首页 > 最新文献

Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy最新文献

英文 中文
Altered Sensory Processing in People Attending Specialist Orthopaedic Consultation for Management of Persistent Shoulder Pain: An Observational Cross-Sectional Study. 为治疗持续性肩痛而接受骨科专家会诊的人的感官处理发生了变化:一项观察性横断面研究。
IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2024.12512
Danielle Hollis, M Dilani Mendis, Shu-Kay Ng, Jeremy Lewis, Michael Thomas, Darryn Marks, Julie Hides, Leanne Bisset

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to compare sensory processing measures in people attending specialist orthopaedic consultation for management of persistent shoulder pain with control participants. The secondary objective was to compare the groups' sociodemographic, clinical, general health and lifestyle, and psychological characteristics. DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional. METHODS: Participants with shoulder pain for ≥3 months, who attended a public hospital orthopaedic department (n = 119), and community participants without shoulder pain (n = 44) underwent a standardized quantitative sensory testing protocol, measuring pressure pain threshold, temporal summation, and conditioned pain modulation. Sociodemographic, clinical, general health and lifestyle, and psychological characteristics were also collected. RESULTS: Participants with shoulder pain had significantly lower pressure pain thresholds at all sites (ie, local and widespread mechanical hyperalgesia) and significantly decreased conditioned pain modulation effect (ie, descending inhibition of nociception) than control participants. There was no significant difference between groups for temporal summation. Participants with shoulder pain had decreased general health and function, less healthy lifestyles, and poorer psychological health compared with controls. CONCLUSION: People referred to specialist orthopaedic care for management of persistent shoulder pain had clinical signs of altered sensory processing and poor health outcomes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):1-10. Epub 25 July 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12512.

目的主要目的是比较因持续性肩痛而到骨科专科就诊的患者与对照组参与者的感觉处理测量结果。次要目标是比较两组人员的社会人口学、临床、一般健康和生活方式以及心理特征。设计:横断面观察。方法:在公立医院骨科就诊的肩痛≥3个月的参与者(119人)和无肩痛的社区参与者(44人)接受标准化的定量感觉测试方案,测量压力痛阈值、时间总和和条件性疼痛调节。此外,还收集了社会人口学、临床、一般健康和生活方式以及心理特征。结果:与对照组相比,肩痛患者所有部位的压力痛阈值都明显较低(即局部和广泛的机械痛觉减退),条件性疼痛调节效应(即痛觉的下降抑制)也明显降低。各组之间的时间总和无明显差异。与对照组相比,肩痛患者的总体健康状况和功能下降,生活方式不健康,心理健康状况较差。结论:因持续性肩痛而转诊至骨科专科治疗的患者有感觉处理改变的临床表现,健康状况较差。J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):1-10.doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12512。
{"title":"Altered Sensory Processing in People Attending Specialist Orthopaedic Consultation for Management of Persistent Shoulder Pain: An Observational Cross-Sectional Study.","authors":"Danielle Hollis, M Dilani Mendis, Shu-Kay Ng, Jeremy Lewis, Michael Thomas, Darryn Marks, Julie Hides, Leanne Bisset","doi":"10.2519/jospt.2024.12512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2024.12512","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>OBJECTIVES:</b> The primary objective was to compare sensory processing measures in people attending specialist orthopaedic consultation for management of persistent shoulder pain with control participants. The secondary objective was to compare the groups' sociodemographic, clinical, general health and lifestyle, and psychological characteristics. <b>DESIGN:</b> Observational cross-sectional. <b>METHODS:</b> Participants with shoulder pain for ≥3 months, who attended a public hospital orthopaedic department (n = 119), and community participants without shoulder pain (n = 44) underwent a standardized quantitative sensory testing protocol, measuring pressure pain threshold, temporal summation, and conditioned pain modulation. Sociodemographic, clinical, general health and lifestyle, and psychological characteristics were also collected. <b>RESULTS:</b> Participants with shoulder pain had significantly lower pressure pain thresholds at all sites (ie, local and widespread mechanical hyperalgesia) and significantly decreased conditioned pain modulation effect (ie, descending inhibition of nociception) than control participants. There was no significant difference between groups for temporal summation. Participants with shoulder pain had decreased general health and function, less healthy lifestyles, and poorer psychological health compared with controls. <b>CONCLUSION:</b> People referred to specialist orthopaedic care for management of persistent shoulder pain had clinical signs of altered sensory processing and poor health outcomes. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):1-10. Epub 25 July 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12512</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142331438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Global Rating of Change for Better or Worse-What Does It Mean When Patients Who Are Treated for Patellofemoral Pain Rate Their Change? 更好或更坏的全球变化评级--髌骨股骨疼痛患者对自己的变化进行评级意味着什么?
IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2024.12120
Gabriela S de Vasconcelos, Alessandro Andreucci, Bill Vicenzino, Kristian Thorborg, Mette Mikkelsen, Fábio Viadanna Serrão, Michael Skovdal Rathleff

