To identify the most cited British author, unit and country within Great Britain among the scoliosis and spinal deformity literature. Using methods as described by Skovrlj (2014), a search of the Thomson Reuters Web of Science was performed using the terms ‘scoliosis’ and ‘spine deformity’ from 1900 to 2013 published from authors in the following countries: UK, England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales. Additional citations searches were performed using PubMed and Google scholar. Results were sorted according to number of citations; papers applicable to scoliosis or spinal deformity were chosen. The Top 25 citations from British authors were established. 80% of papers were published before 2000. Citation counts and therefore rankings varied for each of the three citation searches, producing differences in rank of as great as 28 for the same paper. Ruth Wynne-Davies from Edinburgh ranked number one in all three searches, followed by SG Boyd, R Dickson, and M McMaster. Half of the top ten papers were published by authors from Edinburgh. The most cited author in Great Britain from all citation searches is Ruth Wynne Davies. However, the citation count of all papers varied depending on the search platform used, producing varying ranks for all other papers

Background. Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) as a treatment option for severe disc-related sciatica, but there is considerable uncertainty about its effectiveness. Currently, we know very little about factors that might be associated with good or poor outcomes from ESI. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize and appraise the evidence investigating prognostic factors associated with outcomes following ESI for patients with imaging confirmed disc-related sciatica. Methods. The search strategy involved the electronic databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and reference lists of eligible studies. Selected papers were quality appraised independently by two reviewers using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Between study heterogeneity precluded statistical pooling of results. Results. 2726 citations were identified; 11 studies were eligible. Overall study quality was low with all judged to have moderate or high risk of bias. Forty-five prognostic factors were identified but were measured inconsistently. The most commonly assessed prognostic factors were related to pain and function (n=7 studies), imaging features (n=6 studies), health and lifestyle (n=5 studies), patient demographics (n=4 studies) and clinical assessment findings (n=4 studies). No prognostic factor was found to be consistently associated with outcomes following ESI. Most studies found no association or results that conflicted with other studies. Conclusions. There is little, and low quality, evidence to guide practice in terms of factors that predict outcomes in patients following ESI for disc-related sciatica. The results can help inform some of the decisions about potential prognostic factors that should be assessed in future well-designed prospective cohort studies. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

Background and aims. The EU-funded Back-UP project aims to develop a cloud computer platform to guide the treatment of low back and neck pain (LBNP) in first contact care and early rehabilitation. In order to identify evidence-based treatment options that can be recommended and are accessible to people with LBNP across Europe, we conducted a systematic review of recently published guidelines. Methods. Electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, HMIC, Epistemonikos, PEDro, TRIP, NICE, SIGN, WHO, Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) and DynaMed Plus were searched. We searched for guidelines published by European health professional or guideline development organisations since 2013, focusing on the primary care management of adult patients presenting with back or neck pain (including whiplash associated symptoms, radicular pain, and pregnancy-related LBP). The AGREE-II tool was used to assess the quality of guideline development and reporting. Results. Searches generated 3098 unique citations that were screened for eligibility. A total of 189 full-texts were retrieved, and 18 guidelines were included in the review (from the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, and the Netherlands). Data extraction showed considerable variation in guideline development processes, especially regarding the methods used for identifying, appraising, and synthesising evidence, and for formulating, agreeing, and grading recommendations. Conclusions. Recommendations for the management of LBNP cover a wide range of treatment options, with self-management advice, analgesics, and exercise proposed as core treatments by most guidelines. A narrative synthesis, taking into account consistency, strength, and quality of guideline recommendations, will be presented. No conflicts of interest. Funding: This abstract presents independent research within the Back-UP project, which has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 777090. This document reflects only the views of the authors, and the European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of its contents. The information in this document is provided “as is”, without warranty of any kind, and accept no liability for loss or damage suffered by any person using this information

