Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33123757›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2021

Advanced practice physiotherapy for adults with spinal pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Simon Lafrance, Jean-Gabriel Lapalme, Marianne Méquignon, Carlo Santaguida, Julio Fernandes, François Desmeules

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Simon LafranceSchool of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada. simon.lafrance.1@umontreal.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-9933-4526
Jean-Gabriel LapalmeSchool of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Marianne MéquignonHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont Research Center, Université de Montréal Affiliated Research Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Carlo SantaguidaDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medecine, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Julio FernandesHôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal Research Center, Université de Montréal Affiliated Research Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
François DesmeulesSchool of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.

Funding

CIHR 201609NCR-375311-130299
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo appraise the available evidence on advanced practice physiotherapy (APP) models of care (MoC) in specialized secondary care such as orthopaedic, rheumatology or neurosurgery outpatients' clinics for adults with spinal pain.

methodsSystematic review with meta-analysis. Electronic searches were conducted up to July 2020 in Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and CINAHL. Studies on APP MoC in specialized secondary care for adults with spinal pain were included.

resultsEighteen studies (n = 9405), including two randomized controlled trials and sixteen observational studies were included. One study was considered at high quality, fourteen studies were considered of moderate quality and three were considered of low quality. Pooled results for change in disability for patients with spinal pain reported no significant difference between APP and usual medical care (UMC). Mean wait time for initial consultation was lower with APP (1-9.4 weeks) than with UMC MoC (23-65 weeks). Following the implementation of APP MoC, wait time for a consultation with a medical specialist was reduced (6-16 weeks). Physiotherapists in APP MoC managed independently 89.2% of the patients referred (n = 8393). Stakeholders and patients reported high satisfaction with APP care.

conclusionsAPP MoC and UMC likely result in comparable pain, disability and quality of life improvement for adults with spinal pain. However, APP MoC have the potential to improve health care access by reducing wait time for consultation in specialized care and maintaining a high level of satisfaction among stakeholders and patients.

Indexed as

Physical Therapy ModalitiesQuality of LifeAdultHumansPainPain MeasurementAdvanced practiceHealth care systemPhysiotherapySpecialized careSpine

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.