Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa

A prática baseada em evidências (PBE) visa garantir que o cuidado prestados ao paciente seja fundamentado nas melhores informações disponíveis. Isso envolve não apenas a análise de dados científicos, mas também a utilização dessas evidências no cuidado individualizado aos pacientes. Para isso, profissionais de saúde precisam dominar cinco habilidades essenciais, que estão descritas no texto completo. Dominar as cinco habilidades essenciais para a PBE na área da saúde é fundamental para fornecer cuidados de alta qualidade e baseados na melhor ciência. Ao seguir esse processo, os profissionais podem tomar decisões informadas que beneficiam seus pacientes e contribuem para a melhoria contínua da prática clínica.

Background: Internet-based self-management programs and telerehabilitation initiatives have increased and have been extensively used for delivering health care in many areas. These programs overcome common barriers that patients face with traditional face-to-face health care, such as travel expenditures, lack of time, and high demand on the public health system. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this mode of web-based health care delivery had become more popular. However, there is still a lack of studies testing this mode of delivery in low- and middle-income countries. To gain a better understanding of the context, feasibility, and factors involved in the implementation of a web-based program, pilot and implementation studies are necessary. These studies can better inform whether a strategy is feasible, acceptable, and adequate for its purposes and for optimizing resource allocation. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the feasibility, usability, and implementation context of a self-management internet-based program based on exercises and pain education (ReabilitaDOR) in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain and to compare this program with a program using only a web-based self-management booklet. Methods: The study design was a parallel pilot study of a prospectively registered, assessor-blinded, 2-arm randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation. This study was performed using waiting lists of physiotherapy and rehabilitation centers and advertisements on social media networks. The participants were 65 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain aged between 18 and 60 years. The effects of an 8-week telerehabilitation program based on exercises and pain education (intervention group) were compared with those of a program based only on a web-based self-management booklet (control group). The main outcome measures were implementation outcomes of patients’ perceptions of acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and usability of the program and the societal costs and feasibility of the main trial at 8-week posttreatment follow-up. Adverse events were also analyzed. Results: In total, 56 participants were analyzed at the 8-week follow-up. The intervention group showed responses with a mean of 4.5 (SD 0.6) points for acceptability, 4.5 (SD 0.5) points for appropriateness, and 4.5 (SD 0.6) points for feasibility measured on a 1 to 5 scale. All patients in the intervention group showed satisfactory responses to the system usability outcome. There is satisfactory evidence for the feasibility of the main trial. For costs related to the interventions, health care, patients, and loss of productivity at 8 weeks, we found a total expenditure of US $278.30 per patient in the intervention group and US $141.52 per patient in the control group. No adverse events were reported during the intervention period. Conclusions: We found that the ReabilitaDOR program is feasible, appropriate, and acceptable from the users’ implementation perspective. This system was considered usable by all the participants, and the main trial seemed feasible. Cost data were viable to be collected, and the program is likely to be safe. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04274439; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04274439

To systematically review the effects of treatment-based classification (TBC) in patients with specific and nonspecific acute, subacute and chronic low back pain.The following databases were searche...

Objective To describe all the procedures of a study that will replicate a previous case-crossover study investigating physical and psychosocial transient exposure risk factors for triggering an episode of acute non-specific low back pain (LBP) at emergency departments in an emerging country. Methods This case-crossover study will recruit 350 patients, aged between 18 and 80 years, with a new episode of acute non-specific LBP seeking care at emergency departments from public hospitals in Brazil. We will collect information about exposure to a range of physical (eg, awkward postures, lifting children or animals, vigorous physical activity) and psychosocial triggers (eg, distraction, tiredness, alcohol consumption) that were examined in the previous study. The exposure to each trigger during the 2 hours preceding the onset of LBP (case window) will be compared with exposure in the 2-hour periods ending 24 (24–26 hours) and 48 (48–50 hours) hours before the onset of back pain (control window). Conditional logistic regression models will be built to estimate ORs expressing the magnitude of increased risk of developing LBP associated with each factor. Discussion This study will enable the confirmation of previous findings regarding transient exposure to factors that increase risk for an episode of acute LBP in a different setting (at emergency departments of an emerging country). To minimise the potential for recall bias, the maximum time between episode onset and interview will be 7 days; we will encourage participants to use their smartphones and diaries to remember the investigated period. Also, our interview script asked participants to nominate the key aspects of each day. Despite these efforts, the retrospective study design means it is not possible to completely exclude potential for recall bias. Furthermore, participants will be blinded to the case and control periods. Ethics and dissemination Ethics were granted by the Research Ethics Committee (#20310219.8.0000.0064). Study findings will be disseminated through publications and conference presentations.

Neck pain is a common condition with a high prevalence worldwide. Neck pain is associated with significant levels of disability and is widely considered an important public health problem. Neck pai...

Background and Objectives: Non‐specific low back pain (LBP) is responsible for triggering increased biomarkers levels. In this way, photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) may be an interesting alternative to treat these patients. One of the possible biological mechanisms of PBMT involved to decrease pain intensity in patients with musculoskeletal disorders is modulation of the inflammatory mediators’ levels. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of PBMT compared with placebo on inflammatory mediators’ levels and pain intensity in patients with chronic non‐specific LBP.Study Design/Materials and Methods: A prospectively registered, randomized triple‐blinded (volunteers, therapists, and assessors), placebo‐controlled trial was performed. Eighteen patients with chronic non‐specific LBP were recruited and treated with a single session of active PBMT or placebo PBMT. The primary outcome of the study was serum prostaglandin E₂ levels and the secondary outcomes were tumor necrosis factor‐α, interleukin‐6 levels, and pain intensity. All outcomes were measured before and after 15 minutes of treatment session.Results: PBMT was able to decrease prostaglandin E₂ levels at post‐treatment compared with placebo, with a mean difference of −1470 pg/ml, 95% confidence interval −2906 to −33.67 in patients with LBP. There was no difference between groups in the other measured outcomes. Patients did not report any adverse events.Conclusion: Our results suggest that PBMT was able to modulate prostaglandin E₂ levels, indicating that this may be one of the mechanisms involved in the analgesic effects of PBMT in patients with LBP. Trial registration number (ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT03859505. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2020 The Authors. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background 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. Methods In 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. Results We 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. Conclusions This study provides potentially useful information to help treat patients and design future studies of exercise interventions that are better matched to specific subgroups. Protocol publication https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-64