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how a global rating of change (GROC) score corresponds to change in Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales in people with patellofemoral pain (PFP). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from 3 clinical trials. METHODS: Four hundred ninety adolescents (10-18 years old) and adults (19-40 years old) with PFP completed KOOS (5 subscales, 0-100) at baseline and 3-month follow-up as well as GROC at 3-month follow-up. GROC category descriptors were mapped to 5 categories: worse, no change, a bit better, better, and much better. Gaussian approximation was then used to calculate the change in KOOS scores for each GROC category. RESULTS: Due to overlap between KOOS scores in "no change" and "a bit better," all analyses were performed on 4 categories. For all KOOS subscales, patients who reported being "worse" had negative KOOS scale change scores (≤ -2); patients reporting "no change" had KOOS scale change scores that ranged from -5 to 14; and patients feeling "better" or "much better" had positive KOOS scale change scores that ranged from 4 to 26 and ≥16, respectively. CONCLUSION: When patients with PFP reported feeling "worse," "better," or "much better," there was a small-to-substantial change across the different KOOS scales. This is in contrast to no difference between reporting "a bit better" or "no change" in KOOS. When patients say they feel a little better, clinicians should be less confident about whether change has truly occurred. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):657-671. Epub 25 July 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12120.

目的:研究整体变化评分 (GROC) 与膝关节损伤和骨关节炎结果评分 (KOOS) 子量表的变化在髌股关节疼痛 (PFP) 患者中的对应关系。设计:对 3 项临床试验的数据进行二次分析。方法:490 名患有髌骨关节炎的青少年(10-18 岁)和成人(19-40 岁)在基线和 3 个月随访时填写 KOOS(5 个分量表,0-100 分),并在 3 个月随访时填写 GROC。GROC 类别描述符被映射为 5 个类别:更差、无变化、稍好、更好和好得多。然后使用高斯近似法计算每个 GROC 类别的 KOOS 评分变化。结果:由于 "无变化 "和 "稍好 "的 KOOS 分数之间存在重叠,因此所有分析均针对 4 个类别进行。在所有 KOOS 分量表中,报告 "更糟 "的患者的 KOOS 量表变化分值为负数(≤-2);报告 "无变化 "的患者的 KOOS 量表变化分值为-5 至 14 分;感觉 "更好 "或 "好很多 "的患者的 KOOS 量表变化分值为正数,分别为 4 至 26 分和≥16 分。结论:当 PFP 患者报告感觉 "更糟"、"更好 "或 "好多了 "时,不同的 KOOS 量表都会出现小到实质性的变化。与此形成鲜明对比的是,KOOS 的 "稍好 "或 "无变化 "与 "稍好 "之间没有差异。当患者说他们感觉好了一点时,临床医生应该对是否真的发生了变化缺乏信心。J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):657-671.doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12120。
{"title":"Global Rating of Change for Better or Worse-What Does It Mean When Patients Who Are Treated for Patellofemoral Pain Rate Their Change?","authors":"Gabriela S de Vasconcelos, Alessandro Andreucci, Bill Vicenzino, Kristian Thorborg, Mette Mikkelsen, Fábio Viadanna Serrão, Michael Skovdal Rathleff","doi":"10.2519/jospt.2024.12120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2024.12120","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>OBJECTIVE:</b> To investigate how a global rating of change (GROC) score corresponds to change in Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales in people with patellofemoral pain (PFP). <b>DESIGN:</b> Secondary analysis of data from 3 clinical trials. <b>METHODS:</b> Four hundred ninety adolescents (10-18 years old) and adults (19-40 years old) with PFP completed KOOS (5 subscales, 0-100) at baseline and 3-month follow-up as well as GROC at 3-month follow-up. GROC category descriptors were mapped to 5 categories: worse, no change, a bit better, better, and much better. Gaussian approximation was then used to calculate the change in KOOS scores for each GROC category. <b>RESULTS:</b> Due to overlap between KOOS scores in \"no change\" and \"a bit better,\" all analyses were performed on 4 categories. For all KOOS subscales, patients who reported being \"worse\" had negative KOOS scale change scores (≤ -2); patients reporting \"no change\" had KOOS scale change scores that ranged from -5 to 14; and patients feeling \"better\" or \"much better\" had positive KOOS scale change scores that ranged from 4 to 26 and ≥16, respectively. <b>CONCLUSION:</b> When patients with PFP reported feeling \"worse,\" \"better,\" or \"much better,\" there was a small-to-substantial change across the different KOOS scales. This is in contrast to no difference between reporting \"a bit better\" or \"no change\" in KOOS. When patients say they feel a little better, clinicians should be less confident about whether change has truly occurred. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):657-671. Epub 25 July 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12120</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142331439","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Introducing JOSPT Methods: A Journal Focused on Advancing the Research Methods Applied to the Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Field. 介绍 JOSPT 方法:专注于推进肌肉骨骼康复领域研究方法的期刊。
IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2024.12972
Javier Martinez-Calderon, Rob Bennett, Clare L Ardern

SYNOPSIS: In 2025, JOSPT will continue its mission to enhance research in the field of musculoskeletal rehabilitation. JOSPT aims to support authors who are working to advance the research methods applied to answer clinical questions in the musculoskeletal rehabilitation field. Using the most robust methods helps authors ensure their studies can have immediate impact on health policies and clinical practice. With this editorial, we introduce a new gold open-access journal, JOSPT Methods, where research will be available to read for free, immediately upon publication. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):1-3. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12972.

