| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Thornton, JS, et al.
(författare)
-
Treating low back pain in athletes: a systematic review with meta-analysis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: British journal of sports medicine. - : BMJ. - 1473-0480 .- 0306-3674. ; 55:12, s. 656-662
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To summarise the evidence for non-pharmacological management of low back pain (LBP) in athletes, a common problem in sport that can negatively impact performance and contribute to early retirement.Data sourcesFive databases (EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus) were searched from inception to September 2020. The main outcomes of interest were pain, disability and return to sport (RTS).ResultsAmong 1629 references, 14 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 541 athletes were included. The trials had biases across multiple domains including performance, attrition and reporting. Treatments included exercise, biomechanical modifications and manual therapy. There were no trials evaluating the efficacy of surgery or injections. Exercise was the most frequently investigated treatment; no RTS data were reported for any exercise intervention. There was a reduction in pain and disability reported after all treatments.ConclusionsWhile several treatments for LBP in athletes improved pain and function, it was unclear what the most effective treatments were, and for whom. Exercise approaches generally reduced pain and improved function in athletes with LBP, but the effect on RTS is unknown. No conclusions regarding the value of manual therapy (massage, spinal manipulation) or biomechanical modifications alone could be drawn because of insufficient evidence. High-quality RCTs are urgently needed to determine the effect of commonly used interventions in treating LBP in athletes.
|
|
| 4. |
- van der Vlist, AC, et al.
(författare)
-
Which treatment is most effective for patients with Achilles tendinopathy? A living systematic review with network meta-analysis of 29 randomised controlled trials
- 2021
-
Ingår i: British journal of sports medicine. - : BMJ. - 1473-0480 .- 0306-3674. ; 55:5, s. 249-255
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To provide a consistently updated overview of the comparative effectiveness of treatments for Achilles tendinopathy.DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMultiple databases including grey literature sources were searched up to February 2019.Study eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials examining the effectiveness of any treatment in patients with both insertional and/or midportion Achilles tendinopathy. We excluded trials with 10 or fewer participants per treatment arm or trials investigating tendon ruptures.Data extraction and synthesisReviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to appraise the certainty of evidence.Primary outcome measureThe validated patient-reported Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles questionnaire.Results29 trials investigating 42 different treatments were included. 22 trials (76%) were at high risk of bias and 7 (24%) had some concerns. Most trials included patients with midportion tendinopathy (86%). Any treatment class seemed superior to wait-and-see for midportion Achilles tendinopathy at 3 months (very low to low certainty of evidence). At 12 months, exercise therapy, exercise+injection therapy and exercise+night splint therapy were all comparable with injection therapy for midportion tendinopathy (very low to low certainty). No network meta-analysis could be performed for insertional Achilles tendinopathy.Summary/conclusionIn our living network meta-analysis no trials were at low risk of bias and there was large uncertainty in the comparative estimates. For midportion Achilles tendinopathy, wait-and-see is not recommended as all active treatments seemed superior at 3-month follow-up. There seems to be no clinically relevant difference in effectiveness between different active treatments at either 3-month or 12-month follow-up. As exercise therapy is easy to prescribe, can be of low cost and has few harms, clinicians could consider starting treatment with a calf-muscle exercise programme.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018086467.
|
|
| 5. |
- Wilson, F, et al.
(författare)
-
2021 consensus statement for preventing and managing low back pain in elite and subelite adult rowers
- 2021
-
Ingår i: British journal of sports medicine. - : BMJ. - 1473-0480 .- 0306-3674. ; 55:16, s. 893-899
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To synthesise evidence on low back pain (LBP) in adult rowers and to create a consensus statement to inform clinical practice.MethodsThere were four synthesis steps that informed the consensus statement. In step one, seven expert clinicians and researchers established the scope of the consensus statement and conducted a survey of experienced and expert clinicians to explore current practice. In step two, working groups examined current evidence relating to key scope questions and summarised key issues. In step three, we synthesised evidence for each group and used a modified Delphi process to aid in the creation of the overall consensus statements. Finally, in step four, we combined information from step three with the findings of the clinician survey (and with athlete and coach input) to produce recommendations for clinical practice.ResultsThe scope of the consensus statement included epidemiology; biomechanics; management; the athlete’s voice and clinical expertise. Prevention and management of LBP in rowers should include education on risk factors, rowing biomechanics and training load. If treatment is needed, non-invasive management, including early unloading from aggravating activities, effective pain control and exercise therapy should be considered. Fitness should be maintained with load management and progression to full training and competition. The role of surgery is unclear. Management should be athlete focused and a culture of openness within the team encouraged.ConclusionRecommendations are based on current evidence and consensus and aligned with international LBP guidelines in non-athletic populations, but with advice aimed specifically at rowers. We recommend that research in relation to all aspects of prevention and management of LBP in rowers be intensified.
|
|
| 6. |
- Wilson, F, et al.
(författare)
-
Prevalence and risk factors for back pain in sports: a systematic review with meta-analysis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: British journal of sports medicine. - : BMJ. - 1473-0480 .- 0306-3674. ; 55:11, s. 601-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We aimed to determine the prevalence of low back pain (LBP) in sport, and what risk factors were associated with LBP in athletes.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis.Data sourcesLiterature searches from database inception to June 2019 in Medline, Embase, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science and Scopus, supplemented by grey literature searching.Eligibility criteriaStudies evaluating prevalence of LBP in adult athletes across all sports.ResultsEighty-six studies were included (30 732, range 20–5958, participants), of which 45 were of ‘high’ quality. Definitions of LBP varied widely, and in 17 studies, no definition was provided. High-quality studies were pooled and the mean point prevalence across six studies was 42%; range 18%–80% (95% CI 27% to 58%, I2=97%). Lifetime prevalence across 13 studies was 63%; range 36%–88% (95% CI 51% to 74%, I2=99%). Twelve-month LBP prevalence from 22 studies was 51%; range 12%–94% (95% CI 41% to 61%, I2=98%). Comparison across sports was limited by participant numbers, study quality and methodologies, and varying LBP definitions. Risk factors for LBP included history of a previous episode with a pooled OR of 3.5; range 1.6–4.0 (95% CI 1.9 to 6.4). Statistically significant associations were reported for high training volume, periods of load increase and years of exposure to the sport.ConclusionLBP in sport is common but estimates vary. Current evidence is insufficient to identify which sports are at highest risk. A previous episode of LBP, high training volume, periods of load increase and years of exposure are common risk factors.
|
|
