| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
- Chou, M-Y, et al.
(author)
-
Oxidation-specific epitopes are important targets of innate immunity.
- 2008
-
In: Journal of internal medicine. - : Wiley. - 1365-2796 .- 0954-6820. ; 263:5, s. 479-88
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- During the oxidation of LDL, a central pathophysiological component of atherogenesis, a wide variety of chemical and physical changes occur leading to the generation of oxidation-specific neoepitopes. These epitopes are not only immunogenic, leading to adaptive humoral responses, but are also a prominent target of multiple arcs of innate immunity. The pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) of innate immunity are germ line encoded, conserved by natural selection, and bind to pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) common on multiple structures. However, it is not intuitive as to why they should recognize oxidation-specific neoepitopes. Yet it is clear that multiple macrophage scavenger receptors, which are classic PRRs, recognize oxidation-specific epitopes, such as those found on oxidized LDL (OxLDL). Other innate proteins, such as C-reactive protein, also bind to OxLDL. Natural antibodies (NAbs), the humoral arc of innate immunity, provide a nonredundant role in the first line of defence against pathogens, but are also believed to provide important homeostatic house-keeping functions against self-antigens. Our work demonstrates that oxidation-specific epitopes, as found on OxLDL, are a major target of NAbs. In this review, we will discuss the specific example of the prototypic NAb T15/E06, which is increased in atherosclerotic mice and mediates atheroprotection, and discuss the potential role of NAbs in atherogenesis, and in inflammation in general. We also review data that oxidation-specific epitopes are generated whenever cells undergo programmed cell death, forming a common set of PAMPs recognized by oxidation-specific PRRs on macrophages, NAbs and innate proteins. We present the hypothesis that oxidation-specific epitopes on apoptotic cells exerted evolutionary pressure for the conservation of these PRRs and also serve to maintain the expansion of a substantial proportion of NAbs directed to these stress-induced self-antigens.
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
- Gross, A, et al.
(author)
-
Psychological Care, Patient Education, Orthotics, Ergonomics and Prevention Strategies for Neck Pain: A Systematic Overview : Update as part of the ICON* Project.
- 2013
-
In: The Open Orthopaedics Journal. - : Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.. - 1874-3250. ; 7:Suppl 4:M12, s. 530-561
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- To conduct an overview on psychological interventions, orthoses, patient education, ergonomics, and 1⁰/2⁰ neck pain prevention for adults with acute-chronic neck pain.Search Strategy:Computerized databases and grey literature were searched (2006-2012).Selection Criteria:Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pain, function/disability, global perceived effect, quality-of-life and patient satisfaction were retrieved.Data Collection & Analysis:Two independent authors selected articles, assessed risk of bias using AMSTAR tool and extracted data. The GRADE tool was used to evaluate the body of evidence and an external panel to provide critical review.Main Results:We retrieved 30 reviews (5-9 AMSTAR score) reporting on 75 RCTs with the following moderate GRADE evidence. For acute whiplash associated disorder (WAD), an education video in emergency rooms (1RCT, 405participants] favoured pain reduction at long-term follow-up thus helping 1 in 23 people [Standard Mean Difference: -0.44(95%CI: -0.66 to -0.23)). Use of a soft collar (2RCTs, 1278participants) was not beneficial in the long-term. For chronic neck pain, a mind-body intervention (2RCTs, 1 meta-analysis, 191participants) improved short-term pain/function in 1 of 4 or 6 participants. In workers, 2-minutes of daily scapula-thoracic endurance training (1RCT, 127participants) over 10 weeks was beneficial in 1 of 4 participants. A number of psychosocial interventions, workplace interventions, collar use and self-management educational strategies were not beneficial.Reviewers' Conclusions:Moderate evidence exists for quantifying beneficial and non-beneficial effects of a limited number of interventions for acute WAD and chronic neck pain. Larger trials with more rigorous controls need to target promising interventions
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
- Hartvigsen, J, et al.