简述:2025 年,《JOSPT》将继续履行其使命,加强肌肉骨骼康复领域的研究。JOSPT 的目标是为那些致力于推进研究方法以回答肌肉骨骼康复领域临床问题的作者提供支持。使用最可靠的方法有助于作者确保他们的研究能对卫生政策和临床实践产生直接影响。通过这篇社论,我们推出了一个新的金牌开放获取期刊《JOSPT 方法》,研究成果一经发表,即可免费阅读。J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):1-3. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12972.
{"title":"Introducing <i>JOSPT Methods</i>: A Journal Focused on Advancing the Research Methods Applied to the Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Field.","authors":"Javier Martinez-Calderon, Rob Bennett, Clare L Ardern","doi":"10.2519/jospt.2024.12972","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2024.12972","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>SYNOPSIS:</b> In 2025, <i>JOSPT</i> will continue its mission to enhance research in the field of musculoskeletal rehabilitation. <i>JOSPT</i> aims to support authors who are working to advance the research methods applied to answer clinical questions in the musculoskeletal rehabilitation field. Using the most robust methods helps authors ensure their studies can have immediate impact on health policies and clinical practice. With this editorial, we introduce a new gold open-access journal, <i>JOSPT Methods</i>, where research will be available to read for free, immediately upon publication. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):1-3. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12972</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142331440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Is One Enough? The Effectiveness of a Single Session of Education and Exercise Compared to Multiple Sessions of a Multimodal Physiotherapy Intervention for Adults With Spinal Disorders in an Advanced Practice Physiotherapy Model of Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial. 一次就够了吗?在高级实践物理治疗护理模式中,对患有脊柱疾病的成人进行一次教育和锻炼与多次多模式物理治疗干预的效果比较:随机对照试验
IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2024.12618
Simon Lafrance, Carlo Santaguida, Kadija Perreault, Brenna Bath, Luc J Hébert, Debbie Feldman, Kednapa Thavorn, Julio Fernandes, François Desmeules

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a single session of education and exercise compared with multiple sessions of a multimodal physiotherapy intervention for adults with spinal disorders in an advanced practice physiotherapy specialized spine model of care. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We randomized patients with spinal disorders, who were referred for a spinal surgery consultation and triaged as nonsurgical cases by an advanced practice physiotherapist, to a single session of education and prescription of an exercise program (n = 52) or multiple sessions (6 in total) of a multimodal physiotherapy intervention (n = 54). The primary outcomes were the short form Brief Pain Inventory pain severity scale (BPI-S) and the Brief Pain Inventory pain interference scale (BPI-I), and secondary outcomes included disability, quality of life, catastrophization, and satisfaction. Linear mixed models were used to assess differences between groups across time points at 6, 12, and 26 weeks. RESULTS: There were no significant between-group differences on the BPI-S and only a significant improvement at 6 weeks on the BPI-I in the multiple-session group (mean difference: -0.96/10; 95% CI, -1.87 to -0.05). There were no other statistically significant differences between groups, except for satisfaction where participants in the multiple-session group reported statistically significantly greater satisfaction on the 9-item Visit-Specific Satisfaction Questionnaire and the MedRisk questionnaire. Both groups saw significant improvements over time on all outcomes except for the BPI-S. CONCLUSION: Adding supervised multimodal physiotherapy sessions did not result in better clinical outcomes when compared to a single session of education and exercise. Patients were more satisfied with the multiple-session approach. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):1-13. Epub 9 September 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12618.

