Validity of the Flemish working alliance inventory in a Dutch physiotherapy setting in patients with shoulder pain

BACKGROUND

Working alliance is the interaction between the patient and therapist. It is a crucial part of the physiotherapeutic process. One instrument to measure working alliance is available in Dutch/Flemish language and validated in psychotherapy setting.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to validate the Working Alliance Inventory Short-Form in a Dutch physiotherapy setting.

DESIGN

A prospective cohort study in primary-care physiotherapy.

METHOD

To validate the Dutch/Flemish version of the working alliance inventory short-form (WAV-12) a RASCH analysis was used.

RESULTS

Sixty-six physiotherapists enrolled in total 389 patients with an average age of 50 years and a mean duration of shoulder pain of 33 weeks. A total of 274 patients filled in one or more items of the WAV-12. The WAV-12 showes good discriminative abilities and all items contributed to a one-dimensional construct. Due to the selective nature of the missing items, we believed rewording was necessary to make it more suitable to the physiotherapy setting. We performed a Delphi study and revised the WAV-12 into the PAS (Physio Alliance Scale). The validity of the revised version is unknown and is therefore not sufficiently strong to be implemented as a measurement tool.

LIMITATIONS

The response rate for three items especially was low and we found ceiling effects in ten items.

CONCLUSION

Although the measurement instrument shows good internal consistency and reliability, we made adjustments to the WAV-12 for Dutch physiotherapy setting.

The diagnostic accuracy and test-retest reliability of the Dutch PainDETECT and the DN4 screening tools for neuropathic pain in patients with suspected cervical or lumbar radiculopathy

BACKGROUND

It is important to identify neuropathic pain early to guide treatment decisions and prevent chronicity. There is lack of evidence whether the Dutch painDETECT questionnaire and Douleure Neuropathique en 4 questions (DN4) can adequately assess neuropathic pain.

METHODS

Patients suspected of cervical or lumbar radiculopathy were eligible for inclusion. The Dutch painDETECT and DN4 were considered as the index tests and were compared to the reference test consisting of the consensus expert diagnosis by using the grading system for neuropathic pain. The index tests and neuropathic pain diagnosis were blindly performed. Diagnostic accuracy was determined by calculating sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likely hood ratios. Test-retest reliability for the index tests was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC).

RESULTS

A total of 180 patients were included, of which 110 for the reliability analysis. Fifty-nine patients (33%) had neuropathic pain according to the reference test. Both the painDETECT and DN4 had moderate sensitivity of respectively 75% (95% CI: 61.6-85.0) and 76% (95% CI: 63.4-86.4) and poor specificity of respectively 51% (95% CI: 42.0-60.4) and 42% (95% CI: 33.2-51.5). Combining negative test results for both screening tools increased the sensitivity up to 83% (95% CI: 71.0-91.6). The ICC for the painDETECT was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86-0.94) and for the DN4 0.86 (95% CI: 0.80-0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the Dutch painDETECT and the DN4 in patients with suspected radiculopathy should not be recommended yet. A combination of both screening tools seems most suitable to rule out neuropathic pain in patients suspected of radiculopathy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnosis, Level 1B.

Creation of a core outcome set for clinical trials of people with shoulder pain: a study protocol

Background

The selection of appropriate outcomes or domains is crucial when designing clinical trials, to appreciate the effects of different interventions, pool results, and make valid comparisons between trials. If the findings are to influence policy and practice, then the chosen outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders, including patients and the public, healthcare professionals and others making decisions about health care. There is a growing recognition that insufficient attention has been paid to the outcomes measured in clinical trials. Recent reviews of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for shoulder disorders revealed a large selection of diverse measures, many with questionable validity, reliability, and responsiveness. These issues could be addressed through the development and use of an agreed standardized collection of outcomes, known as a core outcome set (COS), which should be measured and reported in all trials of shoulder disorders. The purpose of the present project is to develop and disseminate a COS for clinical trials in shoulder disorders.

Methods/Design

The methods for the COS development will include 3 phases: (1) a comprehensive review of the core domains used in shoulder disorder trials; (2) an international Delphi study involving relevant stakeholders (patients, clinicians, scientists) to define which domains should be core; and (3) an international focus group informed by the evidence identified in phases 1 and 2, to determine which measurement instruments best measure the core domains and identification of any evidence gaps that require further empiric evidence.

Discussion

The aim of the current proposal is to convene several meetings of international experts and patients to develop a COS for clinical trials of shoulder disorders and to develop an implementation strategy to ensure rapid uptake of the core set of outcomes in clinical trials. There would be an expectation that the core set of outcomes would always be collected and reported, but it would not preclude use of additional outcomes in a particular trial.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2054-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Can Primary Care for Back and/or Neck Pain in the Netherlands Benefit From Stratification for Risk Groups According to the STarT Back Tool Classification?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether current Dutch primary care clinicians offer tailored treatment to patients with low back pain (LBP) or neck pain (NP) according to their risk stratification, based on the Keele STarT (Subgroup Targeted Treatment) Back-Screening Tool (SBT).

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study with 3-month follow-up.

SETTING

Primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

General practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists included patients (N=284) with nonspecific LBP, NP, or both.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients completed a baseline questionnaire, including the Dutch SBT, for either LBP or NP. A follow-up measurement was conducted after 3 months to determine recovery (using Global Perceived Effect Scale), pain (using Numeric Pain Rating Scale), and function (using Roland Disability Questionnaire or Neck Disability Index). A questionnaire was sent to the GPs and physiotherapists to evaluate the provided treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence of patients' risk profile and clinicians' applied care, and the percentage of patients with persisting disability at follow-up. A distinction was made between patients receiving the recommended treatment and those receiving the nonrecommended treatment.

RESULTS

In total, 12 GPs and 33 physiotherapists included patients. After 3 months, we analyzed 184 patients with LBP and 100 patients with NP. In the LBP group, 52.2% of the patients were at low risk for persisting disability, 38.0% were at medium risk, and 9.8% were at high risk. Overall, 24.5% of the patients with LBP received a low-risk treatment approach, 73.5% a medium-risk, and 2.0% a high-risk treatment approach. The specific agreement between the risk profile and the received treatment for patients with LBP was poor for the low-risk and high-risk patients (21.1% and 10.0%, respectively), and fair for medium-risk patients (51.4%). In the NP group, 58.0% of the patients were at low risk for persisting disability, 37.0% were at medium risk, and 5.0% were at high risk. Only 6.1% of the patients with NP received the low-risk treatment approach. The medium-risk treatment approach was offered the most (90.8%), and the high-risk approach was applied in only 3.1% of the patients. The specific agreement between the risk profile and received treatment for patients with NP was poor for low-risk and medium-risk patients (6.3% and 48.0%, respectively); agreement for high-risk patients could not be calculated.

CONCLUSIONS

Current Dutch primary care for patients with nonspecific LBP, NP, or both does not correspond to the recommended stratified-care approach based on the SBT, as most patients receive medium-risk treatment. Most low-risk patients are overtreated, and most high-risk patients are undertreated. Although the stratified-care approach has not yet been validated in Dutch primary care, these results indicate there may be substantial room for improvement.

Patient Nonadherence to Guideline-Recommended Care in Acute Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

To describe the magnitude of patient-reported nonadherence with guideline-recommended care for acute low back pain.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of data from participants enrolled in the Paracetamol for Acute Low Back Pain study trial, a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of paracetamol for acute low back pain.

SETTING

Primary care, general practitioner.

PARTICIPANTS

Data from participants with acute low back pain (N=1643).

INTERVENTIONS

Guideline-recommended care, including reassurance, simple analgesia, and the advice to stay active and avoid bed rest. Also, advice against additional treatments and referral for imaging.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of nonadherence with guideline-recommended care. Nonadherence was defined as (1) failure to consume the advised paracetamol dose, or (2) receipt of additional health care, tests, or medication during the trial treatment period (4wk). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with nonadherence.

RESULTS

In the first week of treatment, 39.7% of participants were classified as nonadherent. Over the 4-week treatment period, 70.0% were nonadherent, and 57.5% did not complete the advised paracetamol regimen. Higher perceived risk of persistent pain, lower level of disability, and not claiming workers' compensation were associated with nonadherence, with odds ratios ranging from .46 to 1.05.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to guideline-recommended care for acute low back pain was poor. Most participants do not complete the advised paracetamol regimen. Higher perceived risk of persistence of complaints, lower baseline disability, and participants not claiming workers' compensation were independently associated with nonadherence.

