Context:Low back pain is one of the most common medical presentations in the general population. It is a common source of pain in athletes, leading to significant time missed and disability. The general categories of treatment for low back pain are medications and therapies.Evidence acquisition:Relevant studies were identified through a literature search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database from 1990 to 2010. A manual review of reference lists of identified sources was also performed.Results:It is not clear whether athletes experience low back pain more often than the general public. Because of a aucity of trials with athlete-specific populations, recommendations on treatments must be made from reviews of treatments for the general population. Several large systemic reviews and Cochrane reviews have compiled evidence on different modalities for low back pain. Superficial heat, spinal manipulation, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, and skeletal muscle relaxants have the strongest evidence of benefit.Conclusions:Despite the high prevalence of low back pain and the significant burden to the athletes, there are few clearly superior treatment modalities. Superficial heat and spinal manipulation therapy are the most strongly supported evidence-based therapies. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications and skeletal muscle relaxants have benefit in the initial management of low back pain; however, both have considerable side effects that must be considered. Athletes can return to play once they have recovered full range of motion and have the strength to prevent further injury.
PubMed (1980 - October 2008). The bibliographies of selected literature were reviewed for additional sources. A systematic review of the literature is presented. There is little high-quality evidence to support any recommendations currently. Most recommendations are expert opinion. Nutritional deficiencies are common. Routine screening and nutrient replacement is adequate for most deficiencies. Increased physical activity before surgery is associated with improved quality of life. Walking is adequate as a primary activity after surgery. Pedometers may serve as a useful tool to help guide exercise recommendations. There is need for further research upon specific exercise recommendations.
Context: Two-thirds of an individual’s gut microbiota is unique and influenced by dietary and exercise habits, age, sex, genetics, ethnicity, antibiotics, health, and disease. It plays important roles in nutrient and vitamin metabolism, inflammatory modulation, immune system function, and overall health of an individual. Specifically, in sports it may help decrease recovery time and improve athletic performance. Evidence Acquisition: PubMed and Medline databases were used for the literature search. Bibliographies based on the original search were utilized to pursue further literature search. Study Design: Clinical review. Level of Evidence: Level 4. Results: Diet and exercise play very important roles in the composition of the gut microbiota in the athletic and nonathletic individual. Ingestion of carbohydrates during and after exercise seems to have an anti-inflammatory effect postexercise. Supplementation with probiotic seems to aid in recovery after exercise, too, especially restoring the “normal” gut microbiota. Physically active individuals of all levels have more alpha diversity and “health-promoting gut species” in their microbiome than nonactive individuals, along with higher concentrations of short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) and SCFA-producing organisms. However, exercise interventions should be longer than 8 weeks to see these positive characteristics. Immune function is highly influenced by the gut microbiota’s response to exercise. A transient immune dysfunction occurs after prolonged high-intensity exercise, which correlates with microbiota dysregulation. Nevertheless, long-term exposure to exercise will enhance the immune response and lead to positive changes in the gut microbiota. Conclusion: Although the exact mechanisms of the effects that diet, exercise, and genetics have on the gut microbiota remain largely unknown, there is evidence that suggests overall health benefits. In the athletic population, these benefits can ultimately lead to performance improvement.
Objectives-To examine the separate and combined effects of having health insurance and a usual source of care (USC) on access to healthcare for low-income children and to determine if one or the other is superior in ensuring better access to necessary services.Methods-We conducted cross-sectional, multivariable analyses of data from a mail-return survey of Oregon's food stamp program. Results from 2681 completed surveys were weighted back to a population of 84,087 families with adjustments for oversampling techniques and nonresponse.Results-Among low-income Oregon children, those with health insurance and a USC reported the best access to healthcare. In multivariable comparisons to this reference group, insured children without a USC had higher rates of unmet medical need [odds ratio (OR) = 2.18; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.27-3.73]; no doctor visits in 12 months (OR = 6.77; 95% CI: 3.80-12.06); and problems obtaining specialty care (OR = 4.12; 95% CI: 1.59-10.68). Similarly, having a USC but not health insurance was associated with an even higher likelihood of unmet medical needs (OR = 4.33; 95% CI: 2.85-6.57); as well as unmet prescription needs (OR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.77-3.94), and problems obtaining dental care (OR = 4.83;).Conclusions-Incremental policy solutions are being proposed that focus on either health insurance coverage for children or expanded access to primary care. However, neither approach displaces the need for the other. The effects of a USC and health insurance, together, are additive predictors of the likelihood that children have optimal access to necessary healthcare services.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.