Background. Recommendations in clinical practice guidelines for non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) are not necessarily translated into practice. Multiple research studies have investigated different strategies to implement best evidence into practice yet no synthesis of these studies is available. Objectives. To systematically review available studies to determine whether implementation efforts in this field have been successful; to identify which strategies have been most successful in changing healthcare practitioner behaviours and patient outcomes. Methods. A systematic review was undertaken, searching electronic databases, hand searching, writing to key authors and using prior knowledge of the field to identify papers. Included papers evaluated a strategy to implement best evidence about management of NSLBP into practice; measured key outcomes regarding change in practitioner behaviour/patient outcomes and subjected their data to statistical analysis. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) recommendations about data extraction and synthesis were followed. Study inclusion, data extraction and study risk of bias assessments were conducted independently. Results. Of 7654 potentially eligible citations, 17 papers reporting on 14 studies were included. Single/one-off implementation efforts were consistently unsuccessful. Increasing the frequency and duration of strategies led to greater success with those continuously ongoing over time the most successful. Risk of bias was highly variable with 7 of 17 papers rated at high risk. Conclusions. One-off implementation strategies may seem attractive but are largely unsuccessful in effecting meaningful change in practice. Increasing frequency and duration of strategies results in greater success and the most successful implementation strategies use consistently sustained interventions

Background. Leg pain frequently accompanies low back pain and is associated with increased levels of disability and higher health costs than simple low back pain. Distinguishing between different types of low back- related leg pain (LBLP) is important for clinical management and research applications. The aim of this systematic review was to identify, describe and appraise papers that classify or subgroup populations with LBLP. Methods. The search strategy involved nine electronic databases including Medline and Embase, reference lists of eligible studies and relevant reviews. Selected papers were quality appraised independently by two reviewers using a standardised scoring tool. Results. Of 13,337 potential eligible citations, 49 relevant papers were identified that reported on 20 classification systems. Papers were grouped according to purpose and criteria of the classification systems. Five themes emerged: (i) pathoanatomical sources of pain (ii) clinical features, (iii) pain mechanisms, (iv) treatment based approach and (v) screening tools and prediction rules. Four of the twenty systems focused specifically on LBLP populations. Pain mechanisms and treatment based approach systems scored highest following quality appraisal as authors generally included statistical methods to develop their classifications and supporting work had been published on the systems' validity, reliability and generalizability. Conclusion. Numerous classification systems exist that include patients with leg pain, a minority of them focus specifically on distinguishing between different presentations of leg pain. Further work is needed to identify clinically meaningful subgroups of LBLP patients, ideally based on large primary care cohort populations and using stringent methods for classification system development. This abstract has not been previously published in whole or substantial part nor has it been presented previously at a national meeting. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. S Stynes is supported by an NIHR/HEE Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship. Dr Konstantinou is supported by an HEFCE/NIHR Senior Clinical Lectureship. Professor Dunn is supported by the Wellcome Trust (083572)

Purpose of study and background. This systematic review sought to determine the efficacy of such targeted treatment in adults with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). Many clinicians and researchers believe that tailoring treatment to subgroups of NSLBP positively impacts on patient outcomes. Method and results. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, AMED, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, reference list searching and citation tracking. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLPB that used trial designs capable of providing robust information on targeted treatment (treatment effect modification) for the outcomes of activity limitation and pain. Included trials needed to be hypothesis-testing studies published in English, Danish or Norwegian. Method quality was assessed using the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria. Four high-quality trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLBP met the inclusion criteria. One study showed statistically significant effects for short-term outcomes using McKenzie directional preference-based exercise. Other included studies showed effects that might be clinically important in size but were not statistically significant with their samples sizes, as research into subgroups requires much larger sample sizes than traditional two-group trials. Conclusions. The clinical implications of these results are that they provide very cautious evidence supporting the notion that treatment targeted to subgroups of patients with NSLBP may improve patient outcomes. The results were too patchy, inconsistent, and investigated in samples too small for clinical recommendations to be based on these findings. The research implications are that adequately powered controlled trials of treatment effect modification are uncommon

Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) are an increasing public health problem. Recently, randomised controlled trials on the use of kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty in the treatment of these fractures have been published, but no definitive conclusions have been reached on the role of these interventions. The major problem encountered when trying to perform a meta-analysis of the available studies for the use of cementoplasty in patients with a VCF is that conservative management has not been standardised. Forms of conservative treatment commonly used in these patients include bed rest, analgesic medication, physiotherapy and bracing.

In this review, we report the best evidence available on the conservative care of patients with osteoporotic VCFs and associated back pain, focusing on the role of the most commonly used spinal orthoses. Although orthoses are used for the management of these patients, to date, there has been only one randomised controlled trial published evaluating their value. Until the best conservative management for patients with VCFs is defined and standardised, no conclusions can be drawn on the superiority or otherwise of cementoplasty techniques over conservative management.