Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Globally, spine disorders are the leading cause of disability, affecting more than half a billion individuals. However, less than 50% of G20 countries specifically identify spine health within their public policy priorities. Therefore, it is crucial to raise awareness among policy makers of the disabling effect of spine disorders and their impact on the economic welfare of G20 nations. In 2019, SPINE20 was established as the leading advocacy group to bring global attention to spine disorders. METHODS:Recommendations were developed through two Delphi methods with international and multi-professional panels. RESULTS:In 2022, seven recommendations were delivered to the leaders of G20 countries, urging them to: Develop action plans to provide universal access to evidence-based spine care that incorporates the needs of minorities and vulnerable populations. Invest in the development of sustainable human resource capacity, through multisectoral and inter-professional competency-based education and training to promote evidence-based approaches to spine care, and to build an appropriate healthcare working environment that optimizes the delivery of safe health services. Develop policies using the best available evidence to properly manage spine disorders and to prolong functional healthy life expectancy in the era of an aging population. Create a competent workforce and improve the healthcare infrastructure/facilities including equipment to provide evidence-based inter-professional rehabilitation services to patients with spinal cord injury throughout their continuum of care. Build collaborative and innovative translational research capacity within national, regional, and global healthcare systems for state-of-the-art and cost-effective spine care across the healthcare continuum ensuring equality, diversity, and inclusion of all stakeholders. Develop international consensus statements on patient outcomes and how they can be used to define and develop pathways for value-based care. Recognize that intervening on determinants of health including physical activity, nutrition, physical and psychosocial workplace environment, and smoking-free lifestyle can reduce the burden of spine disabilities and improve the health status and wellness of the population. At the third SPINE20 summit 2022 which took place in Bali, Indonesia, in August 2022, 17 associations endorsed its recommendations. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:SPINE20 advocacy efforts focus on developing public policy recommendations to improve the health, welfare, and wellness of all who suffer from spinal pain and disability. We propose that focusing on facilitating access to systems that prioritize value-based care delivered by a competent healthcare workforce will reduce disability and improve the productivity of the G20 nations.

Despite being a topic of increasing concern, work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) among physiotherapists, have not been comprehensively explored. This study evaluated the effects of using a passive exoskeleton on biomechanics (i.e. muscle activity of back and hip extensors) and kinematics (trunk and hip flexion angles) during a simulated chair transfer task. A simulated patient was used for the chair transfer task. Twenty working physiotherapists performed the chair transfer task with or without using a passive exoskeleton. The biomechanics and kinematics during the tasks were measured using surface electromyography (sEMG) and motion sensors, respectively. Change in exertion level was examined using the Borg CR-10 scale, and an acceptance questionnaire was adopted from previous studies and used in investigating user acceptance of the exoskeleton. Results revealed that (1) using a passive exoskeleton in performing transfer tasks significantly decreased the sEMG activities of thoracic erector spinae, lumbar erector spinae and gluteal muscles, decreasing the maximum voluntary isometric contraction by 7.78%-10.95%; (2) no significant differences in the maximal flexion angles of thoracic and lumbar spines and trunk between performing the task with and without the exoskeleton; (3) a nonsignificant decrease in exertion level when performing the transfer task with the exoskeleton; and (4) no significant between-group differences in the score of acceptance questionnaire. These findings suggested that using the exoskeleton may help alleviate loading on the back by decreasing back extensor and hip extensor muscle activities while not considerably changing sagittal plane kinematics at the trunk and hip.
Copyright

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The focus of SPINE20 is to develop evidence-based policy recommendations for the G20 countries to work with governments to reduce the burden of spine disease, and disability. METHODS:On September 17-18, 2021, SPINE20 held its annual meeting in Rome, Italy. Prior to the meeting, the SPINE20 created six proposed recommendations. These recommendations were uploaded to the SPINE20 website 10 days before the meeting and opened to the public for comments. The recommendations were discussed at the meeting allowing the participants to object and provide comments. RESULTS:In total, 27 societies endorsed the following recommendations. SPINE20 calls upon the G20 countries: (1) to expand telehealth for the access to spine care, especially in light of the current situation with COVID-19. (2) To adopt value-based interprofessional spine care as an approach to improve patient outcomes and reduce disability. (3) To facilitate access and invest in the development of a competent rehabilitation workforce to reduce the burden of disability related to spine disorders. (4) To adopt a strategy to promote daily physical activity and exercises among the elderly population to maintain an active and independent life with a healthy spine, particularly after COVID-19 pandemic. (5) To engage in capacity building with emerging countries and underserved communities for the benefit of spine patients. (6) To promote strategies to transfer evidence-based advances into patient benefit through effective implementation processes. CONCLUSIONS:SPINE20's initiatives will make governments and decision makers aware of efforts to reduce needless suffering from disabling spine pain through education that can be instituted across the globe.

