METHODS: World Spine Care convened the GSCI to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable healthcare model for spinal care. The initiative aims to improve the management, prevention, and public health for spine-related disorders worldwide; thus, global representation was essential. A series of meetings established the initiative's mission and goals. Electronic surveys collected contributorship and demographic information, and experiences with spinal conditions to better understand perceptions and potential biases that were contributing to the model of care.
RESULTS: Sixty-eight clinicians and scientists participated in the deliberations and are authors of one or more of the GSCI articles. Of these experts, 57 reported providing spine care in 34 countries, (i.e., low-, middle-, and high-income countries, as well as underserved communities in high-income countries.) The majority reported personally experiencing or having a close family member with one or more spinal concerns including: spine-related trauma or injury, spinal problems that required emergency or surgical intervention, spinal pain referred from non-spine sources, spinal deformity, spinal pathology or disease, neurological problems, and/or mild, moderate, or severe back or neck pain. There were no substantial reported conflicts of interest.
CONCLUSION: The GSCI participants have broad professional experience and wide international distribution with no discipline dominating the deliberations. The GSCI believes this set of papers has the potential to inform and improve spine care globally. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders.
RESULTS: Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care.
CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
OBJECTIVE: This paper proposes a novel technique for reorganisation of opinion order to interval levels (TROOIL) to prioritise the patients with MCDs in real-time remote health-monitoring system.
METHODS: The proposed TROOIL technique comprises six steps for prioritisation of patients with MCDs: (1) conversion of actual data into intervals; (2) rule generation; (3) rule ordering; (4) expert rule validation; (5) data reorganisation; and (6) criteria weighting and ranking alternatives within each rule. The secondary dataset of 500 patients from the most relevant study in a remote prioritisation area was adopted. The dataset contains three diseases, namely, chronic heart disease, high blood pressure (BP) and low BP.
RESULTS: The proposed TROOIL is an effective technique for prioritising patients with MCDs. In the objective validation, remarkable differences were recognised among the groups' scores, indicating identical ranking results. In the evaluation of issues within all scenarios, the proposed framework has an advantage of 22.95% over the benchmark framework.
DISCUSSION: Patients with the most severe MCD were treated first on the basis of their highest priority levels. The treatment for patients with less severe cases was delayed more than that for other patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed TROOIL technique can deal with multiple DM problems in prioritisation of patients with MCDs.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A 2×2 cross-over randomised mechanistic dietary trial will allocate 16 participants with NAFLD to a 2-week either HGI or LGI diet followed by a 4-week wash-out period and then the LGI or HGI diet, alternative to that followed in the first 2 weeks. Baseline and postintervention (four visits) outcome measures will be collected to assess liver fat content (using MRI/S and controlled attenuation parameter-FibroScan), gut microbiota composition (using 16S RNA analysis) and blood biomarkers including glycaemic, insulinaemic, liver, lipid and haematological profiles, gut hormones levels and short-chain fatty acids.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Study protocol has been approved by the ethics committees of The University of Nottingham and East Midlands Nottingham-2 Research Ethics Committee (REC reference 19/EM/0291). Data from this trial will be used as part of a Philosophy Doctorate thesis. Publications will be in peer-reviewed journals.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04415632.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, PeDRO and PsycInfo from January 1990 to date using a PICOS search strategy (Population: adults with CRDs; Intervention: Home-PR; Comparator: Centre-PR/Usual care; Outcomes: functional exercise capacity and HRQoL; Setting: any setting). The strategy is to search for 'Chronic Respiratory Disease' AND 'Pulmonary Rehabilitation' AND 'Home-PR', and identify relevant randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials. Six reviewers working in pairs will independently screen articles for eligibility and extract data from those fulfilling the inclusion criteria. We will use the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the quality of evidence. We will perform meta-analysis or narrative synthesis as appropriate to answer our three research questions: (1) what is the effectiveness of Home-PR compared with Centre-PR or Usual care? (2) what components are used in effective Home-PR studies? and (3) what is the completion rate of Home-PR compared with Centre-PR?
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required since the study will review only published data. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation in conferences.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020220137.