Effect of Radiofrequency Denervation on Pain Intensity Among Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: The Mint Randomized Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Radiofrequency denervation is a commonly used treatment for chronic low back pain, but high-quality evidence for its effectiveness is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation added to a standardized exercise program for patients with chronic low back pain.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Three pragmatic multicenter, nonblinded randomized clinical trials on the effectiveness of minimal interventional treatments for participants with chronic low back pain (Mint study) were conducted in 16 multidisciplinary pain clinics in the Netherlands. Eligible participants were included between January 1, 2013, and October 24, 2014, and had chronic low back pain, a positive diagnostic block at the facet joints (facet joint trial, 251 participants), sacroiliac joints (sacroiliac joint trial, 228 participants), or a combination of facet joints, sacroiliac joints, or intervertebral disks (combination trial, 202 participants) and were unresponsive to conservative care.

INTERVENTIONS

All participants received a 3-month standardized exercise program and psychological support if needed. Participants in the intervention group received radiofrequency denervation as well. This is usually a 1-time procedure, but the maximum number of treatments in the trial was 3.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was pain intensity (numeric rating scale, 0-10; whereby 0 indicated no pain and 10 indicated worst pain imaginable) measured 3 months after the intervention. The prespecified minimal clinically important difference was defined as 2 points or more. Final follow-up was at 12 months, ending October 2015.

RESULTS

Among 681 participants who were randomized (mean age, 52.2 years; 421 women [61.8%], mean baseline pain intensity, 7.1), 599 (88%) completed the 3-month follow-up, and 521 (77%) completed the 12-month follow-up. The mean difference in pain intensity between the radiofrequency denervation and control groups at 3 months was -0.18 (95% CI, -0.76 to 0.40) in the facet joint trial; -0.71 (95% CI, -1.35 to -0.06) in the sacroiliac joint trial; and -0.99 (95% CI, -1.73 to -0.25) in the combination trial.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In 3 randomized clinical trials of participants with chronic low back pain originating in the facet joints, sacroiliac joints, or a combination of facet joints, sacroiliac joints, or intervertebral disks, radiofrequency denervation combined with a standardized exercise program resulted in either no improvement or no clinically important improvement in chronic low back pain compared with a standardized exercise program alone. The findings do not support the use of radiofrequency denervation to treat chronic low back pain from these sources.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR3531.

The Effectiveness of Treatments for Patients With Medication Overuse Headache: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Worldwide, approximately 1 to 2% of the adult population suffers from chronic headache due to overuse of pain medication. Guidelines recommend acute withdrawal of medication, but the optimal treatment remains unknown. We aimed to evaluate the benefit of treatments for patients with medication overuse headache (MOH). We performed an extensive literature search until November 2015, selecting randomized controlled trials that evaluated interventions for adults with MOH. Two authors assessed the eligible trials and extracted data. We calculated effect estimates and used the random effects model for the pooled analysis. Our primary outcome measures were 'headache days' and 'days with medication.' Outcome data were categorized as short-term (up to 12 weeks) or long-term (≥12 weeks) outcomes. This review consists of 16 trials including 1,105 patients. Four trials evaluated the use of prednisone with placebo or celecoxib after medication withdrawal; 7 trials evaluated various methods of withdrawal versus other methods of withdrawal, and 5 trials evaluated prophylactic medication compared with placebo or ibuprofen. We found no significant differences in headache days between prednisone versus placebo or between outpatient versus inpatient treatment, but we found a significant difference in days with medication. Overall, we found no benefit of prophylactic medication versus placebo. We found low to very low quality of evidence of no benefit of prednisone, prophylaxis, and various withdrawal interventions. Because the burden of MOH for patients is enormous, larger and high-quality intervention trials are needed.

PERSPECTIVE

This article presents a critical look at studies of patients with MOHs. It appears that the withdrawal strategy remains the best treatment option, although there is scant evidence on the efficacy of any treatment options.

Validity and Reproducibility of the STarT Back Tool (Dutch Version) in Patients With Low Back Pain in Primary Care Settings

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to translate and to investigate the reliability and validity of the STarT Back screening tool (SBT) in the primary care setting among patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

The SBT was formally translated into Dutch following a multistep approach for forward and backward translation. General practitioners and physical therapists included patients with LBP.

METHODS

Patients completed a baseline questionnaire and a follow-up at 3 days and 3 months. The construct validity was calculated with Pearson's correlation coefficient. The reproducibility was assessed using the quadratic weighted kappa and the specific agreement. Predictive validity was assessed using relative risk ratios for persisting disability at 3 months. Content validity was analyzed using floor and ceiling effects.

RESULTS

In total, 184 patients were included; 52.2% were categorized in the "low-risk" subgroup, 38.0% "medium-risk," and 9.8% "high-risk." For the construct validity we found, as expected, a moderate to high Pearson's correlation for questions 3 to 9 and a low correlation for questions 1 and 2 with their respective reference questionnaires. The reproducibility had a quadratic weighted kappa of 0.65 and the specific agreement of 82.4% for "low-risk," 53.3% for "medium-risk," and 33.3% for "high-risk." For the predictive validity for persisting disability we found a relative risk ratio for "medium-risk" of 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0-3.1) and 2.7 (95% CI: 1.4-4.9) for "high-risk" compared with "low-risk." For the content validity, we found that no floor and ceiling effects were present.

LIMITATIONS

There was a relatively small sample size for the retest reliability study. Patients were not compared between physical therapist and GP, as there were not enough patients in both groups. For practical reasons, the patients filled out the baseline questionnaire after receiving the first treatment/consultation; however, the questionnaire is intended to be filled in before the first consultation/treatment.

CONCLUSION

The SBT has been successfully translated into Dutch. The psychometric analysis showed acceptable results and, therefore, the SBT is a valid screening tool for patients with LBP in Dutch primary care.

A Preliminary Core Domain Set for Clinical Trials of Shoulder Disorders: A Report from the OMERACT 2016 Shoulder Core Outcome Set Special Interest Group

Objective.

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Shoulder Core Outcome Set Special Interest Group (SIG) was established to develop a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials of shoulder disorders.

Methods.

In preparation for OMERACT 2016, we systematically examined all outcome domains and measurement instruments reported in 409 randomized trials of interventions for shoulder disorders published between 1954 and 2015. Informed by these data, we conducted an international Delphi consensus study including shoulder trial experts, clinicians, and patients to identify key domains that should be included in a shoulder disorder COS. Findings were discussed at a stakeholder premeeting of OMERACT. At OMERACT 2016, we sought consensus on a preliminary core domain set and input into next steps.

Results.

There were 13 and 15 participants at the premeeting and the OMERACT 2016 SIG meeting, respectively (9 attended both meetings). Consensus was reached on a preliminary core domain set consisting of an inner core of 4 domains: pain, physical function/activity, global perceived effect, and adverse events including death. A middle core consisted of 3 domains: emotional well-being, sleep, and participation (recreation and work). An outer core of research required to inform the final COS was also formulated.

Conclusion.

Our next steps are to (1) analyze whether participation (recreation and work) should be in the inner core, (2) conduct a third Delphi round to finalize definitions and wording of domains and reach final endorsement for the domains, and (3) determine which instruments fulfill the OMERACT criteria for measuring each domain.

Identifying a core set of outcome domains to measure in clinical trials for shoulder disorders: a modified Delphi study

Objective

To achieve consensus on the most important outcome domains to measure across all clinical trials for shoulder disorders.

Methods

We performed an online modified Delphi study with an international, multidisciplinary and multistakeholder panel. A literature review and the OMERACT Filter 2.0 framework was used to generate a list of potential core domains, which were presented to patients, clinicians and researchers in two Delphi rounds. Participants were asked to judge the importance of each potential core domain and provide a rationale for their response. A core domain was defined a priori as a domain that at least 67% of participants considered core.

Results

In both rounds, 335 individuals were invited to participate (268 clinicians/researchers and 67 patients); response rates were 27% (n=91) and 29% (n=96), respectively. From a list of 41 potential core domains, four domains met our criteria for inclusion: ‘pain’, ‘physical functioning’, ‘global assessment of treatment success’ and ‘health-related quality of life’. Two additional domains, ‘sleep functioning’ and ‘psychological functioning’, met the criteria for inclusion by some, but not all stakeholder groups. There was consensus that ‘number of deaths’ was not a core domain, but insufficient agreement on whether or not several other domains, including ‘range of motion’ and ‘muscle strength’, were core domains.

Conclusions

Based on international consensus from patients, clinicians and researchers, ‘pain’, ‘physical functioning’, ‘global assessment of treatment success’ and ‘health-related quality of life’ were considered core outcome domains for shoulder disorder trials. The value of several other domains needs further consideration.

Physiotherapy for patients with shoulder pain in primary care: a descriptive study of diagnostic- and therapeutic management

BACKGROUND

Shoulder pain is one of the three main musculoskeletal complaints and more than 50% of the patients have symptoms longer than 6 months. Until now, limited data exist about the content of physiotherapy for patients with shoulder pain in primary care.

OBJECTIVE

Describe current physiotherapeutic diagnostic- and therapeutic management, including the use of diagnostic ultrasound, in patients with shoulder pain in primary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A prospective cohort study in primary care physiotherapy with a 12 week follow-up.