OBJECTIVE:To determine whether non-pharmacological interventions delivered through synchronous telehealth are as effective and safe compared to in-person interventions for the management of patients with musculoskeletal conditions in improving pain, functioning, self-reported recovery, psychological outcomes or health-related quality of life using rapid review methods. DATA SOURCES/METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 2010 to August 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English or French and updated our search in January 2021. STUDY SELECTION/METHODS:One reviewer screened citations in two phases (phase-one: title/abstract, phase-two: full-text) selecting RCTs comparing synchronous telehealth to in-person care for the management of musculoskeletal conditions. A random 10% sample was screened by two independent reviewers with minimum 95% agreement prior to full screening. One reviewer critically appraised and one reviewer validated appraisal for eligible RCTs. DATA EXTRACTION/METHODS:One author extracted participant characteristics, setting, sample size, interventions, comparisons, follow-up period and outcome data. A second author validated data extraction. DATA SYNTHESIS/RESULTS:We summarized the findings narratively. Low to moderate quality evidence suggests that synchronous telehealth (i.e. videoconference or telephone calls) alone or in combination with in-person care leads to similar outcomes as in-person care alone for non-specific low back pain, generalized osteoarthritis, hip and/or knee osteoarthritis and non-acute headaches in adults. CONCLUSIONS:Synchronous telehealth may be an option for the management of non-acute musculoskeletal conditions in adults. However, our results may not be generalized to rural or low socioeconomic populations. Future research should investigate the outcomes associated the use of new technologies, such as videoconference.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Objective of this study is to develop an evidence-based guideline for the noninvasive management of soft tissue disorders of the shoulder (shoulder pain), excluding major pathology. METHODS:This guideline is based on high-quality evidence from seven systematic reviews. Multidisciplinary experts considered the evidence of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences when formulating recommendations. Target audience is clinicians; target population is adults with shoulder pain. RESULTS:When managing patients with shoulder pain, clinicians should (a) rule out major structural or other pathologies as the cause of shoulder pain and reassure patients about the benign and self-limited nature of most soft tissue shoulder pain; (b) develop a care plan in partnership with the patient; (c) for shoulder pain of any duration, consider low-level laser therapy; multimodal care (heat/cold, joint mobilization, and range of motion exercise); cervicothoracic spine manipulation and mobilization for shoulder pain when associated pain or restricted movement of the cervicothoracic spine; or thoracic spine manipulation; (d) for shoulder pain >3-month duration, consider stretching and/or strengthening exercises; laser acupuncture; or general physician care (information, advice, and pharmacological pain management if necessary); (e) for shoulder pain with calcific tendinitis on imaging, consider shock-wave therapy; (f) for shoulder pain of any duration, do not offer ultrasound; taping; interferential current therapy; diacutaneous fibrolysis; soft tissue massage; or cervicothoracic spine manipulation and mobilization as an adjunct to exercise (i.e., range of motion, strengthening and stretching exercise) for pain between the neck and the elbow at rest or during movement of the arm; (g) for shoulder pain >3-month duration, do not offer shock-wave therapy; and (h) should reassess the patient's status at each visit for worsening of symptoms or new physical, mental, or psychological symptoms, or satisfactory recovery. CONCLUSIONS:Our evidence-based guideline provides recommendations for non-invasive management of shoulder pain. The impact of the guideline in clinical practice requires further evaluation. SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Shoulder pain of any duration can be effectively treated with laser therapy, multimodal care (i.e., heat/cold, joint mobilization, range of motion exercise), or cervicothoracic manipulation and mobilization. Shoulder pain (>3 months) can be effectively treated with exercises, laser acupuncture, or general physician care (information, advice, and pharmacological pain management if necessary).

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The Global Burden of Diseases (GBD) Studies have estimated that low back pain is one of the costliest ailments worldwide. Subsequent to GBD publications, leadership of the four largest global spine societies agreed to form SPINE20. This article introduces the concept of SPINE20, the recommendations, and the future of this global advocacy group linked to G20 annual summits. METHODS:The founders of SPINE20 advocacy group coordinated with G20 Saudi Arabia to conduct the SPINE20 summit in 2020. The summit was intended to promote evidence-based recommendations to use the most reliable information from high-level research. Eight areas of importance to mitigate spine disorders were identified through a voting process of the participating societies. Twelve recommendations were discussed and vetted. RESULTS:The areas of immediate concern were "Aging spine," "Future of spine care," "Spinal cord injuries," "Children and adolescent spine," "Spine-related disability," "Spine Educational Standards," "Patient safety," and "Burden on economy." Twelve recommendations were created and endorsed by 31/33 spine societies and 2 journals globally during a vetted process through the SPINE20.org website and during the virtual inaugural meeting November 10-11, 2020 held from the G20 platform. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first time that international spine societies have joined to support actions to mitigate the burden of spine disorders across the globe. SPINE20 seeks to change awareness and treatment of spine pain by supporting local projects that implement value-based practices with healthcare policies that are culturally sensitive based on scientific evidence.

