OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the current evidence comparing low level to high level laser therapy to reveal any superiorities in the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders.
METHODS: Five databases were searched till September 2022 to obtain relevant RCTs comparing high intensity and low-level laser therapies in the management of musculoskeletal disorders. Two authors assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale and meta-analysis was conducted for studies that showed homogeneity.
RESULTS: Twelve articles were included in this systematic review with a total population of 704 participants across various musculoskeletal pathologies including tennis elbow, carpal tunnel syndrome, chronic non-specific low back pain, knee arthritis, plantar fasciitis, and subacromial impingement. There were no statistical differences between the two interventions in pain, electrophysiological parameters, level of disability, quality of life, postural sway or pressure algometer, however, Low level laser therapy showed superiority in increasing grip strength compared to high intensity laser therapy while results were significant in favour of high intensity laser therapy regarding long head of biceps diameter and cross sectional area, supraspinatus thickness and echogenicity and acromio-humeral distance.
CONCLUSIONS: The current literature suggests no superiority of both types of laser therapy in musculoskeletal disorders, however, more RCTs with larger sample size are required to reach a definitive conclusion regarding the superiority of either form of laser therapy in musculoskeletal disorders.

Although patients believe that osteoporosis is a painful condition, health professionals assume it is painless unless a fracture occurs. The association between BMD and back pain has not been examined longitudinally in community-based adults in an unbiased population using gold-standard measures. This study aimed to examine the association between BMD and incident high-intensity back pain and/or high disability over 10 years in Australian men without high-intensity symptoms at baseline. Men with no high-intensity back pain and/or high disability attending the Geelong Osteoporosis Study at the 5-year visit (occurring between 2006-2010) (considered the baseline for the current study) were followed for 10 years (reassessed between 2016-2021). Back pain and disability were assessed using the Graded Chronic Pain Scale at both time points. At baseline, DXA was used to measure lumbar spine and total hip BMD and spinal artefacts. The relationships between BMD and incident high-intensity pain and/or high disability at follow-up were examined using binary logistic regression, adjusted for age, body mass index, depression, education, smoking, mobility, and spinal artefacts. A total of 679 participants had no to low-intensity pain and/or no to low disability at baseline. A total of 441 attended follow-up, providing back pain and disability data. Thirty-seven men developed high-intensity pain and/or high disability. No association of BMD at any site was seen with incident high-intensity pain and/or high disability. BMD was not associated with incident high-intensity pain or disability in community-based men. These data provide evidence to dispel the erroneous community-held belief that low BMD is related to back pain and disability.

Lyme neuroborreliosis is a rare zoonosis which can be difficult to diagnose, in particular in low endemic areas. We here report the case of a 35-year-old man presenting with disabling back pain preceded by facial monoplegia, which was wrongly treated as Bell\'s palsy (paralysis a frigore) and then as post-traumatic lumbosciatica. The onset of facial diplegia allowed for a definitive diagnosis. The patient was treated with ceftriaxone and symptoms gradually improved.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of elevated supine position with back support on back pain, anxiety and comfort in patients undergoing coronary angiography.
METHODS: This randomized-controlled, experimental study was conducted in the Coronary Intensive Care Unit between September 2021 and January 2022, with an intervention group of 51 patients and a control group of 53 patients. Data were collected using a patient information form, a visual analog scale, the anxiety state inventory and the immobilization comfort questionnaire. Following angiography, the intervention group received pillow support to the back and the bedhead was elevated to 30 degrees. Routine nursing care was applied to the control group. In both groups, the severity of back pain was measured at 0, 2, and 4 hours, and anxiety and comfort at 0 and 4 hours.
RESULTS: The pain severity at 2 and 4 hours after the procedure was determined to be significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (p<0.001, p<0.001). At 4 hours, the anxiety levels were similar in both groups (p<0.05), and the comfort level was higher in the intervention group (p<0.001). The mean pain value was 6.003 points lower and the comfort level was 20.499 points higher in the intervention group than in the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: The elevated supine position with back support was seen to reduce back pain, increase comfort, and did not change anxiety levels.Clinical Trials No: NCT05546216.