METHODS

Descriptive data from physiotherapists was collected, such as: the diagnostic hypotheses after patient history and physical examination, the use of specific tests and diagnostic ultrasound, the interventions used and possible changes in treatment plan.

RESULTS

Subacromial impingement syndrome was the most common hypothesis after patient history (48%) as well as physical examination (39%). Diagnostic ultrasound was used in 31% and of these patients the clinical diagnosis changed in 29%. Various interventions were used in all clinical diagnoses. After 12 weeks 41% of patients still received physiotherapy treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with shoulder pain in physiotherapy practice frequently show signs of subacromial impingement syndrome. The interventions used by the physiotherapists were generally in line with the guideline for subacromial impingement syndrome however a small proportion of physiotherapists used massage and tape/bracing techniques. A large proportion of patients were still receiving treatment after 12 weeks when no improvement was observed. If treatment for patients with subacromial impingement shows no benefit patients should be referred back to the general practitioner or orthopedic surgeon. Conclusions from this study might be slightly biased because of the selection of physiotherapists.

Systematic review of treatments for diabetic peripheral neuropathy

AIM

To evaluate treatment options for neuropathic pain and sensory symptoms resulting from diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the feet.

METHODS

The databases PubMed, Embase and Web-of-Science were searched for randomized controlled trials, published in the period from database inception to 2 July 2015, that evaluated treatments for diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the feet with placebo or standard treatment as comparators. Participants in these trials included people with diabetes mellitus and diabetic peripheral neuropathy who were given any treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Risk of bias was assessed using the Delphi list of criteria. Data from the trials were extracted using standardized data extraction sheets by two authors independently. All analyses were performed using RevMan 5.2. In case of clinical homogeneity, statistical pooling was performed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

This review included 27 trials on pharmacological, non-pharmacological and alternative treatments. In the meta-analysis of trials of α-lipoic acid versus placebo, total symptom score was reduced by -2.45 (95% CI -4.52; -0.39) with 600 mg i.v. α-lipoic acid (three trials), and was reduced by -1.95 (95% CI -2.89; -1.01) with 600 mg oral α-lipoic acid (two trials). Significant improvements in diabetic peripheral neuropathy symptoms were found with opioids, botulinum toxin A, mexidol, reflexology and Thai foot massage, but not with micronutrients, neurotrophic peptide ORG 2677 and photon stimulation therapy.

CONCLUSION

In this review, we found that α-lipoic acid, opioids, botulinum toxin A, mexidol, reflexology and Thai foot massage had significant beneficial results.

Prophylactic Treatment of Migraine in Children. Part 2. A Systematic Review of Pharmacological Trials∗

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of pharmacological prophylactic treatments of migraine in children. Databases were searched from inception to June 2004 and references were checked. We selected controlled trials on the effects of pharmacological prophylactic treatments in children with migraine. We assessed trial quality using the Delphi list and extracted data. Analyses were carried out according to type of intervention. A total of 20 trials were included. Headache improvement was significantly higher for flunarizine compared with placebo (relative risk 4.00, 95% confidence interval 1.60, 9.97). There is conflicting evidence for the use of propranolol. Nimodipine, clonidine, L-5HTP, trazodone and papaverine showed no effect when compared with placebo. All medications were well tolerated and adverse events showed no significant differences. Flunarizine may be effective as prophylactic treatment for migraine in children. Because of the small number of studies and the methodological shortcomings, conclusions regarding effectiveness have to be drawn with caution.

Prognostic value of magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with sciatica

OBJECTIVE This study aimed to determine the prognostic value of MRI variables to predict outcome in patients with herniated disc-related sciatica, and whether MRI could facilitate the decision making between early surgery and prolonged conservative care in these patients. METHODS A prospective observational evaluation of patients enrolled in a randomized trial with 1-year follow-up was completed. A total of 283 patients with sciatica who had a radiologically confirmed disc herniation were randomized either to surgery or to prolonged conservative care with surgery if needed. Outcome measures were recovery and leg pain severity. Recovery was registered on a 7-point Likert scale. Complete/near complete recovery was considered a satisfactory outcome. Leg pain severity was measured on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale. Multiple MRI characteristics of the degenerated disc herniation were independently scored by 3 spine experts. Cox models were used to study the influence of MRI variables on rate of recovery, and linear mixed models were used to determine the predictive value of MRI variables for leg pain severity during follow-up. The interaction of each MRI predictor with treatment allocation was tested. There were no study-specific conflicts of interest. RESULTS Baseline MRI variables associated with less leg pain severity were the reader's assessment of presence of nerve root compression (p < 0.001), and assessment of extrusion compared with protrusion of the disc herniation (p = 0.006). Both variables tended to be associated, but not significantly, with satisfactory outcome during follow-up (HR 1.45, 95% CI 0.93-2.24, and HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.96-1.61, respectively). The size of disc herniation at baseline was not associated with outcome. There was no significant change in the effects between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS MRI assessment of the presence of nerve root compression and extrusion of a herniated disc at baseline was associated with less leg pain during 1-year follow-up, irrespective of a surgical or conservative treatment. MRI findings seem not to be helpful in determining which patients might fare better with early surgery compared with a strategy of prolonged conservative care. Clinical trial registration no.: ISRCTN26872154 ( controlled-trials.com ).

CLINICAL PROGNOSTIC FACTORS FOR PATIENTS WITH ANTERIOR KNEE PAIN IN PHYSICAL THERAPY; A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

BACKGROUND

Although many authors have studied the prognostic factors that may contribute to anterior knee pain, synthesis of the existing evidence has not been performed.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize and examine existing prognostic models in patients with anterior knee pain that first present to physical therapists (primary care setting).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHOD

For this review Pubmed, Embase and Cinahl databases were searched and published papers that reported prognostic models for patients with anterior knee pain that first present to physical therapists (primary care setting) were selected. The authors extracted and summarized the univariate and multivariate predictors and evaluated which predictors consistently appeared to be relevant to pain, function, or recovery.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included. The quality scores of these studies ranged from 9 to 17 positive items out of 21 items included in the assessment for quality. None of the prognostic models were validated internally or externally. Four studies were considered to be of sufficient quality. The authors of these four studies found 14 different predictors significantly related to pain intensity of which seven with limited evidence. Fifteen different predictors were found that were related to function of which seven with limited evidence. Furthermore, strong evidence was found that baseline pain intensity, pain coping and kinesiophobia are of no predictive value for pain, and activity related pain, pain coping and kinesiophobia are of no predictive value for function at follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of the low quality of a number of studies and the heterogeneity of the examined variables and outcome measures of most of the studies, only limited evidence for seven predictors related to pain and seven predictors related to function in patients with anterior knee pain in a primary care setting was found.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1b.

Balneotherapy (or spa therapy) for rheumatoid arthritis. An abridged version of Cochrane Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include pharmacological interventions, physical therapy treatments and balneotherapy.

AIM

To evaluate the benefits and harms of balneotherapy in patients with RA.

DESIGN

A systematic review.

POPULATION

Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials consisting of participants with definitive or classical RA.

METHODS

We searched various databases up to December 2014. Balneotherapy had to be the intervention under study, and had to be compared with another intervention or with no intervention. We considered pain, improvement, disability, tender joints, swollen joints and adverse events among the main outcome measures. We excluded studies when only laboratory variables were reported as outcome measures. Two review authors independently selected trials, performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias.

RESULTS

This review includes nine studies involving 579 participants. Most studies showed an unclear risk of bias in most domains. We found no statistically significant differences on pain or improvement between mudpacks versus placebo (1 study; N.=45; hand RA; very low level of evidence). As for the effectiveness of additional radon in carbon dioxide baths, we found no statistically significant differences between groups for all outcomes at three-month follow-up (2 studies; N.=194; low to moderate level of evidence). We noted some benefit of additional radon at six months in pain (moderate level of evidence). One study (N.=148) compared balneotherapy (seated immersion) versus hydrotherapy (exercises in water), land exercises or relaxation therapy. We found no statistically significant differences in pain or in physical disability (very low level of evidence) between groups. We found no statistically significant differences in pain intensity at eight weeks, but some benefit of mineral baths in overall improvement at eight weeks compared to Cyclosporin A (1 study; N.=57; low level of evidence).

CONCLUSION

Overall evidence is insufficient to show that balneotherapy is more effective than no treatment; that one type of bath is more effective than another or that one type of bath is more effective than exercise or relaxation therapy.

CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT

We were not able to assess any clinical relevant impact of balneotherapy over placebo, no treatment or other treatments.

Core domain and outcome measurement sets for shoulder pain trials are needed: systematic review of physical therapy trials

OBJECTIVES

To explore the outcome domains and measurement instruments reported in published randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions for shoulder pain (rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis, or nonspecific shoulder pain).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We included trials comparing physical therapy to any other intervention for shoulder pain, indexed up to March 2015 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, or CINAHL Plus. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted information on the domains and measurement instruments reported.

