patients with suspected hip fractures. The median differences in numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores between the initial score in the ambulance and upon arrival at the ED were compared. Furthermore, adherence to the ambulance pain protocol was studied.
    RESULTS: From September 2016 to March 2021, 436 ambulance-transported hip fracture patients were included, of whom 81% received analgesics by EMS. The median initial pain score measured by EMS was 8; this number decreased to 5 at ED presentation, a significant decrease (ρ < 0.001). In case a prehospital NRS pain score was assessed, 66.5% of the patients were treated according to the protocol. In 80% of patients, the protocol was not followed correctly, primarily due to missing NRS pain scores.
    CONCLUSIONS: In suspected hip fracture patients, initial prehospital pain scores were high and most patients received analgesics from EMS. This resulted in a significant decrease in pain. In nearly 67% of patients in whom an NRS pain score was assessed in the prehospital phase, pain management was according to protocol. However, in 80% of the total population the pain protocol was not adhered to, mainly due to missing NRS pain scores.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Review
    改善对反映猫急性疼痛的行为的理解是猫科动物福利的优先事项。这项研究的目的是创建和验证猫的急性疼痛行为的综合心电图,可以区分疼痛和非疼痛个体。基于PubMed的文献综述,创建了具有各自描述符的行为清单(模型图),WebofScience和CABAbstracts数据库。心电图分为十个行为类别,可以通过持续时间和/或频率进行评估:笼子中的位置,探索行为,活动,姿势和身体位置,情感-情绪状态,发声,玩(与对象),喂养,进食后和面部表情/特征。由四名具有猫科动物医学研究生资格的兽医独立分析了36种行为和/或行为为(1)不相关,(2)有点相关,(3)相当相关或(4)高度相关并用于内容(I-CVI)和面部有效性。包括I-CVI评分>0.67的项目。最终的心电图中包括24种行为。十三个项目达成了完全一致(即,I-CVI=1):位于笼子的后部,不注意周围的环境,假装睡觉,梳理,注意伤口,蹲伏/驼背,步态异常,沮丧,难以抓住食物,摇头,斜眼,眼睑痉挛和降低的头部位置。根据专家建议,对七个描述符进行了重新措辞。最终的心电图在内容和面部有效性之后提供了猫的急性疼痛行为的详细描述,并且可以应用于住院猫的不同急性疼痛状况的表征。
    An improved understanding of behaviors reflecting acute pain in cats is a priority for feline welfare. The aim of this study was to create and validate a comprehensive ethogram of acute pain behaviors in cats that can discriminate painful versus non-painful individuals. An inventory of behaviors (ethogram) with their respective descriptors was created based on a literature review of PubMed, Web of Science and CAB Abstracts databases. The ethogram was divided into ten behavior categories that could be evaluated by duration and/or frequency: position in the cage, exploratory behaviors, activity, posture and body position, affective-emotional states, vocalization, playing (with an object), feeding, post-feeding and facial expressions/features. Thirty-six behaviors were analyzed independently by four veterinarians with postgraduate qualifications in feline medicine and/or behavior as (1) not relevant, (2) somewhat relevant, (3) quite relevant or (4) highly relevant and used for content (I-CVI) and face validity. Items with I-CVI scores > 0.67 were included. Twenty-four behaviors were included in the final ethogram. Thirteen items presented full agreement (i.e., I-CVI = 1): positioned in the back of the cage, no attention to surroundings, feigned sleep, grooming, attention to wound, crouched/hunched, abnormal gait, depressed, difficulty grasping food, head shaking, eye squinting, blepharospasm and lowered head position. Seven descriptors were reworded according to expert suggestions. The final ethogram provides a detailed description of acute pain behaviors in cats after content and face validity and can be applied to the characterization of different acute painful conditions in hospitalized cats.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Randomized Controlled Trial
    目的:研究将疼痛科学或人体工程学信息添加到指南建议中对急性下腰痛(LBP)患者的安心感和管理意图的影响。设计:随机三臂平行组.方法:我们招募急性LBP患者(疼痛≤6周)参与一项在线实验。参与者以1:1:1的比例随机分为三组:单独的指南建议或添加简短的疼痛科学或人体工程学信息的指南建议。在所有3组中通过预先录制的视频进行干预。共同的结果是保证(1)没有严重的疾病引起LBP,(2)继续进行日常活动是安全的。次要结果是发展为慢性疼痛的感知风险,管理意图(卧床休息,去看健康专家,去看专家,和成像),信誉,以及解决参与者担忧的建议的相关性。结果:分析了两千二百九十七个反应(2,313个随机数据中的99.3%)。在指南建议中添加简短的疼痛科学或人体工程学信息并没有改变LBP不是由严重疾病引起的保证。与指南建议相比,人体工程学建议的添加提供了更糟糕的保证,即继续进行日常活动是安全的(平均差异[MD],-0.33;95%CI:0.13,0.53)。两组在管理意图上没有差异。结论:将疼痛科学或人体工程学信息添加到指南建议中并没有增加急性LBP患者的安慰或改变管理意图。人体工程学信息可能会降低人们的安全感。J正交运动物理学,2023年;53(12)1-11。Epub2023年9月26日。doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12090。
    OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of adding pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice on feelings of reassurance and management intentions among people with acute low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Three-arm parallel-group randomized experiment. METHODS: We recruited people with acute LBP (pain for ≤6 weeks) to participate in an online experiment. Participants were randomized at a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three groups: guideline advice alone or guideline advice with the addition of brief pain science or ergonomics messages. The intervention was delivered via prerecorded videos in all 3 groups. Coprimary outcomes were reassurance that (1) no serious condition is causing LBP and (2) continuing with daily activities is safe. Secondary outcomes were perceived risk of developing chronic pain, management intentions (bed rest, see a health professional, see a specialist, and imaging), credibility, and relevance of the advice in addressing the participant\'s concerns. RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred ninety-seven responses (99.3% of 2,313 randomized) were analyzed. Adding brief pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice did not change reassurance that LBP was not caused by serious disease. The addition of ergonomics advice provided worse reassurance that it is safe to continue with daily activities compared to guideline advice (mean difference [MD], -0.33; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.53). There was no difference between groups on management intentions. CONCLUSION: Adding pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice did not increase reassurance or change management intentions in people with acute LBP. Ergonomics messages may lead to reduced feelings of reassurance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(12)1-11. Epub 26 September 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12090.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号