目的:评估在高级物理治疗脊柱专科护理模式中,对患有脊柱疾病的成人进行单次教育和锻炼与多次多模式物理治疗干预的效果比较。设计:实用随机对照试验。方法:我们将转诊至脊柱外科会诊并被高级物理治疗师分流为非手术病例的脊柱疾病患者随机分配到单次教育和运动计划处方(n = 52)或多次(共 6 次)多模式物理治疗干预(n = 54)中。主要结果是简明疼痛量表疼痛严重程度量表(BPI-S)和简明疼痛量表疼痛干扰量表(BPI-I),次要结果包括残疾、生活质量、灾难化和满意度。采用线性混合模型评估各组在 6、12 和 26 周不同时间点的差异。结果:多疗程组在 BPI-S 方面没有显著的组间差异,仅在 6 周时在 BPI-I 方面有显著改善(平均差异:-0.96/10;95% CI,-1.87 至 -0.05)。除了满意度方面,多疗程组的参与者在 9 项就诊满意度问卷和 MedRisk 问卷上的满意度明显更高,除此之外,各组之间没有其他统计学上的显著差异。随着时间的推移,除 BPI-S 外,两组在所有结果上都有明显改善。结论:与单一的教育和锻炼疗程相比,增加有监督的多模式物理治疗疗程并不会带来更好的临床疗效。患者对多疗程方法更为满意。J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):1-13.doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12618。
{"title":"Is One Enough? The Effectiveness of a Single Session of Education and Exercise Compared to Multiple Sessions of a Multimodal Physiotherapy Intervention for Adults With Spinal Disorders in an Advanced Practice Physiotherapy Model of Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Simon Lafrance, Carlo Santaguida, Kadija Perreault, Brenna Bath, Luc J Hébert, Debbie Feldman, Kednapa Thavorn, Julio Fernandes, François Desmeules","doi":"10.2519/jospt.2024.12618","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2024.12618","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>OBJECTIVE:</b> To assess the effectiveness of a single session of education and exercise compared with multiple sessions of a multimodal physiotherapy intervention for adults with spinal disorders in an advanced practice physiotherapy specialized spine model of care. <b>DESIGN:</b> Pragmatic randomized controlled trial. <b>METHODS:</b> We randomized patients with spinal disorders, who were referred for a spinal surgery consultation and triaged as nonsurgical cases by an advanced practice physiotherapist, to a single session of education and prescription of an exercise program (n = 52) or multiple sessions (6 in total) of a multimodal physiotherapy intervention (n = 54). The primary outcomes were the short form Brief Pain Inventory pain severity scale (BPI-S) and the Brief Pain Inventory pain interference scale (BPI-I), and secondary outcomes included disability, quality of life, catastrophization, and satisfaction. Linear mixed models were used to assess differences between groups across time points at 6, 12, and 26 weeks. <b>RESULTS:</b> There were no significant between-group differences on the BPI-S and only a significant improvement at 6 weeks on the BPI-I in the multiple-session group (mean difference: -0.96/10; 95% CI, -1.87 to -0.05). There were no other statistically significant differences between groups, except for satisfaction where participants in the multiple-session group reported statistically significantly greater satisfaction on the 9-item Visit-Specific Satisfaction Questionnaire and the MedRisk questionnaire. Both groups saw significant improvements over time on all outcomes except for the BPI-S. <b>CONCLUSION:</b> Adding supervised multimodal physiotherapy sessions did not result in better clinical outcomes when compared to a single session of education and exercise. Patients were more satisfied with the multiple-session approach. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):1-13. Epub 9 September 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12618</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142331441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Return to Play After an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the Collegiate Athlete: A Systematic Review Evaluating Return to Play Proportions and Associated Factors. 大学运动员前十字韧带重建后重返赛场:评估重返赛场比例和相关因素的系统性综述。
IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2024.12483
Cortez L Brown, Phillip R Worts, Derek R Dewig, Garrison A Rolle, Michael J Ormsbee

OBJECTIVE: To estimate anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) return-to-play (RTP) factors and proportions across all National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) sports. DESIGN: Systematic review with prognosis and etiology components. LITERATURE SEARCH: Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases using terms related to RTP, ACLR, and NCAA for articles published up to June 30, 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Articles were included if RTP proportions or factors affecting RTP were reported and if the study population included NCAA collegiate athletes recovering from an ACLR. DATA SYNTHESIS: The proportion represents the total number of athletes who returned to play after ACLR over the total number of ACLR athletes from each cohort. The cumulative proportion represents the aggregated total from each included study. When eligibility information was available (ie, athletes in their final year of eligibility), RTP proportions were adjusted. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the study quality and scored by 2 raters. RESULTS: Nine studies were included. RTP criteria varied across the studies. Proportions of RTP ranged from 69% to 92%, with a cumulative RTP proportion after ACLR of 84% (628/745). The primary factors associated with the proportion of RTP were scholarship status, competitive eligibility remaining, depth chart position, and surgical graft type. CONCLUSIONS: The cumulative proportion of RTP was 84% and was associated with patient-specific and operative factors. Psychological and functional factors were not routinely reported, and rehabilitation protocols were unknown. Data were not explicitly available for any athletes outside of Division I. The criteria for RTP after ACLR varied. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):1-9. Epub 10 September 2024. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2024.12483.

