ObjectiveExamine the effectiveness of specific modes of exercise training in non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP).DesignNetwork meta-analysis (NMA).Data sourcesMEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE, CENTRAL.Eligibility criteriaExercise training randomised controlled/clinical trials in adults with NSCLBP.ResultsAmong 9543 records, 89 studies (patients=5578) were eligible for qualitative synthesis and 70 (pain), 63 (physical function), 16 (mental health) and 4 (trunk muscle strength) for NMA. The NMA consistency model revealed that the following exercise training modalities had the highest probability (surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA)) of being best when compared with true control: Pilates for pain (SUCRA=100%; pooled standardised mean difference (95% CI): −1.86 (–2.54 to –1.19)), resistance (SUCRA=80%; −1.14 (–1.71 to –0.56)) and stabilisation/motor control (SUCRA=80%; −1.13 (–1.53 to –0.74)) for physical function and resistance (SUCRA=80%; −1.26 (–2.10 to –0.41)) and aerobic (SUCRA=80%; −1.18 (–2.20 to –0.15)) for mental health. True control was most likely (SUCRA≤10%) to be the worst treatment for all outcomes, followed by therapist hands-off control for pain (SUCRA=10%; 0.09 (–0.71 to 0.89)) and physical function (SUCRA=20%; −0.31 (–0.94 to 0.32)) and therapist hands-on control for mental health (SUCRA=20%; −0.31 (–1.31 to 0.70)). Stretching and McKenzie exercise effect sizes did not differ to true control for pain or function (p>0.095; SUCRA<40%). NMA was not possible for trunk muscle endurance or analgesic medication. The quality of the synthesised evidence was low according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria.Summary/conclusionThere is low quality evidence that Pilates, stabilisation/motor control, resistance training and aerobic exercise training are the most effective treatments, pending outcome of interest, for adults with NSCLBP. Exercise training may also be more effective than therapist hands-on treatment. Heterogeneity among studies and the fact that there are few studies with low risk of bias are both limitations.

No abstract

Background: Many studies have attempted to identify the sources of interindividual variability in response to theta-burst stimulation (TBS). However, these studies have been limited by small sample sizes, leading to conflicting results. Objective/Hypothesis: This study brought together over 60 TMS researchers to form the 'Big TMS Data Collaboration', and create the largest known sample of individual participant TBS data to date. The goal was to enable a more comprehensive evaluation of factors driving TBS response variability. Methods: 118 corresponding authors of TMS studies were emailed and asked to provide deidentified individual TMS data. Mixed-effects regression investigated a range of individual and study level variables for their contribution to iTBS and cTBS response variability. Results: 430 healthy participants' TBS data was pooled across 22 studies (mean age ¼ 41.9; range ¼ 17 e82; females ¼ 217). Baseline MEP amplitude, age, target muscle, and time of day significantly predicted iTBS-induced plasticity. Baseline MEP amplitude and timepoint after TBS significantly predicted cTBSinduced plasticity. Conclusions: This is the largest known study of interindividual variability in TBS. Our findings indicate that a significant portion of variability can be attributed to the methods used to measure the modulatory effects of TBS. We provide specific methodological recommendations in order to control and mitigate these sources of variability.

No abstract

No abstract