RESULTS

We included 171 trials. Most trials measured pain (87%), function (72%), and range of movement (67%), whereas adverse events, global assessment of treatment success, strength, and health-related quality of life were measured in 18-27% of trials, and work disability and referral for surgery were measured in less than 5% of trials. Thirty-five different measurement instruments for pain and 29 for function were noted. Measurement of function increased markedly from 1973 to 2014. In rotator cuff disease trials, there was a more frequent measurement of pain and strength and a less frequent measurement of range of movement compared with adhesive capsulitis trials.

CONCLUSIONS

There was wide diversity in the domains and measurement instruments reported. Our results provide the foundation for the development of a core domain and outcome measurement set for use in future shoulder pain trials.

Effect of routine diagnostic imaging for patients with musculoskeletal disorders: A meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The increasing use of diagnostic imaging has led to high expenditures, unnecessary invasive procedures and/or false-positive diagnoses, without certainty that the patients actually benefit from these imaging procedures. This review explores whether diagnostic imaging leads to better patient-reported outcomes in individuals with musculoskeletal disorders.

METHOD

Databases were searched from inception to September 2013, together with scrutiny of selected bibliographies. Trials were eligible when: 1) a diagnostic imaging procedure was compared with any control group not getting or not receiving the results of imaging; 2) the population included individuals suffering from musculoskeletal disorders, and 3) if patient-reported outcomes were available. Primary outcome measures were pain and function. Secondary outcome measures were satisfaction and quality of life. Subgroup analysis was done for different musculoskeletal complaints and high technological medical imaging (MRI/CT).

RESULTS

Eleven trials were eligible. The effects of diagnostic imaging were only evaluated in patients with low back pain (n=7) and knee complaints (n=4). Overall, there was a moderate level of evidence for no benefit of diagnostic imaging on all outcomes compared with controls. A significant but clinically irrelevant effect was found in favor of no (routine) imaging in low back pain patients in terms of pain severity at short [SMD 0.17 (0.04-0.31)] and long-term follow-up [SMD 0.13 (0.02-0.24)], and for overall improvement [RR 1.15 (1.03-1.28)]. Subgroup analysis did not significantly change these results.

CONCLUSION

These results strengthen the available evidence that routine referral to diagnostic imaging by general practitioners for patients with knee and low back pain yields little to no benefit.

Massage therapy has short-term benefits for people with common musculoskeletal disorders compared to no treatment: a systematic review

QUESTION

Is massage therapy effective for people with musculoskeletal disorders compared to any other treatment or no treatment?

DESIGN

Systematic review of randomised clinical trials.

PARTICIPANTS

People with musculoskeletal disorders.

INTERVENTIONS

Massage therapy (manual manipulation of the soft tissues) as a stand-alone intervention.

OUTCOME

The primary outcomes were pain and function.

RESULTS

The 26 eligible randomised trials involved 2565 participants. The mean sample size was 95 participants (range 16 to 579) per study; 10 studies were considered to be at low risk of bias. Overall, low-to-moderate-level evidence indicated that massage reduces pain in the short term compared to no treatment in people with shoulder pain and osteoarthritis of the knee, but not in those with low back pain or neck pain. Furthermore, low-to-moderate-level evidence indicated that massage improves function in the short term compared to no treatment in people with low back pain, knee arthritis or shoulder pain. Low-to-very-low-level evidence from single studies indicated no clear benefits of massage over acupuncture, joint mobilisation, manipulation or relaxation therapy in people with fibromyalgia, low back pain and general musculoskeletal pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Massage therapy, as a stand-alone treatment, reduces pain and improves function compared to no treatment in some musculoskeletal conditions. When massage is compared to another active treatment, no clear benefit was evident.

Balneotherapy (or spa therapy) for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

No cure for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is known at present, so treatment often focuses on management of symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility. Treatment options include pharmacological interventions, physical therapy treatments and balneotherapy. Balneotherapy is defined as bathing in natural mineral or thermal waters (e.g. mineral baths, sulphur baths, Dead Sea baths), using mudpacks or doing both. Despite its popularity, reported scientific evidence for the effectiveness or efficacy of balneotherapy is sparse. This review, which evaluates the effects of balneotherapy in patients with RA, is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003 and updated in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review on the benefits and harms of balneotherapy in patients with RA in terms of pain, improvement, disability, tender joints, swollen joints and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane 'Rehabilitation and Related Therapies' Field Register (to December 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2014, Issue 1), MEDLIINE (1950 to December 2014), EMBASE (1988 to December 2014), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to December 2014), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (1985 to December 2014), PsycINFO (1806 to December 2014) and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). We applied no language restrictions; however, studies not reported in English, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, German or French are awaiting assessment. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing and recently completed trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) consisting of participants with definitive or classical RA as defined by the American Rheumatism Association (ARA) criteria of 1958, the ARA/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria of 1988 or the ACR/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria of 2010, or by studies using the criteria of Steinbrocker.Balneotherapy had to be the intervention under study, and had to be compared with another intervention or with no intervention.The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International League Against Rheumatism (ILAR) determined in 1992 a core set of eight endpoints in clinical trials concerning patients with RA. We considered pain, improvement, disability, tender joints, swollen joints and adverse events among the main outcome measures. We excluded studies when only laboratory variables were reported as outcome measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus and, if necessary, by third party adjudication.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes two new studies and a total of nine studies involving 579 participants. Unfortunately, most studies showed an unclear risk of bias in most domains. Four out of nine studies did not contribute to the analysis, as they presented no data.One study involving 45 participants with hand RA compared mudpacks versus placebo. We found no statistically significant differences in terms of pain on a 0 to 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.84 to 1.84), improvement (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.70) or number of swollen joints on a scale from 0 to 28 (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.90 to 2.10) (very low level of evidence). We found a very low level of evidence of reduction in the number of tender joints on a scale from 0 to 28 (MD -4.60, 95% CI -8.72 to -0.48; 16% absolute difference). We reported no physical disability and presented no data on withdrawals due to adverse events or on serious adverse events.Two studies involving 194 participants with RA evaluated the effectiveness of additional radon in carbon dioxide baths. We found no statistically significant differences between groups for all outcomes at three-month follow-up (low to moderate level of evidence). We noted some benefit of additional radon at six months in terms of pain frequency (RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9; 31% reduction; improvement in one or more points (categories) on a 4-point scale; moderate level of evidence) and 9.6% reduction in pain intensity on a 0 to 100-mm VAS (MD 9.6 mm, 95% CI 1.6 to 17.6; moderate level of evidence). We also observed some benefit in one study including 60 participants in terms of improvement in one or more categories based on a 4-point scale (RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.7; 30% absolute difference; low level of evidence). Study authors did not report physical disability, tender joints, swollen joints, withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events.One study involving 148 participants with RA compared balneotherapy (seated immersion) versus hydrotherapy (exercises in water), land exercises or relaxation therapy. We found no statistically significant differences in pain on the McGill Questionnaire or in physical disability (very low level of evidence) between balneotherapy and the other interventions. No data on improvement, tender joints, swollen joints, withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events were presented.One study involving 57 participants with RA evaluated the effectiveness of mineral baths (balneotherapy) versus Cyclosporin A. We found no statistically significant differences in pain intensity on a 0 to 100-mm VAS (MD 9.64, 95% CI -1.66 to 20.94; low level of evidence) at 8 weeks (absolute difference 10%). We found some benefit of balneotherapy in overall improvement on a 5-point scale at eight weeks of 54% (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.83). We found no statistically significant differences (low level of evidence) in the number of swollen joints, but some benefit of Cyclosporin A in the number of tender joints (MD 8.9, 95% CI 3.8 to 14; very low level of evidence). Physical disability, withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall evidence is insufficient to show that balneotherapy is more effective than no treatment, that one type of bath is more effective than another or that one type of bath is more effective than mudpacks, exercise or relaxation therapy.