目的:估算全美大学生体育协会(NCAA)所有运动项目的前交叉韧带重建(ACLR)重返赛场(RTP)因素和比例。设计:包含预后和病因的系统回顾。文献检索:两位独立审稿人使用与 RTP、ACLR 和 NCAA 相关的术语在 PubMed、Cochrane Library 和 Embase 数据库中检索了截至 2023 年 6 月 30 日发表的文章。研究选择标准:如果文章中报告了 RTP 比例或影响 RTP 的因素,且研究人群中包括从 ACLR 恢复的 NCAA 大学生运动员,则将其纳入研究范围。数据合成:比例代表前交叉韧带损伤后重返赛场的运动员总人数与每个队列中前交叉韧带损伤运动员总人数之比。累计比例代表每项纳入研究的总和。如果有资格信息(即运动员处于资格的最后一年),则对 RTP 比例进行调整。纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(Newcastle-Ottawa Scale,NOS)用于评估研究质量,由两名评分员进行评分。结果:共纳入 9 项研究。不同研究的 RTP 标准各不相同。RTP比例从69%到92%不等,ACLR后的累计RTP比例为84%(628/745)。与RTP比例相关的主要因素是奖学金状况、剩余竞技资格、深度表位置和手术移植类型。结论:RTP的累计比例为84%,与患者特异性因素和手术因素有关。心理和功能因素没有常规报告,康复方案也不清楚。前交叉韧带置换术后 RTP 的标准各不相同。J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024; 54(10):1-9.https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2024.12483.
{"title":"Return to Play After an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the Collegiate Athlete: A Systematic Review Evaluating Return to Play Proportions and Associated Factors.","authors":"Cortez L Brown, Phillip R Worts, Derek R Dewig, Garrison A Rolle, Michael J Ormsbee","doi":"10.2519/jospt.2024.12483","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2024.12483","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>OBJECTIVE:</b> To estimate anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) return-to-play (RTP) factors and proportions across all National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) sports. <b>DESIGN:</b> Systematic review with prognosis and etiology components. <b>LITERATURE SEARCH:</b> Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases using terms related to RTP, ACLR, and NCAA for articles published up to June 30, 2023. <b>STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA:</b> Articles were included if RTP proportions or factors affecting RTP were reported and if the study population included NCAA collegiate athletes recovering from an ACLR. <b>DATA SYNTHESIS</b>: The proportion represents the total number of athletes who returned to play after ACLR over the total number of ACLR athletes from each cohort. The cumulative proportion represents the aggregated total from each included study. When eligibility information was available (ie, athletes in their final year of eligibility), RTP proportions were adjusted. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the study quality and scored by 2 raters. <b>RESULTS:</b> Nine studies were included. RTP criteria varied across the studies. Proportions of RTP ranged from 69% to 92%, with a cumulative RTP proportion after ACLR of 84% (628/745). The primary factors associated with the proportion of RTP were scholarship status, competitive eligibility remaining, depth chart position, and surgical graft type. <b>CONCLUSIONS:</b> The cumulative proportion of RTP was 84% and was associated with patient-specific and operative factors. Psychological and functional factors were not routinely reported, and rehabilitation protocols were unknown. Data were not explicitly available for any athletes outside of Division I. The criteria for RTP after ACLR varied. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):1-9. Epub 10 September 2024. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2024.12483</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142331442","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
"Dear Newly Graduated Physical Therapist": A Direct Message Containing Advice We Wish We Had Received. "亲爱的新毕业理疗师":一封包含我们希望收到的建议的直接信息。
IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2024.12676
Jared K Powell, Chad Cook, Jeremy Lewis, Karen McCreesh

SYNOPSIS: This Viewpoint provides practical guidance for early-career musculoskeletal clinicians who are navigating the complexities of clinical practice. Key themes are embracing uncertainty, seeing and treating the whole person, avoiding judgemental mindsets, embracing shared decision-making, focusing on building strong therapeutic relationships and finding a work-related niche that resonates with one's own passions and strengths. We encourage clinicians to consume information carefully in an era of social media health influencers, and suggest ways of accurately identifying reliable sources of information. We do not presume to inoculate against all challenges that clinicians will encounter. Instead, we strive to help early-career clinicians navigate potential friction points in clinic and research based on our collective experience. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):621-624. Epub 17 September 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12676.

简述:本视角为那些在复杂的临床实践中摸爬滚打的早期肌肉骨骼临床医生提供实用指导。关键主题包括:接受不确定性、看待和治疗整个人、避免评判心态、接受共同决策、注重建立稳固的治疗关系,以及找到与自己的激情和优势产生共鸣的工作定位。我们鼓励临床医生在社交媒体影响健康的时代谨慎消费信息,并提出了准确识别可靠信息来源的方法。我们并不假定能够应对临床医生会遇到的所有挑战。相反,我们将根据我们的集体经验,努力帮助初入职场的临床医生驾驭临床和研究中的潜在摩擦点。J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):621-624.doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12676。
{"title":"\"Dear Newly Graduated Physical Therapist\": A Direct Message Containing Advice We Wish We Had Received.","authors":"Jared K Powell, Chad Cook, Jeremy Lewis, Karen McCreesh","doi":"10.2519/jospt.2024.12676","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2024.12676","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>SYNOPSIS:</b> This Viewpoint provides practical guidance for early-career musculoskeletal clinicians who are navigating the complexities of clinical practice. Key themes are embracing uncertainty, seeing and treating the whole person, avoiding judgemental mindsets, embracing shared decision-making, focusing on building strong therapeutic relationships and finding a work-related niche that resonates with one's own passions and strengths. We encourage clinicians to consume information carefully in an era of social media health influencers, and suggest ways of accurately identifying reliable sources of information. We do not presume to inoculate against all challenges that clinicians will encounter. Instead, we strive to help early-career clinicians navigate potential friction points in clinic and research based on our collective experience. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):621-624. Epub 17 September 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12676</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142331436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
JOSPT October 2024 Corrigendum. JOSPT 2024 年 10 月 更正。
IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2024.54.10.679

Correction to an article that was published in the March 2024 issue of JOSPT: Piussi R, Simonson R, Zsidai B, Grassi A, Karlsson J, Della Villa F, Samuelsson K, Senorski EH. Better Safe Than Sorry? A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis on Time to Return to Sport After ACL Reconstruction as a Risk Factor for Second ACL Injury. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):679. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.54.10.679.

