Disability is an important outcome from a clinical and public health perspective. However, it is unclear how disability develops in people with low back pain or neck pain. More specifically, the mechanisms by which pain leads to disability are not well understood. Mediation analysis is a way of investigating these mechanisms by examining the extent to which an intermediate variable explains the effect of an exposure on an outcome. This systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed to identify and examine the extent to which putative mediators explain the effect of pain on disability in people with low back pain or neck pain. Five electronic databases were searched. We found 12 studies (N=2,961) that examined how pain leads to disability with mediation analysis. Standardized regression coefficients (â) of the indirect and total paths were pooled. We found evidence to show that self-efficacy (â = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.10-0.34), psychological distress (â = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.01-0.18), and fear (â = 0.08, 95% CI = 0.01-0.14) mediated the relationship between pain and disability, but catastrophizing did not (â = 0.07, 95% CI = -0.06-0.19). The methodological quality of these studies was low and we highlight potential areas for development. Nonetheless, the results suggest that there are significant mediating effects of self-efficacy, psychological distress, and fear, which underpins the direct targeting of these constructs in treatment.

Background and objective This systematic review synthesized evidence from European neck and low back pain (NLBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to identify recommended treatment options for use across Europe. Databases and Data Treatment Comprehensive searches of thirteen databases were conducted, from 1st January 2013 to 4th May 2020 to identify up‐to‐date evidence‐based European CPGs for primary care management of NLBP, issued by professional bodies/organizations. Data extracted included; aim and target population, methods for development and implementation and treatment recommendations. The AGREE II checklist was used to critically appraise guidelines. Criteria were devised to summarize and synthesize the direction and strength of recommendations across guidelines. Results Seventeen CPGs (11 low back; 5 neck; 1 both) from eight European countries were identified, of which seven were high quality. For neck pain , there were consistent weak or moderate strength recommendations for: reassurance, advice and education, manual therapy, referral for exercise therapy/programme, oral analgesics and topical medications, plus psychological therapies or multidisciplinary treatment for specific subgroups. Notable recommendation differences between back and neck pain included, i) analgesics for neck pain (not for back pain); ii) options for back pain‐specific subgroups—work‐based interventions, return to work advice/programmes and surgical interventions (but not for neck pain) and iii) a greater strength of recommendations (generally moderate or strong) for back pain than those for neck pain. Conclusions This review of European CPGs identified a range of mainly non‐pharmacological recommended treatment options for NLBP that have broad consensus for use across Europe. Significance Consensus regarding evidence‐based treatment recommendations for patients with neck and low back pain (NLBP) from recent European clinical practice guidelines identifies a wide range of predominantly non‐pharmacological treatment options. This includes options potentially applicable to all patients with NLBP and those applicable to only specific patient subgroups. Future work within our Back‐UP research team will transfer these evidence‐based treatment options to an accessible clinician decision support tool for first contact clinicians.

and the AGReMA group IMPORTANCE Mediation analyses of randomized trials and observational studies can generate evidence about the mechanisms by which interventions and exposures may influence health outcomes. Publications of mediation analyses are increasing, but the quality of their reporting is suboptimal.OBJECTIVE To develop international, consensus-based guidance for the reporting of mediation analyses of randomized trials and observational studies (A Guideline for Reporting Mediation Analyses; AGReMA). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThe AGReMA statement was developed using the Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework for developing reporting guidelines. The guideline development process included (1) an overview of systematic reviews to assess the need for a reporting guideline; (2) review of systematic reviews of relevant evidence on reporting mediation analyses; (3) conducting a Delphi survey with panel members that included methodologists, statisticians, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, psychologists, applied clinical researchers, clinicians, implementation scientists, evidence synthesis experts, representatives from the EQUATOR Network, and journal editors (n = 19; June-November 2019); (4) having a consensus meeting (n = 15; April 28-29, 2020); and (5) conducting a 4-week external review and pilot test that included methodologists and potential users of AGReMA (n = 21; November 2020). RESULTSA previously reported overview of 54 systematic reviews of mediation studies demonstrated the need for a reporting guideline. Thirty-three potential reporting items were identified from 3 systematic reviews of mediation studies. Over 3 rounds, the Delphi panelists ranked the importance of these items, provided 60 qualitative comments for item refinement and prioritization, and suggested new items for consideration. All items were reviewed during a 2-day consensus meeting and participants agreed on a 25-item AGReMA statement for studies in which mediation analyses are the primary focus and a 9-item short-form AGReMA statement for studies in which mediation analyses are a secondary focus. These checklists were externally reviewed and pilot tested by 21 expert methodologists and potential users, which led to minor adjustments and consolidation of the checklists. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThe AGReMA statement provides recommendations for reporting primary and secondary mediation analyses of randomized trials and observational studies. Improved reporting of studies that use mediation analyses could facilitate peer review and help produce publications that are complete, accurate, transparent, and reproducible.