Braces and orthoses for treating osteoarthritis of the knee

BACKGROUND

Individuals with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee can be treated with a knee brace or a foot/ankle orthosis. The main purpose of these aids is to reduce pain, improve physical function and, possibly, slow disease progression. This is the second update of the original review published in Issue 1, 2005, and first updated in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of braces and foot/ankle orthoses in the treatment of patients with OA of the knee.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE (current contents, HealthSTAR) up to March 2014. We screened reference lists of identified trials and clinical trial registers for ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and controlled clinical trials investigating all types of braces and foot/ankle orthoses for OA of the knee compared with an active control or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias using the 'Risk of bias' tool of The Cochrane Collaboration. We analysed the quality of the results by performing an overall grading of evidence by outcome using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. As a result of heterogeneity of studies, pooling of outcome data was possible for only three insole studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies (n = 1356): four studies in the first version, three studies in the first update and six additional studies (n = 529 participants) in the second update. We included studies that reported results when study participants with early to severe knee OA (Kellgren & Lawrence grade I-IV) were treated with a knee brace (valgus knee brace, neutral brace or neoprene sleeve) or an orthosis (laterally or medially wedged insole, neutral insole, variable or constant stiffness shoe) or were given no treatment. The main comparisons included (1) brace versus no treatment; (2) foot/ankle orthosis versus no treatment or other treatment; and (3) brace versus foot/ankle orthosis. Seven studies had low risk, two studies had high risk and four studies had unclear risk of selection bias. Five studies had low risk, three studies had high risk and five studies had unclear risk of detection bias. Ten studies had high risk and three studies had low risk of performance bias. Nine studies had low risk and four studies had high risk of reporting bias.Four studies compared brace versus no treatment, but only one provided useful data for meta-analysis at 12-month follow-up. One study (n = 117, low-quality evidence) showed lack of evidence of an effect on visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores (absolute percent change 0%, mean difference (MD) 0.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.84 to 0.84), function scores (absolute percent change 1%, MD 1.0, 95% CI -2.98 to 4.98) and health-related quality of life scores (absolute percent change 4%, MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.04) after 12 months. Many participants stopped their initial treatment because of lack of effect (24 of 60 participants in the brace group and 14 of 57 participants in the no treatment group; absolute percent change 15%, risk ratio (RR) 1.63, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.82). The other studies reported some improvement in pain, function and health-related quality of life (P value ≤ 0.001). Stiffness and treatment failure (need for surgery) were not reported in the included studies.For the comparison of laterally wedged insole versus no insole, one study (n = 40, low-quality evidence) showed a lower VAS pain score in the laterally wedged insole group (absolute percent change 16%, MD -1.60, 95% CI -2.31 to -0.89) after nine months. Function, stiffness, health-related quality of life, treatment failure and adverse events were not reported in the included study.For the comparison of laterally wedged versus neutral insole after pooling of three studies (n = 358, moderate-quality evidence), little evidence was found of an effect on numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores (absolute percent change 1.0%, MD 0.1, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.65), Western Ontario-McMaster Osteoarthritis Scale (WOMAC) stiffness scores (absolute percent change 0.1%, MD 0.07, 95% CI -4.96 to 5.1) and WOMAC function scores (absolute percent change 0.9%, MD 0.94, 95% CI - 2.98 to 4.87) after 12 months. Evidence of an effect on health-related quality of life scores (absolute percent change 1.0%, MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.03) was lacking in one study (n = 179, moderate-quality evidence). Treatment failure and adverse events were not studied for this comparison in the included studies.Data for the comparison of laterally wedged insole versus valgus knee brace could not be pooled. After six months' follow-up, no statistically significant difference was noted in VAS pain scores (absolute percent change -2.0%, MD -0.2, 95% CI -1.15 to 0.75) and WOMAC function scores (absolute percent change 0.1%, MD 0.1, 95% CI -7.26 to 0.75) in one study (n = 91, low-quality evidence); however both groups showed improvement. Stiffness, health-related quality of life, treatment failure and adverse events were not reported in the included studies for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence was inconclusive for the benefits of bracing for pain, stiffness, function and quality of life in the treatment of patients with medial compartment knee OA. On the basis of one laterally wedged insole versus no treatment study, we conclude that evidence of an effect on pain in patients with varus knee OA is lacking. Moderate-quality evidence shows lack of an effect on improvement in pain, stiffness and function between patients treated with a laterally wedged insole and those treated with a neutral insole. Low-quality evidence shows lack of an effect on improvement in pain, stiffness and function between patients treated with a valgus knee brace and those treated with a laterally wedged insole. The optimal choice for an orthosis remains unclear, and long-term implications are lacking.

Risk factors for lower extremity injuries among half marathon and marathon runners of the Lage Landen Marathon Eindhoven 2012: A prospective cohort study in the Netherlands

To determine risk factors for running injuries during the Lage Landen Marathon Eindhoven 2012. Prospective cohort study. Population-based study. This study included 943 runners. Running injuries after the Lage Landen Marathon. Sociodemographic and training-related factors as well as lifestyle factors were considered as potential risk factors and assessed in a questionnaire 1 month before the running event. The association between potential risk factors and injuries was determined, per running distance separately, using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. In total, 154 respondents sustained a running injury. Among the marathon runners, in the univariate model, body mass index ≥ 26 kg/m(2), ≤ 5 years of running experience, and often performing interval training, were significantly associated with running injuries, whereas in the multivariate model only ≤ 5 years of running experience and not performing interval training on a regular basis were significantly associated with running injuries. Among marathon runners, no multivariate model could be created because of the low number of injuries and participants. This study indicates that interval training on a regular basis may be recommended to marathon runners to reduce the risk of injury.

Osteotomy for treating knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Patients with unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee can be treated with an osteotomy. The goal of an osteotomy is to unload the diseased compartment of the knee. This is the second update of the original review published in The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2005.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of an osteotomy for treating patients with knee osteoarthritis, including the following main outcomes scores: treatment failure, pain and function scores, health-related quality of life, serious adverse events, mortality and reoperation rate.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE (Current Contents, HealthSTAR) were searched until November 2013 for this second update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and controlled clinical trials comparing an osteotomy with other treatments for patients with unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the domains recommended in the 'Risk of bias' tool of The Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of the results was analysed by performing overall grading of evidence by outcome using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight new studies were included in this update, for a total of 21 included studies involving 1065 people.In four studies, the randomised sequence was adequately generated and clearly described. In eight studies, allocation concealment was adequately generated and described. In four studies, the blinding procedures were sufficient. In six studies, incomplete outcome data were not adequately addressed. Furthermore, in 11 studies, the selective outcome reporting item was unclear because no study protocol was provided.Follow-up of studies comparing different osteotomy techniques was too short to measure treatment failure, which implicates revision to a knee arthroplasty.Four studies evaluated a closing wedge high tibial osteotomy (CW-HTO) with another high tibial osteotomy (aHTO). Based on these studies, the CW-HTO group had 1.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) -7.7% to 4.2%; low-quality evidence) more pain compared with the aHTO group; this finding was not statistically significant. Pooled function in the CW-HTO group was 0.5% (95% CI -3.8% to 2.8%; low-quality evidence) higher compared with the aHTO group; this finding was not statistically significant. No data on health-related quality of life and mortality were presented.Serious adverse events were reported in only four studies and were not significantly different (low-quality evidence) between groups. The reoperation rate were scored as early hardware removal because of pain and pin track infection due to the external fixator. Risk of reoperation was 2.6 (95% CI 1.5 to 4.5; low-quality evidence) times higher in the aHTO group compared with the CW-HTO group, and this finding was statistically significant.The quality of evidence for most outcomes comparing different osteotomy techniques was downgraded to low because of the numbers of available studies, the numbers of participants and limitations in design.Two studies compared high tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental knee replacement. Treatment failure and pain and function scores were not different between groups after a mean follow-up of 7.5 years. The osteotomy group reported more adverse events when compared with the unicompartmental knee replacement group, but the difference was not statistically significant. No data on health-related quality of life and mortality were presented.No study compared an osteotomy versus conservative treatment.Ten included studies compared differences in perioperative or postoperative conditions after high tibial osteotomy. In most of these studies, no statistically significant differences in outcomes were noted between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusion of this update did not change: Valgus high tibial osteotomy reduces pain and improves knee function in patients with medial compartmental osteoarthritis of the knee. However, this conclusion is based on within-group comparisons, not on non-operative controls. No evidence suggests differences between different osteotomy techniques. No evidence shows whether an osteotomy is more effective than alternative surgical treatment such as unicompartmental knee replacement or non-operative treatment. So far, the results of this updated review do not justify a conclusion on benefit of specific high tibial osteotomy technique for knee osteoarthritis.

The Dutch Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI): a reliability and validation study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Dutch Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI-D).

BACKGROUND

The SPADI is recommended and frequently used. However, the validity and reliability of the SPADI-D are unknown.

METHODS

The study population consisted of patients consulting a physical therapist for shoulder pain. We assessed construct validity, using known groups, convergent validity (SDQ) and divergent validity (EQ5D) for which the mean difference or Spearman correlations coefficients were calculated. The factor structure was assessed using principal component factor analysis, and we calculated Cronbach's alpha and the ICC to assess the reliability.

RESULTS

A total of 356 patients and a randomly selected group of 74 subjects for the reliability analysis were included. There was a significant difference between extreme groups (a high/low level of pain and work absence/presence) in SPADI score. The correlation between the SPADI and the SDQ was 0.69, with the EQ5D mobility-item 0.25 and with the depression-item 0.14. The SPADI consisted of one factor according to principal component factor analysis, which showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.94 for the total score), and the test-retest reliability was good (ICC = 0.89).