对发表在 2024 年 3 月号 JOSPT 上的一篇文章的更正:Piussi R, Simonson R, Zsidai B, Grassi A, Karlsson J, Della Villa F, Samuelsson K, Senorski EH.安全总比遗憾好?前交叉韧带重建后恢复运动时间作为二次前交叉韧带损伤风险因素的系统回顾与 Meta 分析》。DOI:10.2519/JOSPT.2024.54.10.679.
{"title":"<i>JOSPT</i> October 2024 Corrigendum.","authors":"","doi":"10.2519/jospt.2024.54.10.679","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2024.54.10.679","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Correction to an article that was published in the March 2024 issue of JOSPT: Piussi R, Simonson R, Zsidai B, Grassi A, Karlsson J, Della Villa F, Samuelsson K, Senorski EH. Better Safe Than Sorry? A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis on Time to Return to Sport After ACL Reconstruction as a Risk Factor for Second ACL Injury. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):679. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.54.10.679</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142331437","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The Fragility Index of Risk Factors for Hamstring Injuries. 腘绳肌损伤风险因素脆性指数。
IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2024.12300
Matthew Anthis, Stephanie Gourd, Brian Kim, Joshua D Ruddy, Rod Whiteley, Ryan Timmins, Nirav Maniar, Jack Hickey, David A Opar

OBJECTIVE: To determine the Fragility Index of hamstring injury risk factors, defined as the minimum number of participants who would need to change classification to make a hamstring injury risk factor statistically nonsignificant. DESIGN: Retrospective secondary data analysis. METHODS: Studies that investigated 1 or more risk factors for hamstring injury, and presented sufficient data to develop a 2 × 2 contingency table were included. A systematic literature search and reference screening of a recent hamstring injury systematic review were conducted to identify 78 articles. Relative risk and 95% confidence intervals were determined and then systematically recalculated by removing 1 observation from the high-risk injury count and adding it to the high-risk noninjury count. The Fragility Index for a risk factor was the number of observations required to be moved between groups until the relative risk was no longer significant. RESULTS: The median Fragility Index of all hamstring injury risk factors was 3 (Q1-Q3 = 2-6). The Fragility Index for nonmodifiable risk factors was 3 (Q1-Q3 = 2-6) and 3 (Q1-Q3 = 2-5) for modifiable risk factors. Over 35% of all included hamstring injury risk factors had a Fragility Index of ≤2. CONCLUSION: Most statistically significant hamstring injury risk factors are fragile associations. The interpretation of significant hamstring injury risk factors should consider a range of statistical metrics, and while the Fragility Index should never be considered in isolation, it is an intuitive measure to help assess the robustness of findings. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):672-678. Epub 4 September 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12300.

