BackgroundLow back pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Exercise therapy is widely recommended to treat persistent non-specific low back pain. While evidence suggests exercise is, on average, moderately effective, there remains uncertainty about which individuals might benefit the most from exercise.MethodsIn parallel with a Cochrane review update, we requested individual participant data (IPD) from high-quality randomised clinical trials of adults with our two primary outcomes of interest, pain and functional limitations, and calculated global recovery. We compiled a master data set including baseline participant characteristics, exercise and comparison characteristics, and outcomes at short-term, moderate-term and long-term follow-up. We conducted descriptive analyses and one-stage IPD meta-analysis using multilevel mixed-effects regression of the overall treatment effect and prespecified potential treatment effect modifiers.ResultsWe received IPD for 27 trials (3514 participants). For studies included in this analysis, compared with no treatment/usual care, exercise therapy on average reduced pain (mean effect/100 (95% CI) −10.7 (−14.1 to –7.4)), a result compatible with a clinically important 20% smallest worthwhile effect. Exercise therapy reduced functional limitations with a clinically important 23% improvement (mean effect/100 (95% CI) −10.2 (−13.2 to –7.3)) at short-term follow-up. Not having heavy physical demands at work and medication use for low back pain were potential treatment effect modifiers—these were associated with superior exercise outcomes relative to non-exercise comparisons. Lower body mass index was also associated with better outcomes in exercise compared with no treatment/usual care. This study was limited by inconsistent availability and measurement of participant characteristics.ConclusionsThis study provides potentially useful information to help treat patients and design future studies of exercise interventions that are better matched to specific subgroups.Protocol publicationhttps://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-64

Objective The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend an interval between surgery and adjuvant radiation therapy of less than 6 weeks, but only 44% of patients meet this metric nationally. We sought to identify key components of an improvement process focused on starting adjuvant radiation therapy within 6 weeks of surgery. Methods This project used an A3 model to improve a defined process measure. We studied a consecutive sample of 56 patients with oral cavity carcinoma who were treated at our institution with upfront surgical resection followed by adjuvant radiation therapy. Twelve proposed interventions tested during the study period focused on 3 key drivers of delays: delayed dental evaluation and teeth extraction, delayed radiation oncology consults, and inadequate patient engagement. The primary outcome measure was the number of days from surgery to the start of radiation therapy. Results Prior to the intervention, 62% of patients received adjuvant radiation within 6 weeks of surgery. Following the intervention, 73% of patients achieved this metric. The percentage of patients with avoidable delays decreased from 24% to 9%. The percentage of patients with unavoidable delays was relatively constant before and after the intervention (15% and 18%, respectively). Discussion Defining disease-specific metrics is critical to improving care in our head and neck cancer patient population. We demonstrate several key components to develop and improve self-defined metrics. Implications for Practice As we transition to a system of value-based care, structured quality improvement projects can have a measurable impact on cancer patient process measures.

Acquired hemophilia A (AHA) is due to autoantibodies against coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) and most often presents with unexpected bleeding. In contrast to congenital hemophilia, the patient's residual FVIII activity does not seem to correlate with the risk of bleeding as suggested from previous studies. Risk factors for bleeding have not been described. We used data from the prospective GTH-AH 01/2010 study to assess the risk of bleeding and the efficacy of hemostatic therapy. FVIII activity was measured at baseline and weekly thereafter. Bleeding events were assessed by treating physicians. A total of 289 bleeds was recorded in 102 patients. 141 new bleeds starting after day 1 were observed in 59% of the patients, with a mean rate of 0.13 bleeds per patient-week in weeks 1 to 12, or 0.27 bleeds per patient-week before achieving partial remission. Weekly measured FVIII activity was significantly associated with the bleeding rate, but only achieving FVIII ≥50% abolished the risk of bleeding. A good WHO performance status assessed at baseline (score 0 vs. higher) was associated with a lower bleeding rate. Hemostatic treatment was reported to be effective in 96% of bleeds. In conclusion, the risk of new bleeds after a first diagnosis of AHA remains high until partial remission is achieved, and weekly measured FVIII activity may help to assess the individual risk of bleeding. These results will help to define future strategies for prophylaxis of bleeding in AHA.