METHODS: A parallel-group unblinded randomized controlled trial involving 300 patients was conducted in two hospital orthopedics clinics in Malaysia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive cognitive behavioral-based group therapy (n = 150) or no further intervention (n = 150). The primary outcome was the change from baseline in knee pain as determined by the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 6 months. The data collected were analyzed by covariate-adjusted mixed design repeated measures analysis of variance. All analyses were performed under the terms of intention-to-treat.

RESULTS: At 6 months, mean change from baseline in the KOOS knee pain score was 0.6 points (95% CI -1.73 to 2.94) in the control group and 8.9 points (95% CI 6.62 to 11.23) (denoting less knee pain intensity) in the intervention group (significant treatment effect p < 0.0001). Patients treated with such an approach also experienced significant improvement in functional ability when performing activities of daily living and had improved ability to cope with depression, anxiety and pain catastrophizing.

METHODS: The search strategies were performed via EBSCO MEDLINE, EBSCO CINAHL, Science Direct, PubMed, and PEDro databases from 2006 to 2016. The keywords "patient education", "low back pain", "elderly", "older adults", "older persons" and "older people" were used during the literature search. Boolean operators were used to expand or limit the searching scope and manual exclusion was performed to choose articles eligible for this study.

RESULTS: A total of 2799 articles were retrieved but only five articles were related with patient education for older people with LBP. Findings suggest that patient education for older people may differ in terms of its contents such as health education, self-management, video education, and postural education. The high methodological quality of the studies revealed that patient education showed improvement in terms of pain, disability and quality of life among older people with LBP.

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of adherence and outcome to outpatient multimodal rehabilitation in chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHODS: A total of 273 CLBP patients participated in an exercise-based rehabilitation program. Patients who completed ⩾ 70% of the treatment course were classified as adherent. Patients showing a post-treatment reduction of ⩾ 30% in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) back pain intensity scores were assigned to the favorable outcome group.

RESULTS: Multivariate logistic regression revealed that higher age, higher ability to perform low-load activities, and higher degrees of kinesiophobia increased the odds to complete the rehabilitation program. By contrast, lower levels of education and back pain unrelated to poor posture increased the odds for non-adherence. Furthermore, a favorable outcome was predicted in case the cause for LBP was known, shorter symptom duration, no pain in the lower legs, no difficulties falling asleep, and short-term work absenteeism.

Methods: PubMed, SCOPUS, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Google Scholar electronic databases were searched systematically with restricting the languages to only English and year (January 2001 to March 2020), and studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Study quality and publication bias were assessed by using the Robvis, a software package of R statistical software.

Results: This systematic review included 32 studies (1172 patients) based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Most of the studies reported significant reduction of pain by the use of the laser during TMD treatment. Two-thirds of the study (78.13%) found a better outcome comparing with conventional one. According to Robvis, 84.4% of the studies were high methodological studies with low risk of bias.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of TENS for managing pain in people with SCD who experience pain crises or chronic pain (or both).

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Register, comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched online trial registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of the last search: 26 Febraury 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, where TENS was evaluated for managing pain in people with SCD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of the trials identified by the literature searches according to the inclusion criteria. Two review authors then independently extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane standard tool and rated the quality of evidence using the GRADE guidelines.

MAIN RESULTS: One double-blind cross-over RCT with 22 participants with SCD (aged 12 to 27 years) was eligible for inclusion. Following stratification into four pain crises severity grades, participants were then randomised to receive TENS or placebo (sham TENS). The trial was concluded after 60 treatment episodes (30 treatment episodes of each treatment group). There is a lack of clarity regarding the trial design and the analysis of the cross-over data. If a participant was allocated to TENS treatment for an episode of pain and subsequently returned with a further episode of a similar degree of pain, they would then receive the sham TENS treatment (cross-over design). For those experiencing a pain episode of a different severity, it is not clear whether they were re-randomised or given the alternate treatment. Reporting and analysis was based on the total number pain events and not on the number of participants. It is unclear how many participants were crossed over from the TENS group to the sham TENS group and vice versa. The trial had a high risk of bias regarding random sequence generation and allocation concealment; an unclear risk regarding the blinding of participants and personnel; and a low risk regarding the blinding of the outcome assessors and selective outcome reporting. The trial was small and of very low quality; furthermore, given the issue with trial design we were unable to quantitatively analyse the data. Therefore, we present only a narrative summary and caution is advised in interpreting the results. In relation to our pre-defined primary outcomes, the included trial did not report pain relief at two to four weeks post intervention. The trial authors reported that no difference was found in the changes in pain ratings (recorded at one hour and four hours post intervention) between the TENS and the placebo groups. In relation to our secondary outcomes, the analgesic usage during the trial also did not show any difference between groups. Given the quality of the evidence, we are uncertain whether TENS improves overall satisfaction as compared to sham TENS. The ability to cope with activities of daily living was not evaluated. Regarding adverse events, although one case of itching was reported in the TENS group, the site and nature of itching was not clearly stated; hence it cannot be clearly attributed to TENS. Also, two participants receiving 'sham' TENS reported a worsening of pain with the intervention.

Method: Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science (all databases) were searched by 2 reviewers until 29th October 2020. Articles were screened and narratively synthesized according to PRISMA-DTA guidelines based on predefined eligibility criteria. Articles that made direct reference test comparisons to human clinicians were evaluated using the MI-CLAIM checklist. The risk of bias was assessed by JBI-DTA critical appraisal, and certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Information regarding the quantification method of dental pain and disease, the conditional characteristics of both training and test data cohort in the machine learning, diagnostic outcomes, and diagnostic test comparisons with clinicians, where applicable, were extracted.

Results: 34 eligible articles were found for data synthesis, of which 8 articles made direct reference comparisons to human clinicians. 7 papers scored over 13 (out of the evaluated 15 points) in the MI-CLAIM approach with all papers scoring 5+ (out of 7) in JBI-DTA appraisals. GRADE approach revealed serious risks of bias and inconsistencies with most studies containing more positive cases than their true prevalence in order to facilitate machine learning. Patient-perceived symptoms and clinical history were generally found to be less reliable than radiographs or histology for training accurate machine learning models. A low agreement level between clinicians training the models was suggested to have a negative impact on the prediction accuracy. Reference comparisons found nonspecialized clinicians with less than 3 years of experience to be disadvantaged against trained models.