目的:确定腘绳肌损伤风险因素的脆性指数,该指数定义为需要改变分类才能使腘绳肌损伤风险因素在统计学上不显著的最少参与者人数。设计:回顾性二手数据分析。方法:纳入调查 1 个或 1 个以上腿筋损伤风险因素的研究,并提供足够的数据以编制 2 × 2 或然率表。通过系统性文献检索和对近期一篇腿筋损伤系统性综述的参考文献筛选,确定了 78 篇文章。确定了相对风险和 95% 置信区间,然后通过从高风险损伤计数中移除 1 个观察值并将其添加到高风险非损伤计数中,系统地重新计算了相对风险和 95% 置信区间。风险因素的脆性指数是在组间移动直至相对风险不再显著时所需的观察值数量。结果:所有腿筋损伤风险因素的脆性指数中位数为 3(Q1-Q3 = 2-6)。不可改变风险因素的脆性指数为 3(Q1-Q3 = 2-6),可改变风险因素的脆性指数为 3(Q1-Q3 = 2-5)。在所有纳入的腿筋损伤风险因素中,超过 35% 的脆性指数≤2。结论:大多数具有统计学意义的腿筋损伤风险因素都是脆弱关联。对重要腿筋损伤风险因素的解释应考虑一系列统计指标,虽然绝不能孤立地考虑脆性指数,但它是一种直观的测量方法,有助于评估研究结果的稳健性。J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):672-678.doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12300。
{"title":"The Fragility Index of Risk Factors for Hamstring Injuries.","authors":"Matthew Anthis, Stephanie Gourd, Brian Kim, Joshua D Ruddy, Rod Whiteley, Ryan Timmins, Nirav Maniar, Jack Hickey, David A Opar","doi":"10.2519/jospt.2024.12300","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2024.12300","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>OBJECTIVE:</b> To determine the Fragility Index of hamstring injury risk factors, defined as the minimum number of participants who would need to change classification to make a hamstring injury risk factor statistically nonsignificant. <b>DESIGN:</b> Retrospective secondary data analysis. <b>METHODS:</b> Studies that investigated 1 or more risk factors for hamstring injury, and presented sufficient data to develop a 2 × 2 contingency table were included. A systematic literature search and reference screening of a recent hamstring injury systematic review were conducted to identify 78 articles. Relative risk and 95% confidence intervals were determined and then systematically recalculated by removing 1 observation from the high-risk injury count and adding it to the high-risk noninjury count. The Fragility Index for a risk factor was the number of observations required to be moved between groups until the relative risk was no longer significant. <b>RESULTS:</b> The median Fragility Index of all hamstring injury risk factors was 3 (Q1-Q3 = 2-6). The Fragility Index for nonmodifiable risk factors was 3 (Q1-Q3 = 2-6) and 3 (Q1-Q3 = 2-5) for modifiable risk factors. Over 35% of all included hamstring injury risk factors had a Fragility Index of ≤2. <b>CONCLUSION:</b> Most statistically significant hamstring injury risk factors are fragile associations. The interpretation of significant hamstring injury risk factors should consider a range of statistical metrics, and while the Fragility Index should never be considered in isolation, it is an intuitive measure to help assess the robustness of findings. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):672-678. Epub 4 September 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12300</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142331443","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Distal Radius Fracture Rehabilitation. 桡骨远端骨折康复。
IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2024.0301
Saurabh P Mehta, Christos Karagiannopoulos, Marie-Eve Pepin, Bryon T Ballantyne, Susan Michlovitz, Joy C MacDermid, Ruby Grewal, Robroy L Martin

Distal radius fracture (DRF) is arguably the most common upper extremity fracture resulting from a fall accident. These clinical practice guidelines (CPG) were developed to guide all aspects of the management of DRF by physical therapists and other rehabilitation practitioners, such as certified hand therapists. This CPG employed a systematic review methodology to locate, appraise, and synthesize contemporary evidence while developing practice recommendations for determining the prognosis of outcomes, examination, and interventions while managing individuals with DRF. The quality of the primary studies found in the literature search was appraised using standardized tools. The strength of the available evidence for a particular practice domain (e.g., prognosis or intervention) was graded as strong, moderate, weak, or conflicting, where such gradings guided the level of obligation for each practice recommendation. Lastly, the CPG also provided the gaps in the evidence pool for the rehabilitation of DRF that future research efforts can address. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(9):CPG1-CPG78. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.0301.

桡骨远端骨折(DRF)可以说是高处坠落事故中最常见的上肢骨折。本临床实践指南(CPG)旨在指导物理治疗师和其他康复从业人员(如认证手部治疗师)对桡骨远端骨折进行全方位的治疗。本临床实践指南采用了系统回顾的方法来查找、评估和综合当代证据,同时制定了实践建议,以便在管理 DRF 患者时确定预后结果、检查和干预措施。我们使用标准化工具对文献检索中发现的主要研究进行了质量评估。特定实践领域(如预后或干预)的可用证据强度被分为强、中、弱或冲突等级,这些等级为每项实践建议的义务等级提供了指导。最后,CPG 还提供了 DRF 康复证据库中的空白点,供未来研究工作参考。doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.0301.
{"title":"Distal Radius Fracture Rehabilitation.","authors":"Saurabh P Mehta, Christos Karagiannopoulos, Marie-Eve Pepin, Bryon T Ballantyne, Susan Michlovitz, Joy C MacDermid, Ruby Grewal, Robroy L Martin","doi":"10.2519/jospt.2024.0301","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2024.0301","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Distal radius fracture (DRF) is arguably the most common upper extremity fracture resulting from a fall accident. These clinical practice guidelines (CPG) were developed to guide all aspects of the management of DRF by physical therapists and other rehabilitation practitioners, such as certified hand therapists. This CPG employed a systematic review methodology to locate, appraise, and synthesize contemporary evidence while developing practice recommendations for determining the prognosis of outcomes, examination, and interventions while managing individuals with DRF. The quality of the primary studies found in the literature search was appraised using standardized tools. The strength of the available evidence for a particular practice domain (e.g., prognosis or intervention) was graded as strong, moderate, weak, or conflicting, where such gradings guided the level of obligation for each practice recommendation. Lastly, the CPG also provided the gaps in the evidence pool for the rehabilitation of DRF that future research efforts can address. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(9):CPG1-CPG78. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.0301</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142114308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
People With Acute Low Back Pain Have Concerns That May Not Be Addressed by Guideline-Recommended Advice: A Mixed-Methods Study. 急性腰背痛患者所关心的问题可能无法通过指南推荐的建议来解决:一项混合方法研究。
IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2024.12571
Stephanie A Lam, Joshua R Zadro, Christopher G Maher, Charlene San Juan, Haiyi Wang, Giovanni E Ferreira