CONCLUSION

The Dutch SPADI is a valid and reliable questionnaire for patients in primary care in assessing functional disability.

Diagnostic accuracy of history taking to assess lumbosacral nerve root compression

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The diagnosis of sciatica is primarily based on history and physical examination. Most physical tests used in isolation show poor diagnostic accuracy. Little is known about the diagnostic accuracy of history items.

PURPOSE

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of history taking for the presence of lumbosacral nerve root compression or disc herniation on magnetic resonance imaging in patients with sciatica.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional diagnostic study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 395 adult patients with severe disabling radicular leg pain of 6 to 12 weeks duration were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Lumbosacral nerve root compression and disc herniation on magnetic resonance imaging were independently assessed by two neuroradiologists and one neurosurgeon blinded to any clinical information.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected in nine hospitals. History was taken according to a standardized protocol. There were no study-specific conflicts of interest.

RESULTS

Exploring the diagnostic odds ratio of 20 history items revealed a significant contribution in diagnosing nerve root compression for "male sex," "pain worse in leg than in back," and "a non-sudden onset." A significant contribution to the diagnosis of a herniated disc was found for "body mass index <30," "a non-sudden onset," and "sensory loss." Multivariate logistic regression analysis of six history items pre-selected from the literature (age, gender, pain worse in leg than in back, sensory loss, muscle weakness, and more pain on coughing/sneezing/straining) revealed an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.71) for the model diagnosing nerve root compression and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.74) for the model diagnosing disc herniation.

CONCLUSIONS

A few history items used in isolation had significant diagnostic value and the diagnostic accuracy of a model with six pre-selected items was poor.

Forest plots

Forest plots are frequently used in meta-analysis to present the results graphically. Without specific knowledge of statistics, a visual assessment of heterogeneity appears to be valid and reproducible. Possible causes of heterogeneity can be explored in modified forest plots. Forest plots in meta-analyses appear to be a valid and useful tool to quickly and efficiently scan and interpret the evidence. The expression ‘a picture is worth a thousand words’ certainly expresses the value of forest plots.

The methodological quality of diagnostic test accuracy studies for musculoskeletal conditions can be improved

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of reporting and methodological quality in diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies in the musculoskeletal field and evaluate the use of the QUality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) checklist.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A literature review identified all systematic reviews that evaluated the accuracy of clinical tests to diagnose musculoskeletal conditions and used the QUADAS checklist. Two authors screened all identified reviews and extracted data on the target condition, index tests, reference standard, included studies, and QUADAS items. A descriptive analysis of the QUADAS checklist was performed, along with Rasch analysis to examine the construct validity and internal reliability.

RESULTS

A total of 19 systematic reviews were included, which provided data on individual items of the QUADAS checklist for 392 DTA studies. In the musculoskeletal field, uninterpretable or intermediate test results are commonly not reported, with 175 (45%) studies scoring "no" to this item. The proportion of studies fulfilling certain items varied from 22% (item 11) to 91% (item 3). The interrater reliability of the QUADAS checklist was good and Rasch analysis showed excellent construct validity and internal consistency.

CONCLUSION

This overview identified areas where the reporting and performance of diagnostic studies within the musculoskeletal field can be improved.

Conservative interventions for treating work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder in adults

BACKGROUND

Work-related upper limb disorder (WRULD), repetitive strain injury (RSI), occupational overuse syndrome (OOS) and work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder (CANS) are the most frequently used umbrella terms for disorders that develop as a result of repetitive movements, awkward postures and impact of external forces such as those associated with operating vibrating tools. Work-related CANS, which is the term we use in this review, severely hampers the working population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of conservative interventions for work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder (CANS) in adults on pain, function and work-related outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 31 May 2013), MEDLINE (1950 to 31 May 2013), EMBASE (1988 to 31 May 2013), CINAHL (1982 to 31 May 2013), AMED (1985 to 31 May 2013), PsycINFO (1806 to 31 May 2013), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; inception to 31 May 2013) and the Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence Database (OTseeker; inception to 31 May 2013). We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating conservative interventions for work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder in adults. We excluded trials undertaken to test injections and surgery. We included studies that evaluated effects on pain, functional status or work ability.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. When studies were sufficiently similar, we performed statistical pooling of reported results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 studies (62 publications) with 6,580 participants that evaluated 25 different interventions. We categorised these interventions according to their working mechanisms into exercises, ergonomics, behavioural and other interventions.Overall, we judged 35 studies as having a high risk of bias mainly because of an unknown randomisation procedure, lack of a concealed allocation procedure, unblinded trial participants or lack of an intention-to-treat analysis.We found very low-quality evidence showing that exercises did not improve pain in comparison with no treatment (five studies, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to 0.03), or minor intervention controls (three studies, SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.37) or when provided as additional treatment (two studies, inconsistent results) at short-term follow-up or at long-term follow-up. Results were similar for recovery, disability and sick leave. Specific exercises led to increased pain at short-term follow-up when compared with general exercises (four studies, SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.75)We found very low-quality evidence indicating that ergonomic interventions did not lead to a decrease in pain when compared with no intervention at short-term follow-up (three studies, SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.22) but did decrease pain at long-term follow-up (four studies, SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.16). There was no effect on disability but sick leave decreased in two studies (risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.76). None of the ergonomic interventions was more beneficial for any outcome measures when compared with another treatment or with no treatment or with placebo.Behavioural interventions had inconsistent effects on pain and disability, with some subgroups showing benefit and others showing no significant improvement when compared with no treatment, minor intervention controls or other behavioural interventions.In the eight studies that evaluated various other interventions, there was no evidence of a clear beneficial effect of any of the interventions provided.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low-quality evidence indicating that pain, recovery, disability and sick leave are similar after exercises when compared with no treatment, with minor intervention controls or with exercises provided as additional treatment to people with work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder. Low-quality evidence also showed that ergonomic interventions did not decrease pain at short-term follow-up but did decrease pain at long-term follow-up. There was no evidence of an effect on other outcomes. For behavioural and other interventions, there was no evidence of a consistent effect on any of the outcomes.Studies are needed that include more participants, that are clear about the diagnosis of work-relatedness and that report findings according to current guidelines.

Is manipulative therapy more effective than sham manipulation in adults : a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Manipulative therapy is widely used in the treatment of spinal disorders. Manipulative techniques are under debate because of the possibility of adverse events. To date, the efficacy of manipulations compared to sham manipulations is unclear. The purpose of the study is: to assess the efficacy of manipulative therapy compared to sham in adults with a variety of complaints.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Central) along with a hand search of selected bibliographies were searched from inception up to April 2012.

RESULTS

In total 965 references were screened for eligibility and 19 RCTs (n = 1080) met the selection criteria. Eight studies were considered of low risk of bias. There is moderate level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.68, 95% confidence interval (-1.06 to -0.31). There is low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief (SMD - 0.37, -0.69 to -0.04) at short- term follow-up. In patients with musculoskeletal disorders, we found moderate level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.73, -1.21 to -0.25) immediate after treatment and low level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.52, -0.87 to -0.17) at short term-follow-up. We found very low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has no statistically significant effect on disability and perceived (asthma) recovery. Sensitivity analyses did not change the main findings. No serious adverse events were reported in the manipulative therapy or sham group.

CONCLUSIONS

Manipulative therapy has a clinical relevant effect on pain, but not on disability or perceived (asthma) recovery. Clinicians can refer patients for manipulative therapy to reduce pain.

An Overview of Systematic Reviews on Prognostic Factors in Neck Pain: Results from the International Collaboration on Neck Pain (ICON) Project

Given the challenges of chronic musculoskeletal pain and disability, establishing a clear prognosis in the acute stage has become increasingly recognized as a valuable approach to mitigate chronic problems. Neck pain represents a condition that is common, potentially disabling, and has a high rate of transition to chronic or persistent problems. As a field of research, prognosis in neck pain has stimulated several empirical primary research papers, and a number of systematic reviews. As part of the International Consensus on Neck (ICON) project, we sought to establish the general state of knowledge in the area through a structured, systematic review of systematic reviews (overview).

An exhaustive search strategy was created and employed to identify the 13 systematic reviews (SRs) that served as the primary data sources for this overview. A decision algorithm for data synthesis, which incorporated currency of the SR, risk of bias assessment of the SRs using AMSTAR scoring and consistency of findings across SRs, determined the level of confidence in the risk profile of 133 different variables. The results provide high confidence that baseline neck pain intensity and baseline disability have a strong association with outcome, while angular deformities of the neck and parameters of the initiating trauma have no effect on outcome. A vast number of predictors provide low or very low confidence or inconclusive results, suggesting there is still much work to be done in this field. Despite the presence of multiple SR and this overview, there is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusions on many potential prognostic variables. This study demonstrates the challenges in conducting overviews on prognosis where clear synthesis critieria and a lack of specifics of primary data in SR are barriers.

