Chronic low back pain may be associated with pathoanatomical, neurophysiological, physical, psychological and social factors; thus, treatments to reduce symptoms are important to improve the quality of life of this population. We aimed to evaluate the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined with Pilates-based exercises compared with sham stimulation on pain, quality of life and disability in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.

This is a protocol for a double-blind randomised controlled trial with participants, outcome assessor and statistician blinded. We will include 36 individuals with a history of non-specific chronic low back pain for more than 12 weeks and minimum pain intensity of 3 points on the Numerical Pain Rating Scale. Individuals will be randomised into two groups: (1) active tDCS combined with Pilates-based exercises and (2) sham tDCS combined with Pilates-based exercises. Three weekly sessions of the protocol will be provided for 4 weeks, and individuals will be submitted to three assessments: the first (T0) will be performed before the intervention protocol, the second (T1) immediately after the intervention protocol and the third (T2) will be a follow-up 1 month after the end of the intervention. We will assess pain, disability, central sensitisation, quality of life, pressure pain threshold, global impression of change, adverse events and medication use. The Numerical Pain Rating Scale and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire will be used at T1 to assess pain and disability, respectively, as primary outcome measures.

This trial was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov website and ethically approved by the Ethics and Research Committee of the Faculty of Health Sciences of Trairi (report number: 5.411.244) before data collection. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed medical journal and on institution websites.

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05467566).

Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids are some of the most frequently used drug classes in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. However, there is uncertainty as to whether effectiveness differences may exist among different intranasal specific medications. This systematic review aims to analyse and synthesise all evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in rhinitis nasal and ocular symptoms and in rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality-of-life.

We will search four electronic bibliographic databases and three clinical trials databases for RCTs (1) assessing patients ≥12 years old with seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis and (2) comparing the use of intranasal antihistamines or corticosteroids versus placebo. Assessed outcomes will include the Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), the Total Ocular Symptom Score (TOSS) and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). We will assess the methodological quality of included primary studies by using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Certainty in the body of evidence for the analysed outcomes will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We will perform a random-effects meta-analysis for each assessed medication and outcome, presenting results as pooled mean differences and standardised mean differences. Heterogeneity will be explored by sensitivity and subgroup analyses, considering (1) the risk of bias, (2) the follow-up period and (3) the drug dose.

Ethical considerations will not be required. Results will be disseminated in a peer-review journal.

CRD42023416573.

The objective of this study is to analyse the relationship and psychosocial issues between working during the COVID-19 pandemic in primary healthcare (PHC) facilities located in the most vulnerable health region (HR) of the Federal District of Brazil (FDB) compared with a lesser region.

Mixed-method study data. The questionnaire was based on the World Health Survey and the Convid Behavioural Survey. Quantitative data were described in absolute and relative frequency. Pearson’s ² test verified differences according to the region (significance level

A representative sample of PHC professionals working at the Western HR and Central HR of the FDB.

111 women and 27 male PHC professionals, aged ≥ 18 years.

Psychosocial variables—personal emotions towards the clients, social relationships and use of psychoactive substances (PAS).

An online questionnaire (27 questions) and 1 open-ended question.

The sample comprised 138 PHC professionals; 80.40% were female aged between 40 and 49 years old (27.3%); declared themselves as black/pardo (58.7%); were married (53.60%), and worked in family healthcare teams (47.80%). No association between working in the most vulnerable HR compared with the least one and presenting psychosocial issues, except for anger towards clients (p=0.043). 55.10% worked much more than usual, 60.80% reported being depressed, 78.20% anxious, 76.80% stressed, 77.50% had no empathy and 78.30% felt isolated from family/friends. Towards the clients, 59.40% reported empathy and 72.5% no affection/care. The consume of psychotropic medications was reported by 34.80%, and 14.50% increased alcohol/PAS use. Qualitative data leverage quantitative findings: work overload, the indifference of the Federal Government and distance from family/friends.

Working in the most vulnerable region and in the least one affects the psychosocial aspects of the PHC professionals equally.