UNASSIGNED: Frozen shoulder may be an early preclinical symptom of Parkinson\'s disease (PD).
UNASSIGNED: To examine PD risk after frozen shoulder diagnosis and to evaluate this disorder as a possible manifestation of parkinsonism preceding the clinical recognition of PD and possible target for screening.
UNASSIGNED: Danish population-based medical registries were used to identify patients aged ≥40 years with a first-time frozen shoulder diagnosis (1995-2016). A comparison cohort was randomly selected from the general population matched on age and sex. To address detection bias and the specificity of frozen shoulder diagnosis, we performed a sensitivity analysis, using similar matching criteria to select a cohort of patients with back pain diagnosis. The outcome was incident PD. Cumulative incidences and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
UNASSIGNED: We identified 37,041 individuals with frozen shoulder, 370,410 general population comparators, and 111,101 back pain comparators. The cumulative incidence of PD at 0-22 years follow-up was 1.51% in the frozen shoulder cohort, 1.03% in the general population cohort, and 1.32% in the back pain cohort. For frozen shoulder versus general population, adjusted HRs were 1.94 (CI: 1.20-3.13) at 0-1 years and 1.45 (CI: 1.24-1.70) at 0-22 years follow-up. For frozen shoulder versus back pain, adjusted HRs were 0.89 (CI: 0.54-1.46) and 1.01 (CI: 0.84-1.21), respectively.
UNASSIGNED: Patients with frozen shoulder had an increased PD risk compared with the general population, although the absolute risks were low. Frozen shoulder might sometimes represent early manifestations of PD. Detection bias probably cannot account for the increased PD risk during the long-term follow-up.

As the prevalence of chronic non-specific spinal pain rises, the utilization of diverse massage devices for therapeutic intervention increases rapidly. However, research on their mechanisms, particularly those involving spinal twisting, is limited. This study was designed to evaluate the impact of heat application and spinal twisting massage techniques on individuals suffering from chronic non-specific spinal pain. A total of 36 individuals were divided into two groups: a control group (18 participants) and an experimental group (18 participants). The experimental group received heat treatment plus spinal twisting massage twice a week for four weeks, while the control group received heat therapy plus traditional vibration massage techniques. Effectiveness was measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT), the Korean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (K-WOMAC) Index, spine tilt, and Cobb angle. VAS, K-WOMAC, and PPT significantly improved in both groups at all three time points. VAS notably decreased in the experimental group compared to the control group (p-value: 0.0369). Despite improvements in K-WOMAC and PPT scores within the experimental group, statistical significance remained elusive. Furthermore, spine tilt and Cobb angle showed no significant differences from baseline to the 6th week. In conclusion, the application of thermotherapy coupled with twisting massage demonstrates significant efficacy in mitigating chronic non-specific spinal pain, surpassing the pain-relief outcomes achieved through heat therapy in combination with standard vibration massage techniques.

BACKGROUND: Projects for workplace health promotion (WHP) for back pain traditionally focus exclusively on work-related but not on leisure-time stress on the spine. We developed a comprehensive WHP project on the back health of hospital workers regardless of the physical characteristics of their work and compared its effects on sedentary and physically active hospital workers.
METHODS: Study assessments were carried out before and six months after participation in the WHP intervention. The primary outcome parameter was back pain (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI). Anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), work ability (Work Ability Index), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), stress (Perceived Stress Scale-10), and quality of life (Short Form-36) were assessed via questionnaires as secondary outcome parameters. Physical performance was measured via the 30 seconds Sit-to-Stand test (30secSTS).
RESULTS: Sixty-eight healthcare workers with non-specific back pain were included in the evaluation study of the WHP project \"Back Health 24/7/365\". After six months, back pain, physical performance, and self-perceived physical functioning (SF-36 Physical Functioning subscale) improved significantly in both groups. Not a single parameter showed an interaction effect with the group allocation.
CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive WHP-intervention showed significant positive effects on hospital workers regardless of the physical characteristics of their work.