(author)
-
Leadership and capacity building in chiropractic research: report from the first CARL cohort
- 2021
-
In: Chiropractic & manual therapies. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2045-709X. ; 29:1, s. 9-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The Chiropractic Academy for Research Leadership (CARL) was formed in 2016 in response to a need for a global network of early career researchers and leaders in the chiropractic profession. Thirteen fellows were accepted competitively and have since worked together at residentials and virtually on many research and leadership projects. In 2020, the CARL program ended for this first cohort, and it is now timely to take stock and reflect on the achievements and benefits of the program. In this paper we present the structure of CARL, the scientific and leadership outputs as well as the personal value of CARL for the participating fellows. As a result of the success of the first CARL cohort, organizations from Europe, North America, and Australia have supported a second cohort of 14 CARL fellows, who were competitively accepted into the program in early 2020.
|
|
| 17. |
- Hayden, JA, et al.
(author)
-
Exercise treatment effect modifiers in persistent low back pain: an individual participant data meta-analysis of 3514 participants from 27 randomised controlled trials
- 2020
-
In: British journal of sports medicine. - : BMJ. - 1473-0480 .- 0306-3674. ; 54:21, s. 1277-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Low back pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Exercise therapy is widely recommended to treat persistent non-specific low back pain. While evidence suggests exercise is, on average, moderately effective, there remains uncertainty about which individuals might benefit the most from exercise.MethodsIn parallel with a Cochrane review update, we requested individual participant data (IPD) from high-quality randomised clinical trials of adults with our two primary outcomes of interest, pain and functional limitations, and calculated global recovery. We compiled a master data set including baseline participant characteristics, exercise and comparison characteristics, and outcomes at short-term, moderate-term and long-term follow-up. We conducted descriptive analyses and one-stage IPD meta-analysis using multilevel mixed-effects regression of the overall treatment effect and prespecified potential treatment effect modifiers.ResultsWe received IPD for 27 trials (3514 participants). For studies included in this analysis, compared with no treatment/usual care, exercise therapy on average reduced pain (mean effect/100 (95% CI) −10.7 (−14.1 to –7.4)), a result compatible with a clinically important 20% smallest worthwhile effect. Exercise therapy reduced functional limitations with a clinically important 23% improvement (mean effect/100 (95% CI) −10.2 (−13.2 to –7.3)) at short-term follow-up. Not having heavy physical demands at work and medication use for low back pain were potential treatment effect modifiers—these were associated with superior exercise outcomes relative to non-exercise comparisons. Lower body mass index was also associated with better outcomes in exercise compared with no treatment/usual care. This study was limited by inconsistent availability and measurement of participant characteristics.ConclusionsThis study provides potentially useful information to help treat patients and design future studies of exercise interventions that are better matched to specific subgroups.Protocol publicationhttps://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-64
|
|
| 18. |
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
- Shaw, William S., et al.
(author)
-
Psychological Distress in Acute Low Back Pain : A Review of Measurement Scales and Levels of Distress Reported in the First 2 Months After Pain Onset
- 2016
-
In: Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. - Philadelphia, USA : Elsevier. - 0003-9993 .- 1532-821X. ; 97:9, s. 1573-1587
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: To characterize the measurement scales and levels of psychological distress reported among published studies of acute low back pain (LBP) in the scientific literature.Data Sources: Peer-reviewed scientific literature found in 8 citation index search engines (CINAHL, Embase, MANTIS, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, AMED, and Academic Search Premier) for the period from January 1, 1966, to April 30, 2015, in English, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish languages.Study Selection: Cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, or randomized controlled trials assessing psychological distress and including participants drawn from patients and workers (or an identifiable subset) with acute LBP (<8wk). Three researchers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-length articles to identify peer-reviewed studies according to established eligibility criteria.Data Extraction: Descriptive data (study populations, definitions of LBP, distress measures) were systematically extracted and reviewed for risk of bias. Distress measures were described, and data were pooled in cases of identical measures. Reported levels of distress were contextualized using available population norms, clinical comparison groups, and established clinical cutoff scores.Data Synthesis: Of 10,876 unique records, 23 articles (17 studies) were included. The most common measures were the Beck Depression Inventory, the modified version of the Zung Self-Rated Depression Scale, the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale, and the Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Pooled results for these scales showed consistent elevations in depression, but not anxiety, and reduced mental health status in comparison with the general population.Conclusions: Based on the high consistency across studies using valid measures with a low to moderate risk of bias, there is strong evidence that psychological distress is elevated in acute LBP.
|
|
| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
|
|
| 23. |
- Chou, Meng-Yun, et al.