Introduction Despite the profound burden of disease, a strategic global response to optimise musculoskeletal (MSK) health and guide national-level health systems strengthening priorities remains absent. Auspiced by the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health (G-MUSC), we aimed to empirically derive requisite priorities and components of a strategic response to guide global and national-level action on MSK health. Methods Design: mixed-methods, three-phase design. Phase 1: qualitative study with international key informants (KIs), including patient representatives and people with lived experience. KIs characterised the contemporary landscape for MSK health and priorities for a global strategic response. Phase 2: scoping review of national health policies to identify contemporary MSK policy trends and foci. Phase 3: informed by phases 1-2, was a global eDelphi where multisectoral panellists rated and iterated a framework of priorities and detailed components/actions. Results Phase 1: 31 KIs representing 25 organisations were sampled from 20 countries (40% low and middle income (LMIC)). Inductively derived themes were used to construct a logic model to underpin latter phases, consisting of five guiding principles, eight strategic priority areas and seven accelerators for action. Phase 2: of the 165 documents identified, 41 (24.8%) from 22 countries (88% high-income countries) and 2 regions met the inclusion criteria. Eight overarching policy themes, supported by 47 subthemes, were derived, aligning closely with the logic model. Phase 3: 674 panellists from 72 countries (46% LMICs) participated in round 1 and 439 (65%) in round 2 of the eDelphi. Fifty-nine components were retained with 10 (17%) identified as essential for health systems. 97.6% and 94.8% agreed or strongly agreed the framework was valuable and credible, respectively, for health systems strengthening. Conclusion An empirically derived framework, co-designed and strongly supported by multisectoral stakeholders, can now be used as a blueprint for global and country-level responses to improve MSK health and prioritise system strengthening initiatives.

BACKGROUND:The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly limited patients' access to care for spine-related symptoms and disorders. However, physical distancing between clinicians and patients with spine-related symptoms is not solely limited to restrictions imposed by pandemic-related lockdowns. In most low- and middle-income countries, as well as many underserved marginalized communities in high-income countries, there is little to no access to clinicians trained in evidence-based care for people experiencing spinal pain. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study is to describe the development and present the components of evidence-based patient and clinician guides for the management of spinal disorders where in-person care is not available. METHODS:Ultimately, two sets of guides were developed (one for patients and one for clinicians) by extracting information from the published Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) papers. An international, interprofessional team of 29 participants from 10 countries on 4 continents participated. The team included practitioners in family medicine, neurology, physiatry, rheumatology, psychology, chiropractic, physical therapy, and yoga, as well as epidemiologists, research methodologists, and laypeople. The participants were invited to review, edit, and comment on the guides in an open iterative consensus process. RESULTS:The Patient Guide is a simple 2-step process. The first step describes the nature of the symptoms or concerns. The second step provides information that a patient can use when considering self-care, determining whether to contact a clinician, or considering seeking emergency care. The Clinician Guide is a 5-step process: (1) Obtain and document patient demographics, location of primary clinical symptoms, and psychosocial information. (2) Review the symptoms noted in the patient guide. (3) Determine the GSCI classification of the patient's spine-related complaints. (4) Ask additional questions to determine the GSCI subclassification of the symptom pattern. (5) Consider appropriate treatment interventions. CONCLUSIONS:The Patient and Clinician Guides are designed to be sufficiently clear to be useful to all patients and clinicians, irrespective of their location, education, professional qualifications, and experience. However, they are comprehensive enough to provide guidance on the management of all spine-related symptoms or disorders, including triage for serious and specific diseases. They are consistent with widely accepted evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. They also allow for adequate documentation and medical record keeping. These guides should be of value during periods of government-mandated physical or social distancing due to infectious diseases, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. They should also be of value in underserved communities in high-, middle-, and low-income countries where there is a dearth of accessible trained spine care clinicians. These guides have the potential to reduce the overutilization of unnecessary and expensive interventions while empowering patients to self-manage uncomplicated spinal pain with the assistance of their clinician, either through direct in-person consultation or via telehealth communication.