OBJECTIVE: To explore if there are differences in the design and/or conduct of studies that have tested the STarTBack treatment approach for the management of low back pain (LBP), potentially explaining differences in study results.
METHODS: A literature review.
METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched from inception to 26 July 2023.
METHODS: We included studies that included (1) participants with LBP and/or leg pain, (2) randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and interrupted time series designs, (3) used the STarTBack Tool to stratify participants into subgroups and (4) studies provided matched treatments according to participants STarTBack score.
METHODS: Two review authors independently reviewed the search results and extracted data into the data extraction form. Due to the exploratory nature of this study, results are presented descriptively.
RESULTS: 11 studies conducted across 5 countries were included. There were substantial differences in the proportion of participants allocated to the different risk groups; low-risk group (range: 19%-58%), medium risk group (range: 31%-52%) and high-risk group (range: 6%-38%). There were large differences between studies in the implementation of the STarTBack approach. The original STarTBack trial (Hill et al, 2011) had a more explanatory design while in many subsequent studies, the design was more pragmatic/real world. Only the two original studies provided clear evidence that the implementation of the STarTBack tool led to a higher proportion of participants receiving matched treatment. In the other studies, there was no evidence of a difference, or it was unclear. In two studies, a researcher made the decision about which matched treatment participants received based on the STartTback Tool, while in nine studies, this was done by a clinician. Most studies recommended the same matched treatment for each risk group as per the original study except for a small number of studies. Only three studies reported whether the clinician delivering matched treatment followed the recommended treatment as per the tool. There was substantial variability in the training clinicians received.
CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of important study-level factors (eg, differences in study design, whether clinicians were trained and how the tool was used in each study) in how the STarTBack approach was implemented was unclear. There is some suggestion that key factors may include the individual who implemented the STarTBack tool, whether the recommendations of the tool were followed, the amount of training the clinician delivering the matched treatment received, and whether clinicians actually delivered the matched treatment.

Low back pain (LBP) and neck pain predominate as the primary causes of disability. Cell- and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) products are potential therapies with clinical trials and reviews promoting their efficacy. Nonetheless, they frequently disregard the clinical significance of reported improvements. In this systematic review, the effectuated improvements in pain, disability, quality of life (QoL), and radiographic images are comprehensively described and scored on their clinical significance. An electronic database literature search was conducted on July 2023 for in-human assessment of cell or PRP products to alleviate discogenic pain. Papers were screened on quantitative pain, disability, QoL, radiographic improvements, and safety outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed through MINORS and Cochrane Source of Bias tools. Reported outcomes were obtained, calculated, and assessed to meet minimal clinically important difference (MCID) standards. From 7623 screened papers, a total of 80 articles met the eligibility criteria, presenting 68 specific studies. These presented at least 1974 treated patients. Overall, cell/PRP injections could alleviate pain and disability, resulting in MCID for pain and disability in up to a 2-year follow-up, similar to those observed in patients undergoing spinal fusion. Included trials predominantly presented high levels of bias, involved heterogeneous study designs, and only a minimal number of randomized controlled trials. Nonetheless, a clear clinically significant impact was observed for cell- and PRP-treated cohorts with overall good safety profiles. These results highlight a strong therapeutic potential but also underline the need for future cost-effectiveness assessments to determine the benefits of cell/PRP treatments.

Objective  This study aimed to describe the methodological process for developing a questionnaire to identify the prevalence and risk factors for chronic occupational low back pain in healthcare professionals working at hospitals. Method  An exploratory crossectional survey study was carried out in Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil, and its metropolitan region, in two stages. Initially, the authors prepared a questionnaire based on the Roland Morris disability questionnaire and sent it to a committee of low back pain specialists for validation using the Delphi technique. The second stage consisted of sending the final questionnaire to health professionals working in a hospital environment for at least 2 years and presenting chronic low back pain for at least 3 months. Results  Validation occurred in two rounds of questionnaire adjustments by a panel consisting of physical therapists and physician experts in the field (orthopedists with more than 3 years of experience). Both rounds had 13 participants. The questionnaire initially consisted of 27 items, and, after validation, it had 19 items. The study included 65 subjects, with an average age of 40.91 years old and an average time working at a hospital of 40 hours per week. The total sample had 76.9% of physicians, 10.8% of physical therapists, and 12.3% of nurses or nursing technicians. Most (52.3%) subjects reported staying in uncomfortable positions affecting the lower back for 5 to 10 hours per day. Conclusion  We developed and validated, using the Delphi technique, a questionnaire on the prevalence and risk factors associated with chronic occupational low back pain among healthcare professionals working at hospitals. This unprecedented tool can benefit the population studied since the questionnaires currently used to evaluate chronic low back pain are not specific for investigating the occupational cause of this condition.