The opinion and experiences of Dutch orthopedic surgeons and radiologists about diagnostic musculoskeletal ultrasound imaging in primary care: a survey

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

The use of diagnostic musculoskeletal ultrasound (DMUS) in primary health care has increased in the recent years. Nevertheless, there are hardly any data concerning the reliability, accuracy and treatment consequences of DMUS used by physical therapists or general practitioners. Moreover, there are no papers published about how orthopedic surgeons or radiologists deal with the results of DMUS performed in primary care. Therefore, our aim is to evaluate the opinion, possible advantages or disadvantages and experiences of Dutch orthopedic surgeons and radiologists about DMUS in primary care.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey in which respondents completed a self-developed questionnaire to determine their opinion, experiences, advantages, disadvantages of performing DMUS in primary care.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were sent to 838 Dutch orthopedic surgeons and radiologists of which 213 were returned (response rate 25.4%). Our respondents saw no additional value for health care for diagnostic DMUS in primary care. DMUSs were generally repeated in secondary care. They perceived more disadvantages than advantages of performing DMUS in primary care. Mentioned disadvantages were: 'false positive results' (71.4%), 'lack of experience' (70%), 'insufficient education' (69.5%), not able to relate the outcomes of DMUS with other forms of diagnostic imaging' (65.7%), and 'false negative results' (65.3%).

CONCLUSION

Radiologists and orthopedic surgeons sampled in the Netherlands show low trust in DMUS knowledge of physical therapists and general practitioners. The results should be interpreted with caution because of the small response rate and the lack of representativeness to other countries.

Prevalence, incidence and course of lower extremity injuries in runners during a 12-month follow-up period

To describe the incidence, 12-month prevalence, and course of lower extremity injuries that occurred during and after the Amgen Singelloop Breda in 2009. The design was based on a prospective cohort study with a population-based setting. In total, 3605 registered runners received a web-based baseline questionnaire of which 713 participants completed and returned it. Information about previous injuries, training programs, and demographic data were gathered at baseline. Site and intensity of running injuries and occurrence of new injuries were obtained from five post-race questionnaires. The main outcome measurement was lower extremity injury. The incidence of running injuries during the Amgen Singelloop Breda itself was 7.8%; most of these injuries occurred in the calf muscle, thigh, and knee joint. Three-month incidence of injuries during follow-up varied between 13.5% and 16.3%. During the 12-month follow-up period, 277 new running injuries were reported. Runners who ran more than 10 km are more susceptible to injury in comparison with runners who ran short distances (10 km or less). In total, 69.1% of running injuries resolves within 10 days. Running injuries are very common among recreational runners. Injuries mostly occur in the knee, thigh, and calf muscle.

Attitude, knowledge and behaviour towards evidence-based medicine of physical therapists, students, teachers and supervisors in the Netherlands: a survey

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has gained widespread acceptance in physical therapy. However, because little is known about the attitudes, knowledge and behaviour of physical therapists towards EBM, and their participation in research to generate EBM, we explored these aspects among physical therapy students, teachers, supervisors and practising physical therapists.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional survey in which participants completed a web-based questionnaire to determine their attitudes, knowledge and behaviour regarding EBM, and their participation in research.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were sent to 814 participants of which 165 were returned. The overall mean score for attitude was 4.3 [standard deviation (SD) 1.0; range 1-7], which indicates a weak positive attitude. Teachers scored the highest (4.9, SD 1.2) and students the lowest (4.1, SD 0.8). Although most participants had some understanding of the technical terms used in EBM, only teachers felt able to explain these terms to others. Of the students, 45% rated their perceived EBM knowledge as bad and 45% as average, whereas 78% of the teachers considered that they had good knowledge. To answer clinical questions, most students generally use textbooks (96%) and the opinion of their supervisors (87.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a weak positive attitude of physical therapists, teachers, supervisors and students towards participating in research in general practice, but there is a lack of knowledge and active behaviour regarding EBM, especially among physical therapy students.

Effect of various kinds of cervical spinal surgery on clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The choice of a specific surgical technique should be based on its benefits and harms. Previous reviews have shown that the benefit of surgery over conservative care is not clearly demonstrated in patients with disorders of the cervical spine. Also, no additional benefit of fusion upon anterior decompression techniques could be found. A clear overview of other surgical techniques is lacking. We therefore aimed to assess the benefits and harms of cervical spinal surgery in patients with cervical disorders. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL up to June 2012. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected which included adults with cervical disorders receiving a surgical intervention and that reported at least 1 clinically relevant outcome measure (eg, pain, function, recovery). Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group and extracted the data. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE method. We included 39 RCTs comparing different surgical interventions. We found low-quality evidence for no difference in effectiveness between various surgical techniques used for anterior discectomy. There is a small, clinically irrelevant benefit on recovery and pain in favour of prosthetic disc surgery when compared with fusion techniques. Unfortunately, in these studies the authors had a clear conflict of interest. The differences in benefits and harms between the various surgical techniques are small. The surgeon, patient, and health care provider can therefore make the choice of any surgical technique based on experience, preferences, or costs.

Overview of data-synthesis in systematic reviews of studies on outcome prediction models

Background

Many prognostic models have been developed. Different types of models, i.e. prognostic factor and outcome prediction studies, serve different purposes, which should be reflected in how the results are summarized in reviews. Therefore we set out to investigate how authors of reviews synthesize and report the results of primary outcome prediction studies.

Methods

Outcome prediction reviews published in MEDLINE between October 2005 and March 2011 were eligible and 127 Systematic reviews with the aim to summarize outcome prediction studies written in English were identified for inclusion.

Characteristics of the reviews and the primary studies that were included were independently assessed by 2 review authors, using standardized forms.

Results

After consensus meetings a total of 50 systematic reviews that met the inclusion criteria were included. The type of primary studies included (prognostic factor or outcome prediction) was unclear in two-thirds of the reviews. A minority of the reviews reported univariable or multivariable point estimates and measures of dispersion from the primary studies. Moreover, the variables considered for outcome prediction model development were often not reported, or were unclear. In most reviews there was no information about model performance. Quantitative analysis was performed in 10 reviews, and 49 reviews assessed the primary studies qualitatively. In both analyses types a range of different methods was used to present the results of the outcome prediction studies.

Conclusions

Different methods are applied to synthesize primary study results but quantitative analysis is rarely performed. The description of its objectives and of the primary studies is suboptimal and performance parameters of the outcome prediction models are rarely mentioned. The poor reporting and the wide variety of data synthesis strategies are prone to influence the conclusions of outcome prediction reviews. Therefore, there is much room for improvement in reviews of outcome prediction studies.

Systematic review of prognostic factors predicting outcome in non-surgically treated patients with sciatica

Identification of prognostic factors for surgery in patients with sciatica is important to be able to predict surgery in an early stage. Identification of prognostic factors predicting persistent pain, disability and recovery are important for better understanding of the clinical course, to inform patient and physician and support decision making. Consequently, we aimed to systematically review prognostic factors predicting outcome in non-surgically treated patients with sciatica. A search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cinahl, up to March 2012 was performed for prospective cohort studies on prognostic factors for non-surgically treated sciatica. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion and assessed the risk of bias. Outcomes were pain, disability, recovery and surgery. A best evidence synthesis was carried out in order to assess and summarize the data. The initial search yielded 4392 articles of which 23 articles reporting on 14 original cohorts met the inclusion criteria. High clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity among studies was found. Reported evidence regarding prognostic factors predicting the outcome in sciatica is limited. The majority of factors that have been evaluated, e.g., age, body mass index, smoking and sensory disturbance, showed no association with outcome. The only positive association with strong evidence was found for leg pain intensity at baseline as prognostic factor for subsequent surgery.

Current management and prognostic factors in physiotherapy practice for patients with shoulder pain: design of a prospective cohort study

Background

Shoulder pain is disabling and has a considerable socio-economic impact. Over 50% of patients presenting in primary care still have symptoms after 6 months; moreover, prognostic factors such as pain intensity, age, disability level and duration of complaints are associated with poor outcome. Most shoulder complaints in this group are categorized as non-specific. Musculoskeletal ultrasound might be a useful imaging method to detect subgroups of patients with subacromial disorders.

This article describes the design of a prospective cohort study evaluating the influence of known prognostic and possible prognostic factors, such as findings from musculoskeletal ultrasound outcome and working alliance, on the recovery of shoulder pain. Also, to assess the usual physiotherapy care for shoulder pain and examine the inter-rater reliability of musculoskeletal ultrasound between radiologists and physiotherapists for patients with shoulder pain.