OBJECTIVE: To investigate what concerns people with acute low back pain (LBP) and explore whether demographic and clinical factors were associated with having concerns about LBP. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study. METHODS: We included participants aged ≥18 years with acute LBP (LBP≤6 weeks). We collected demographic and clinical characteristics via an online survey and asked one open-ended question to elicit participants' concerns about their LBP. We investigated concerns about LBP using inductive content analysis. Using multivariable logistic regression, we explored associations between demographic and clinical characteristics and having concerns about LBP. RESULTS: We included 2025 participants, a majority of whom (n = 1200, 59.3%) reported having at least 1 concern about their LBP. There were 34 unique concerns, which mapped to 5 themes: causes of LBP (n = 393, 19.4%), future consequences of LBP (n = 390, 19.3%), psychosocial consequences of LBP (n = 287, 14.2%), physical consequences of LBP (n = 210, 10.4%), and health consequences of LBP (n = 84, 4.2%). Demographic and clinical characteristics were associated with having concerns about LBP: participants with university education, having previously received advice for LBP, with higher LBP intensity, interference, and higher anxiety symptoms were more likely to have concerns about their LBP. CONCLUSION: Most people with acute LBP had at least 1 concern about their LBP, more commonly centered around the causes of and the future consequences of LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(9):1-9. Epub 7 August 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12571.

目的:调查急性腰背痛(LBP)患者所关心的问题,并探讨人口和临床因素是否与对 LBP 的关心有关。设计:混合方法研究。方法:我们纳入了年龄≥18 岁、患有急性腰背痛(腰背痛≤6 周)的参与者。我们通过在线调查收集了参与者的人口统计学特征和临床特征,并提出了一个开放式问题,以了解参与者对其枸杞痛的担忧。我们使用归纳内容分析法调查了参与者对枸杞多糖症的担忧。我们使用多变量逻辑回归法探讨了人口统计学和临床特征与对枸杞痛的担忧之间的关联。结果:我们纳入了 2025 名参与者,其中大多数(n = 1200,59.3%)表示至少有一个关于腰椎间盘突出症的问题。共有 34 个独特的关注点,分别对应 5 个主题:枸杞痛的原因(n = 393,19.4%)、枸杞痛的未来后果(n = 390,19.3%)、枸杞痛的社会心理后果(n = 287,14.2%)、枸杞痛的身体后果(n = 210,10.4%)和枸杞痛的健康后果(n = 84,4.2%)。人口统计学和临床特征与对枸杞痛的担忧有关:受过大学教育、曾接受过枸杞痛建议、枸杞痛强度和干扰程度较高以及焦虑症状较重的参与者更有可能对自己的枸杞痛感到担忧。结论:大多数急性椎管内疼痛患者至少对自己的椎管内疼痛有一种担忧,更常见的是对椎管内疼痛的原因和未来后果的担忧。J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(9):1-9.doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12571。
{"title":"People With Acute Low Back Pain Have Concerns That May Not Be Addressed by Guideline-Recommended Advice: A Mixed-Methods Study.","authors":"Stephanie A Lam, Joshua R Zadro, Christopher G Maher, Charlene San Juan, Haiyi Wang, Giovanni E Ferreira","doi":"10.2519/jospt.2024.12571","DOIUrl":"10.2519/jospt.2024.12571","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>OBJECTIVE:</b> To investigate what concerns people with acute low back pain (LBP) and explore whether demographic and clinical factors were associated with having concerns about LBP. <b>DESIGN:</b> Mixed-methods study. <b>METHODS:</b> We included participants aged ≥18 years with acute LBP (LBP≤6 weeks). We collected demographic and clinical characteristics via an online survey and asked one open-ended question to elicit participants' concerns about their LBP. We investigated concerns about LBP using inductive content analysis. Using multivariable logistic regression, we explored associations between demographic and clinical characteristics and having concerns about LBP. <b>RESULTS:</b> We included 2025 participants, a majority of whom (n = 1200, 59.3%) reported having at least 1 concern about their LBP. There were 34 unique concerns, which mapped to 5 themes: causes of LBP (n = 393, 19.4%), future consequences of LBP (n = 390, 19.3%), psychosocial consequences of LBP (n = 287, 14.2%), physical consequences of LBP (n = 210, 10.4%), and health consequences of LBP (n = 84, 4.2%). Demographic and clinical characteristics were associated with having concerns about LBP: participants with university education, having previously received advice for LBP, with higher LBP intensity, interference, and higher anxiety symptoms were more likely to have concerns about their LBP. <b>CONCLUSION:</b> Most people with acute LBP had at least 1 concern about their LBP, more commonly centered around the causes of and the future consequences of LBP. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(9):1-9. Epub 7 August 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12571</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142114309","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1