OBJECTIVE: In 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) published the results of 20 systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions for chronic LBP using similar methodologies. We aimed to (a) summarise the results of the reviews and (b) identify priorities for future research. DESIGN: Overview of the WHO-commissioned systematic reviews for chronic primary LBP. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We collated the effects of interventions for chronic LBP on pain intensity or back-specific function at 3- or 12-months follow-up that were included in 20 WHO-commissioned systematic reviews for community-dwelling adults with chronic primary LBP. DATA SYNTHESIS: Pooled effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals, number of trials, sample size, and GRADE certainty of evidence were presented in summary forest plots by intervention, comparator, outcome (pain intensity, back-specific functional status), and time-point (short-term, long-term) or in tabular form. To inform priorities for future research we identified interventions with (i) high-certainty evidence to inform clinical practice and policy; (ii) promising effects but uncertain evidence to guide future research; and (iii) little evidence of effect where future research may not be indicated. RESULTS: We synthesised 93 comparisons (347 RCTs, 46,788 participants) across 17 intervention categories. There was high or moderate certainty evidence for two comparisons, both with trivial or small effect sizes. Interventions suggesting moderate or large effect sizes were supported by low or very-low certainty evidence. CONCLUSION: Despite the large volume of evidence, there were limited definitive conclusions to draw due to small effect sizes and low or very low certainty evidence.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of resistance training for low back pain (LBP) and resistance training reporting quality. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). LITERATURE SEARCH: Five databases were searched until April 2026. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs examining the effects of resistance training on pain intensity and disability for LBP compared with passive, active or no intervention/usual care. DATA SYNTHESIS: Means, standard deviations, and participant numbers were combined for meta-analysis. We calculated and presented pooled effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals. Resistance training reporting quality was evaluated using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT). Outcome level risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool and the certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: Compared with no intervention/usual care, the evidence was very uncertain about the effects of resistance training on pain and disability. Effect estimates suggested resistance training may have a medium to large effect on pain (-1.33 (-1.90 to -0.76)) and a large effect on disability (-1.75 (-2.47 to -1.04)) at 3 months. Compared with passive or active interventions, the evidence was very uncertain about the effects of resistance training on pain and disability. CERT reporting completeness was ‘good’ in 25%, ‘moderate’ in 42% and ‘poor’ in 33% of resistance training interventions. CONCLUSION: Resistance training may reduce LBP intensity and disability compared with no intervention/usual care at 3 months. Very low certainty evidence limited confidence in findings. Clinical translation was limited by inadequate reporting of key intervention components.
Letter to the Editor-in-Chief in response to JOSPT article “Shockwave Therapy for Midportion and Insertional Achilles Tendinopathy: A Nail in the coffin? A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis” by Korakakis et al. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2026;56(11):745-746. doi:10.2519/jospt.2026.0203
Author response to the JOSPT Letter to the Editor-in-Chief "Broad Conclusions from a Narrow Evidence Base: Comments on a Systematic Review of ESWT for Achilles Tendinopathy" J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2026;56(11):746-747. doi:10.2519/jospt.2026.0203-R
SYNOPSIS: The American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) has sought to quantify the value of physical therapy and justify a course of treatment to third-party payers. Hip osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most prevalent conditions treated by outpatient physical therapists, with a radiographic prevalence of 19.6% in United States adults over 55 years. This article provides information for the ICD-10 codes identified by the “Hip pain and mobility deficits—hip osteoarthritis: revision 2025: M16.1 Primary coxarthrosis, unilateral; M16.0 Primary coxarthrosis, bilateral; M16.2 Coxarthrosis resulting from dysplasia, bilateral; M16.3 Dysplastic coxarthrosis, unilateral; M16.4 Posttraumatic coxarthrosis, bilateral; M16.5 Posttraumatic coxarthrosis, unilateral; M16.7 Secondary coxarthrosis, not otherwise specified; M25.65 Stiffness in hip; and M25.55 Pain in hip. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2026;56(11):748-749. 10.2519/jospt.2026.0503