(author)
-
Oxidation-specific epitopes are dominant targets of innate natural antibodies in mice and humans.
- 2009
-
In: The Journal of clinical investigation. - 1558-8238. ; 119:5, s. 1335-49
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Atherosclerosis is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by the accumulation of oxidized lipoproteins and apoptotic cells. Adaptive immune responses to various oxidation-specific epitopes play an important role in atherogenesis. However, accumulating evidence suggests that these epitopes are also recognized by innate receptors, such as scavenger receptors on macrophages, and plasma proteins, such as C-reactive protein (CRP). Here, we provide multiple lines of evidence that oxidation-specific epitopes constitute a dominant, previously unrecognized target of natural Abs (NAbs) in both mice and humans. Using reconstituted mice expressing solely IgM NAbs, we have shown that approximately 30% of all NAbs bound to model oxidation-specific epitopes, as well as to atherosclerotic lesions and apoptotic cells. Because oxidative processes are ubiquitous, we hypothesized that these epitopes exert selective pressure to expand NAbs, which in turn play an important role in mediating homeostatic functions consequent to inflammation and cell death, as demonstrated by their ability to facilitate apoptotic cell clearance. These findings provide novel insights into the functions of NAbs in mediating host homeostasis and into their roles in health and diseases, such as chronic inflammatory diseases and atherosclerosis.
|
|
| 24. |
- Costa, Nathalia, et al.
(author)
-
A Definition of "Flare" in Low Back Pain: A Multiphase Process Involving Perspectives of Individuals With Low Back Pain and Expert Consensus
- 2019
-
In: Journal of Pain. - : CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE. - 1526-5900 .- 1528-8447. ; 20:11, s. 1267-1275
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Low back pain (LBP) varies over time. Consumers, clinicians, and researchers use various terms to describe LBP fluctuations, such as episodes, recurrences and flares. Although "flare" is use commonly, there is no consensus on how it is defined. This study aimed to obtain consensus for a LBP flare definition using a mixed-method approach. Step 1 involved the derivation of a preliminary candidate flare definition based on thematic analysis of views of 130 consumers in consultation with an expert consumer writer. In step 2, a workshop was conducted to incorporate perspectives of 19 LBP experts into the preliminary flare definition, which resulted in 2 alternative LBP flare definitions. Step 3 refined the definition using a 2-round Delphi consensus with 50 experts in musculoskeletal conditions. The definition favored by experts was further tested with 16 individuals with LBP in step 4, using the definition in three scenarios. This multiphase study produced a definition of LBP flare that distinguishes it from other LBP fluctuations, represents consumers views, involves expert consensus, and is understandable by consumers in clinical and research contexts: "A flare-up is a worsening of your condition that lasts from hours to weeks that is difficult to tolerate and generally impacts your usual activities and/or emotions." Perspective: A multiphase process, incorporating consumers views and expert consensus, produced a definition of LBP flare that distinguishes it from other LBP fluctuations. (C) 2019 by the American Pain Society
|
|
| 25. |
|
|
| 26. |
|
|
| 27. |
|
|
| 28. |
- Hartvigsen, J, et al.
(author)
-
Misleading Paper by Goertz et al
- 2021
-
In: Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics. - : Elsevier BV. - 1532-6586 .- 0161-4754. ; 44:6, s. 514-515
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 29. |
- Jacobs, Craig L, et al.
(author)
-
Musculoskeletal Injury in Professional Dancers: Prevalence and Associated Factors: An International Cross-Sectional Study.
- 2016
-
In: Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. - 1536-3724.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to determine the prevalence and factors associated with injury in professional ballet and modern dancers, and assess if dancers are reporting their injuries and explore reasons for not reporting injuries. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Participants were recruited from nine professional ballet and modern dance companies in Canada, Denmark, Israel, and Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: Professional ballet and modern dancers. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: Sociodemographic variables included age, sex, height, weight, and before-tax yearly or monthly income. Dance specific characteristics included number of years in present dance company, number of years dancing professionally, number of years dancing total, and rank in the company. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported injury and Self-Estimated Functional Inability because of Pain. RESULTS: A total of 260 dancers participated in the study with an overall response rate of 81%. The point prevalence of self-reported injury in professional ballet and modern dancers was 54.8% (95% CI, 47.7-62.1) and 46.3% (95% CI, 35.5-57.1), respectively. Number of years dancing professionally (OR = 4.4, 95% CI, 1.6-12.3) and rank (OR = 2.4, 95% CI, 1.2-4.8) were associated with injury in ballet dancers. More than 15% of all injured dancers had not reported their injury and their reasons for not reporting injury varied. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of injury is high in professional dancers with a significant percentage not reporting their injuries for a variety of reasons. Number of years dancing and rank are associated with injury in professional ballet dancers.
