Background Exercise interventions are often incompletely described in reports of clinical trials, hampering evaluation of results and replication and implementation into practice. Objective The aim of this study was to develop a standardized method for reporting exercise programs in clinical trials: the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT). Design and Methods Using the EQUATOR Network's methodological framework, 137 exercise experts were invited to participate in a Delphi consensus study. A list of 41 items was identified from a meta-epidemiologic study of 73 systematic reviews of exercise. For each item, participants indicated agreement on an 11-point rating scale. Consensus for item inclusion was defined a priori as greater than 70% agreement of respondents rating an item 7 or above. Three sequential rounds of anonymous online questionnaires and a Delphi workshop were used. Results There were 57 (response rate=42%), 54 (response rate=95%), and 49 (response rate=91%) respondents to rounds 1 through 3, respectively, from 11 countries and a range of disciplines. In round 1, 2 items were excluded; 24 items reached consensus for inclusion (8 items accepted in original format), and 16 items were revised in response to participant suggestions. Of 14 items in round 2, 3 were excluded, 11 reached consensus for inclusion (4 items accepted in original format), and 7 were reworded. Sixteen items were included in round 3, and all items reached greater than 70% consensus for inclusion. Limitations The views of included Delphi panelists may differ from those of experts who declined participation and may not fully represent the views of all exercise experts. Conclusions The CERT, a 16-item checklist developed by an international panel of exercise experts, is designed to improve the reporting of exercise programs in all evaluative study designs and contains 7 categories: materials, provider, delivery, location, dosage, tailoring, and compliance. The CERT will encourage transparency, improve trial interpretation and replication, and facilitate implementation of effective exercise interventions into practice.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the state of quality of care for osteoarthritis (OA) by summarizing studies that have assessed the care provided to patients.MethodsA systematic review of community‐based observational studies of actual clinical practice treating people with OA compared with quality indicators (QIs) was performed. Four databases were searched from January 2000 to November 2015. Two reviewers independently determined study eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and extracted study data. The outcome was adherence to the QIs (pass rate). The overall pass rate (the total number of indicators passed divided by the total number of indicators for which the patients were eligible) was extracted from each study. When at least 50% of the studies had comparable individual QIs, the data were pooled with proportion meta‐analyses.ResultsFifteen studies comprising 16,103 patients were included, and the median overall pass rate across studies was 41% (range 22–65%). The pooled pass rates for individual QIs were “referral to orthopedic surgeon if no response to other therapy”: 59.4% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 47.5–70.3); “paracetamol or acetaminophen first drug used”: 46.0% (95% CI 26.6–66.7); “assessed for pain and/or function”: 45.5% (95% CI 33.9–57.6); “referral or recommendation to exercise”: 38.7% (28.9–49.5); “offered education and self‐management”: 35.4% (95% CI 27.8–44.0); and “informed about potential risks if NSAIDs prescribed”: 34.1% (95% CI 24.7–44.9).ConclusionThere is room for improvement in community‐based OA care.

ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01245842.

Objective. To develop and test a new instrument for patient self-reported quality of osteoarthritis (OA) care, and to provide quality indicator (QI) pass rates in a Norwegian OA cohort. Methods. The OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator (OA-QI) questionnaire was developed using published QIs, expert panels, and patient interviews. Self-reported data were collected from 359 persons in a Norwegian OA cohort, and test-retest reliability and validity were assessed. Separate QI pass rates and summary QI pass rates were calculated. Results. The 17-item questionnaire includes QIs related to patient education and information, regular provider assessments, referrals, and pharmacologic treatment. The patient self-reported questionnaire was completed with minimal respondent burden. Support for content validity was confirmed by 2 patient research partners and 2 expert panels. All 10 predefined hypotheses relating to construct validity were confirmed. Test-retest kappa coefficients ranged from 0.20 -0.80 and the percentage of exact agreement ranged from 62-90%. The mean pass rate for individual QIs was 31% (range 5-49%). The median summary QI pass rate was 27% (interquartile range 12-50%), with lower summary pass rates for nonpharmacologic compared to pharmacologic treatments. Conclusion. To our knowledge, this is the first instrument developed to measure patient-reported QI pass rates for OA care. This study indicates that the OA-QI questionnaire is acceptable to persons with OA, and its short format makes it suitable for population surveys. The low patient self-reported QI pass rates in this study suggest a potential for quality improvement in OA care.

BackgroundMusculoskeletal conditions (MSCs) are widely prevalent in present-day society, with resultant high healthcare costs and substantial negative effects on patient health and quality of life. The main aim of this overview was to synthesize evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of exercise therapy (ET) on pain and physical function for patients with MSCs. In addition, the evidence for the effect of ET on disease pathogenesis, and whether particular components of exercise programs are associated with the size of the treatment effects, was also explored.MethodsWe included four common conditions: fibromyalgia (FM), low back pain (LBP), neck pain (NP), and shoulder pain (SP), and four specific musculoskeletal diseases: osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and osteoporosis (OP). We first included Cochrane reviews with the most recent update being January 2007 or later, and then searched for non-Cochrane reviews published after this date. Pain and physical functioning were selected as primary outcomes.ResultsWe identified 9 reviews, comprising a total of 224 trials and 24,059 patients. In addition, one review addressing the effect of exercise on pathogenesis was included. Overall, we found solid evidence supporting ET in the management of MSCs, but there were substantial differences in the level of research evidence between the included diagnostic groups. The standardized mean differences for knee OA, LBP, FM, and SP varied between 0.30 and 0.65 and were significantly in favor of exercise for both pain and function. For NP, hip OA, RA, and AS, the effect estimates were generally smaller and not always significant. There was little or no evidence that ET can influence disease pathogenesis. The only exception was for osteoporosis, where there was evidence that ET increases bone mineral density in postmenopausal women, but no significant effects were found for clinically relevant outcomes (fractures). For LBP and knee OA, there was evidence suggesting that the treatment effect increases with the number of exercise sessions.ConclusionsThere is empirical evidence that ET has beneficial clinical effects for most MSCs. Except for osteoporosis, there seems to be a gap in the understanding of the ways in which ET influences disease mechanisms.