Methods

A prospective cohort study including an inter-rater reliability study. Patients presenting in primary care physiotherapy practice with shoulder pain are enrolled. At baseline validated questionnaires are used to measure patient characteristics, disease-specific characteristics and social factors. Physical examination is performed according to the expertise of the physiotherapists. Follow-up measurements will be performed 6, 12 and 26 weeks after inclusion. Primary outcome measure is perceived recovery, measured on a 7-point Likert scale. Logistic regression analysis will be used to evaluate the association between prognostic factors and recovery.

Discussion

The ShoCoDiP (Shoulder Complaints and using Diagnostic ultrasound in Physiotherapy practice) cohort study will provide information on current management of patients with shoulder pain in primary care, provide data to develop a prediction model for shoulder pain in primary care and to evaluate whether musculoskeletal ultrasound can improve prognosis.

A single question was as predictive of outcome as the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia in people with sciatica: an observational study

QUESTION

In people with sciatica in primary care, can a single question be used to predict outcome at 1 year followup as accurately as validated questionnaires on kinesiophobia, disability, and health-related quality of life?

DESIGN

Observational study within a randomised cohort.

PARTICIPANTS

135 people with sciatica in primary care.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Kinesiophobia was measured with the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), disability with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), and health-related quality of life with the EQ-5D and the 36-item Short Form (SF-36) Physical Component Summary. Participants also answered a newly devised substitute question for each questionnaire on an 11-point numerical rating scale. Global perceived effect and severity of leg pain were recorded at 1 year follow-up.

RESULTS

The correlation coefficient between the TSK and its substitute question was r=0.46 (p<0.001). The substitute question was better at predicting pain severity in the leg at 1 year follow-up than the TSK (addition of explained variation of 11% versus 4% in a logistic regression analysis). The TSK and its substitute question did not significantly differ in their prediction of global perceived effect at 1 year follow-up. The other substitute questions and both the RDQ and EQ-5D did not contribute significantly to one or both of their prediction models.

CONCLUSION

It may be feasible to replace the TSK by a single substitute question for predicting outcome in people with sciatica in primary care. The other substitute questions did not consistently predict outcome at 1 year follow-up.

Cost-effectiveness of minimal interventional procedures for chronic mechanical low back pain: design of four randomised controlled trials with an economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Minimal interventional procedures are frequently applied in patients with mechanical low back pain which is defined as pain presumably resulting from single sources: facet, disc, sacroiliac joint or a combination of these. Usually, these minimal interventional procedures are an integral part of a multidisciplinary pain programme. A recent systematic review issued by the Dutch Health Insurance Council showed that the effectiveness of these procedures for the total group of patients with chronic low back pain is yet unclear and cost-effectiveness unknown. The aim of the study is to evaluate whether a multidisciplinary pain programme with minimal interventional procedures is cost-effective compared to the multidisciplinary pain programme alone for patients with chronic mechanical low back pain who did not respond to conservative primary care and were referred to a pain clinic.

METHODS

All patients with chronic low back pain who are referred to one of the 13 participating pain clinics will be asked to participate in an observational study. Patients with a suspected diagnosis of facet, disc or sacroiliac joint problems will receive a diagnostic block to confirm this diagnosis. If confirmed, they will be asked to participate in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). For each single source a separate RCT will be conducted. Patients with a combination of facet, disc or sacroiliac joint problems will be invited for participation in a RCT as well. An economic evaluation from a societal perspective will be performed alongside these four RCTs. Patients will complete questionnaires at baseline, 3 and 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after start of the treatment. Costs will be collected using self-completed cost questionnaires.

DISCUSSION

No trials are yet available which have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of minimal interventional procedures in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain, which emphasizes the importance of this study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

National Trial Register: NTR3531.

Accuracy of the Canadian C-spine rule and NEXUS to screen for clinically important cervical spine injury in patients following blunt trauma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty about the optimal approach to screen for clinically important cervical spine (C-spine) injury following blunt trauma. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the Canadian C-spine rule and the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) criteria, 2 rules that are available to assist emergency physicians to assess the need for cervical spine imaging.

METHODS

We identified studies by an electronic search of CINAHL, Embase and MEDLINE. We included articles that reported on a cohort of patients who experienced blunt trauma and for whom clinically important cervical spine injury detectable by diagnostic imaging was the differential diagnosis; evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the Canadian C-spine rule or NEXUS or both; and used an adequate reference standard. We assessed the methodologic quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria. We used the extracted data to calculate sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and post-test probabilities.

RESULTS

We included 15 studies of modest methodologic quality. For the Canadian C-spine rule, sensitivity ranged from 0.90 to 1.00 and specificity ranged from 0.01 to 0.77. For NEXUS, sensitivity ranged from 0.83 to 1.00 and specificity ranged from 0.02 to 0.46. One study directly compared the accuracy of these 2 rules using the same cohort and found that the Canadian C-spine rule had better accuracy. For both rules, a negative test was more informative for reducing the probability of a clinically important cervical spine injury.

INTERPRETATION

Based on studies with modest methodologic quality and only one direct comparison, we found that the Canadian C-spine rule appears to have better diagnostic accuracy than the NEXUS criteria. Future studies need to follow rigorous methodologic procedures to ensure that the findings are as free of bias as possible.

Surgery versus conservative care for neck pain: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

General practitioners refer patients with continued neck pain that do not respond well to conservative care frequently to secondary care for further assessment. Are surgical interventions to the cervical spine effective when compared to conservative care for patients with neck pain?

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHOD

The search strategy outlined by the Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) was followed. The primary search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PEDro up to June 2011. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of adults with neck pain, which evaluated at least one clinically relevant primary outcome measure (e.g. pain, functional status, recovery), were included. In addition, treatments had to include surgery and conservative care. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the CBRG and extracted the data. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE method.

RESULTS

Patients included had neck pain with or without radiculopathy or myelopathy. In total, three RCTs and six CCTs were identified comparing different surgical interventions with conservative care, of which one had a low risk of bias. Overall there is very low quality of evidence available on the effectiveness of surgery compared to conservative care in neck pain patients showing overall no differences.

CONCLUSION

Most studies on surgical techniques comparing these to conservative care showed a high risk of bias. The benefit of surgery over conservative care is not clearly demonstrated.

Surgical techniques for sciatica due to herniated disc, a systematic review

Introduction

Disc herniation with sciatica accounts for five percent of low-back disorders but is one of the most common reasons for spine surgery. The goal of this study was to update the Cochrane review on the effect of surgical techniques for sciatica due to disc herniation, which was last updated in 2007.

Materials and methods

In April 2011, we conducted a comprehensive search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDRO, ICL, and trial registries. We also checked the reference lists and citation tracking results of each retrieved article. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) of the surgical management of sciatica due to disc herniation were included. Comparisons including chemonucleolysis and prevention of scar tissue or comparisons against conservative treatment were excluded. Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias of the studies and extracted data. Quality of evidence was graded according to the GRADE approach.

Results

Seven studies from the original Cochrane review were included and nine additional studies were found. In total, 16 studies were included, of which four had a low risk of bias. Studies showed that microscopic discectomy results in a significantly, but not clinically relevant longer operation time of 12 min (95 % CI 2–22) and shorter incision of 24 mm (95 % CI 7–40) compared with open discectomy, but did not find any clinically relevant superiority of either technique on clinical results. There were conflicting results regarding the comparison of tubular discectomy versus microscopic discectomy for back pain and surgical duration.

Conclusions

Due to the limited amount and quality of evidence, no firm conclusions on effectiveness of the current surgical techniques being open discectomy, microscopic discectomy, and tubular discectomy compared with each other can be drawn. Those differences in leg or back pain scores, operation time, and incision length that were found are clinically insignificant. Large, high-quality studies are needed, which examine not only effectiveness but cost-effectiveness as well.

Measurement properties of disease-specific questionnaires in patients with neck pain: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To critically appraise and compare the measurement properties of the original versions of neck-specific questionnaires.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases were searched for articles concerning the development or evaluation of the measurement properties of an original version of a self-reported questionnaire, evaluating pain and/or disability, which was specifically developed or adapted for patients with neck pain. The methodological quality of the selected studies and the results of the measurement properties were critically appraised and rated using a checklist, specifically designed for evaluating studies on measurement properties.

RESULTS

The search strategy resulted in a total of 3,641 unique hits, of which 25 articles, evaluating 8 different questionnaires, were included in our study. The Neck Disability Index is the most frequently evaluated questionnaire and shows positive results for internal consistency, content validity, structural validity, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness, but a negative result for reliability. The other questionnaires show positive results, but the evidence for each measurement property is mostly limited, and at least 50% of the information on measurement properties per questionnaire is lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings imply that studies of high methodological quality are needed to properly assess the measurement properties of the currently available questionnaires. Until high quality studies are available, we recommend using these questionnaires with caution. There is no need for the development of new neck-specific questionnaires until the current questionnaires have been adequately assessed.