|
|
| 30. |
- Molgaard Nielsen, A, et al.
(author)
-
The Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain : Reliability, Content Validity, Construct Validity and Responsiveness
- 2020
-
Other publication (pop. science, debate, etc.)abstract
- BackgroundCurrently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the ‘Patient Enablement Instrument’, we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to describe the development of the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP) and investigate content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects.MethodsThe PEI-BP consists of 6 items that are rated on a 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale. Measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and were based on three cohorts from primary care with low back pain: The content validity cohort (N=14) which participated in semi-structured interviews, the GLA:D Back cohort (N=272) and the test-retest cohort (N=37) which both completed self-reported questionnaires. For construct validity and responsiveness, enablement was compared to disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back pain beliefs (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), fear avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire – physical activity), mental health (SF-36), educational level and number of previous episodes of low back pain.ResultsThe PEI-BP was found to have acceptable content validity, construct validity, reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness. The Smallest Detectable Change was 10.1 points illustrating that a patient would have to change more than 1/6 of the scale range for it to be a true change. A skewed distribution towards the high scores were found at baseline indicating a potentially problematic ceiling effect in the current population.ConclusionsThe PEI-BP can be considered a valid and reliable tool to measure enablement on people seeking care for non-specific LBP. Further testing of the PEI-BP in populations with more severe LBP is recommended.
|
|
| 31. |
- Molgaard Nielsen, A, et al.
(author)
-
The patient enablement instrument for backpain : reliability, content validity, constructvalidity and responsiveness
- 2021
-
In: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. - : BioMed Central. - 1477-7525. ; 19
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundCurrently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the ‘Patient Enablement Instrument’, we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to describe the development of the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP) and investigate content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects.MethodsThe PEI-BP consists of 6 items that are rated on a 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale. Measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and were based on three cohorts from primary care with low back pain: The content validity cohort (N = 14) which participated in semi-structured interviews, the GLA:D® Back cohort (N = 272) and the test–retest cohort (N = 37) which both completed self-reported questionnaires. For construct validity and responsiveness, enablement was compared to disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back pain beliefs (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), fear avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire—physical activity), mental health (SF-36), educational level and number of previous episodes of low back pain.ResultsThe PEI-BP was found to have acceptable content validity, construct validity, reliability (internal consistency, test–retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness. The Smallest Detectable Change was 10.1 points illustrating that a patient would have to change more than 1/6 of the scale range for it to be a true change. A skewed distribution towards the high scores were found at baseline indicating a potentially problematic ceiling effect in the current population.ConclusionsThe PEI-BP can be considered a valid and reliable tool to measure enablement on people seeking care for non-specific LBP. Further testing of the PEI-BP in populations with more severe LBP is recommended.
|
|
| 32. |
|
|
| 33. |
|
|
| 34. |
- Thornton, JS, et al.
(author)
-
Treating low back pain in athletes: a systematic review with meta-analysis
- 2021
-
In: British journal of sports medicine. - : BMJ. - 1473-0480 .- 0306-3674. ; 55:12, s. 656-662
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 35. |
- Wilson, F, et al.
(author)
-
2021 consensus statement for preventing and managing low back pain in elite and subelite adult rowers
- 2021
-
In: British journal of sports medicine. - : BMJ. - 1473-0480 .- 0306-3674. ; 55:16, s. 893-899
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 36. |
- Wilson, F, et al.
(author)
-
Prevalence and risk factors for back pain in sports: a systematic review with meta-analysis
- 2021
-
In: British journal of sports medicine. - : BMJ. - 1473-0480 .- 0306-3674. ; 55:11, s. 601-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
