CC-BY 4.0 Background: Since the contribution of the lumbar multifidus(LM) is not well understood in relation to nonspecific low back pain(LBP), this may limit physiotherapists in choosing the most appropriate treatment strategy.Objectives: This study aims to compare clinical characteristics, in terms of LM function and morphology, between subacute and chronic LBP patients from a large clinical practice cohort compared to healthy controls.Design: Multicenter case control study.Method: Subacute and chronic LBP patients and healthy controls between 18 and 65 years of age were included.Several clinical tests were performed: primary outcomes were the LM thickness from ultrasound measurements, trunk range of motion(ROM) from 3D kinematic tests, and median frequency and root mean square values of LM by electromyography measurements. The secondary outcomes Numeric Rating Scale for Pain(NRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index(ODI) were administered. Comparisons between groups were made with ANOVA, pvalues< 0.05, with Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test were considered significant.Results: A total of 161 participants were included, 50 healthy controls, 59 chronic LBP patients, and 52 subacute LBP patients. Trunk ROM and LM thickness were significantly larger in healthy controls compared to all LBP patients(p < 0.01). A lower LM thickness was found between subacute and chronic LBP patients although not significant(p = 0.11–0.97). All between-group comparisons showed no statistically significant differences in electromyography outcomes (p = 0.10–0.32). NRS showed no significant differences between LBP subgroups(p = 0.21). Chronic LBP patients showed a significant higher ODI score compared to subacute LBP patients(p = 0.03).Conclusions: Trunk ROM and LM thickness show differences between LBP patients and healthy controls.
MULTIFILE
Background: Engaging families in postsurgical care is potentially beneficial for improving cancer patient outcomes and quality of care. The authors developed a family involvement program (FIP) and in this study, the authors aim to evaluate the impact of the FIP on family caregiver burden and well-being. Moreover, the authors aim to assess the fidelity of the program. Materials and methods: This is a preplanned subgroup analysis of a patient-preferred prospective cohort study that included family caregivers of patients who underwent major oncological surgery for gastrointestinal tumors. Only patient-nominated family caregivers could participate in the FIP. Caregivers received structured training in fundamental caregiving tasks from healthcare professionals and then actively participated in these tasks. Caregiver burden and well-being were measured four times (at hospital admission, at hospital discharge, and at 1 and 3 months posthospital discharge) using the Caregiver Strain Index+ (CSI+) and the Care-related Quality of Life instrument (CarerQoL-7D). The fidelity of the FIP was assessed by recording completion of care activities. In addition, family caregivers were asked whether they would participate in the FIP again. Results: Most of the 152 family caregivers were female (77.6%), and their mean age was 61.3 years (SD=11.6). Median CSI+ scores ranged between -1 and 0 and remained below the cutoff point of experiencing burden. CarerQoL-7D results indicated no significant differences in family caregivers' well-being over time. Upon discharge, over 75% of the family caregivers stated that they would recommend the FIP to others. The highest compliance with all fundamental care activities was observed during postoperative days 2-4. Conclusion: The family caregivers of oncological surgical patients who participated in the FIP exhibited acceptable levels of caregiver burden and well-being. These findings suggest that the FIP is a valuable intervention to equip family caregivers with the skills to navigate the uncertain period following a patient's hospital discharge.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: The concept of osteoarthritis (OA) heterogeneity is evolving and gaining renewed interest. According to this concept, distinct subtypes of OA need to be defined that will likely require recognition in research design and different approaches to clinical management. Although seemingly plausible, a wide range of views exist on how best to operationalize this concept. The current project aimed to provide consensus-based definitions and recommendations that together create a framework for conducting and reporting OA phenotype research.METHODS: A panel of 25 members with expertise in OA phenotype research was composed. First, panel members participated in an online Delphi exercise to provide a number of basic definitions and statements relating to OA phenotypes and OA phenotype research. Second, panel members provided input on a set of recommendations for reporting on OA phenotype studies.RESULTS: Four Delphi rounds were required to achieve sufficient agreement on 11 definitions and statements. OA phenotypes were defined as subtypes of OA that share distinct underlying pathobiological and pain mechanisms and their structural and functional consequences. Reporting recommendations pertaining to the study characteristics, study population, data collection, statistical analysis, and appraisal of OA phenotype studies were provided.CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a number of consensus-based definitions and recommendations relating to OA phenotypes. The resulting framework is intended to facilitate research on OA phenotypes and increase combined efforts to develop effective OA phenotype classification. Success in this endeavor will hopefully translate into more effective, differentiated OA management that will benefit a multitude of OA patients.
MULTIFILE