PubMed had a higher sensitivity than Ovid-MEDLINE in the search for systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of Ovid-MEDLINE vs. PubMed for identifying randomized controlled trials of methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We created search strategies for Ovid-MEDLINE and PubMed for a systematic review of MTX in RA. Their performance was evaluated using sensitivity, precision, and number needed to read (NNR).

RESULTS

Comparing searches in Ovid-MEDLINE vs. PubMed, PubMed retrieved more citations overall than Ovid-MEDLINE; however, of the 20 citations that met eligibility criteria for the review, Ovid-MEDLINE retrieved 17 and PubMed 18. The sensitivity was 85% for Ovid-MEDLINE vs. 90% for PubMed, whereas the precision and NNR were comparable (precision: 0.881% for Ovid-MEDLINE vs. 0.884% for PubMed and NNR: 114 for Ovid-MEDLINE vs. 113 for PubMed).

CONCLUSION

In systematic reviews of RA, PubMed has higher sensitivity than Ovid-MEDLINE with comparable precision and NNR. This study highlights the importance of well-designed database-specific search strategies.

Canadian variation by province in rheumatoid arthritis initiating anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy: results from the optimization of adalimumab trial

OBJECTIVE

We compared variations among Canadian provinces in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the Optimization of Humira trial (OH) and from the Ontario Biologics Research Initiative (OBRI). Baseline characteristics were compared between regions: Ontario (ON), Quebec (QC), and other provinces (OTH). We compared Ontario OH to OBRI patients who were initiating anti-TNF therapy.

RESULTS

In 300 OH patients, mean age was 54.8 years (13.3). There were 151 (50.3%) ON patients, 57 from QC (19%), and 92 from OTH (30.7%). Regional differences were seen in the number of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) ever taken (ON: 3.8 ± 1.4, QC: 3.1 ± 1.1, OTH: 3.3 ± 1.4; p < 0.001); swollen joint count (SJC; ON: 10.9 ± 5.9, QC: 9.0 ± 4.4, OTH: 11.3 ± 5.6; p = 0.033); tender joint count (TJC; ON: 12.2 ± 7.5, QC: 10.3 ± 5.7, OTH: 14.4 ± 7.6; p = 0.003); 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28; ON: 5.8 ± 1.2, QC: 5.6 ± 1.0, OTH: 6.0 ± 1.1; p = 0.076); and Health Assessment Questionnaire (ON: 1.4 ± 0.7, QC: 1.7 ± 0.7, OTH: 1.5 ± 0.7; p = 0.060). DMARD-ever use differed: methotrexate (ON: 94.7%, QC: 93%, OTH: 84.8%; p = 0.025); leflunomide (ON: 74.8%, QC: 21.1%, OTH: 51.1%; p < 0.001); sulfasalazine (ON: 51%, QC: 38.6%, OTH: 25%; p < 0.001); myochrysine (ON: 9.3%, QC: 0%, OTH: 15.2%; p = 0.008); and hydroxychloroquine (ON: 67.5%, QC: 86%, OTH: 66.3%; p = 0.018). In comparison to ON OH patients, 95 OBRI patients initiating first anti-TNF had lower SJC (p = 0.017), TJC (p = 0.008), and DAS28 (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In Quebec, where access to anti-TNF is less restrictive, patients had lower SJC and TJC. ON used more DMARD, especially leflunomide, as mandated by the provincial government. Both provincial funding criteria and prescribing habits may contribute to differences. Canadian rheumatologists may vary in treatment decisions, but patients generally have similar DAS28 when initiating anti-TNF therapy.

Multinational evidence-based recommendations on how to investigate and follow-up undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis: integrating systematic literature research and expert opinion of a broad international panel of rheumatologists in the 3E Initiative

Objective

To develop evidence-based recommendations on how to investigate and follow-up undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis (UPIA).

Methods

697 rheumatologists from 17 countries participated in the 3E (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative of 2008–9 consisting of three separate rounds of discussions and modified Delphi votes. In the first round 10 clinical questions were selected. A bibliographic team systematically searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ACR/EULAR 2007–2008 meeting abstracts. Relevant articles were reviewed for quality assessment, data extraction and synthesis. In the second round each country elaborated a set of national recommendations. Finally, multinational recommendations were formulated and agreement among the participants and the potential impact on their clinical practice was assessed.

Results

A total of 39 756 references were identified, of which 250 were systematically reviewed. Ten multinational key recommendations about the investigation and follow-up of UPIA were formulated. One recommendation addressed differential diagnosis and investigations prior to establishing the operational diagnosis of UPIA, seven recommendations related to the diagnostic and prognostic value of clinical and laboratory assessments in established UPIA (history and physical examination, acute phase reactants, autoantibodies, radiographs, MRI and ultrasound, genetic markers and synovial biopsy), one recommendation highlighted predictors of persistence (chronicity) and the final recommendation addressed monitoring of clinical disease activity in UPIA.

Conclusions

Ten recommendations on how to investigate and follow-up UPIA in the clinical setting were developed. They are evidence-based and supported by a large panel of rheumatologists, thus enhancing their validity and practical use.

Canadian recommendations for use of methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop recommendations for the use of methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Canadian rheumatologists who participated in the international 3e Initiative in Rheumatology (evidence, expertise, exchange) in 2007-2008 formulated 5 unique Canadian questions. A bibliographic team systematically reviewed the relevant literature on these 5 topics. An expert committee consisting of 26 rheumatologists from across Canada was convened, and a set of recommendations was proposed based on the results of systematic reviews combined with expert opinions using a nominal group consensus process.

RESULTS

The 5 questions addressed drug interactions, predictors of response, strategies to reduce non-serious side effects, variables to assess clinical response, and incorporating patient preference into decision-making. The systematic review retrieved 93 pertinent articles; this evidence was presented to the expert committee during the interactive workshop. After extensive discussion and voting, a total of 9 recommendations were formulated: 2 on drug interactions, 1 on predictors of response, 2 on strategies to reduce non-serious side effects, 3 on variables to assess clinical response, and 1 on incorporating patient preferences into decision-making. The level of evidence and the strength of recommendations are reported. Agreement among panelists ranged from 85% to 100%.

CONCLUSION

Nine recommendations pertaining to the use of MTX in daily practice were developed using an evidence-based approach followed by expert/physician consensus with high level of agreement.

Methotrexate monotherapy versus methotrexate combination therapy with non-biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate (MTX) is among the most effective disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with less toxicity and better tolerability.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of MTX monotherapy compared to MTX combination with non-biologic DMARDs in adult with RA.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified in MEDLINE (1950 to 2009), EMBASE (1980 to 2009), the Cochrane Controlled trials Registry (CENTRAL) (up to 2009), the American and European scientific meeting abstracts 2005-9, the reference lists of all relevant studies, letters, and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing MTX monotherapy versus MTX combined with other non-biologic DMARDs of at least 12 weeks of trial duration in adult RA patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies,extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias of relevant studies.The efficacy analysis was stratified into 3 groups based on previous DMARDs use: DMARD naive, MTX inadequate response, and non-MTX DMARDs inadequate response. The toxicity analysis was stratified by DMARD combination and pooled across trials for each combination. Our prespecified primary analysis was based on total withdrawal rates for efficacy or toxicity.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 19 trials (2,025 patients) from 6,938 citations were grouped by the type of patients randomised. Trials in DMARD naive patients showed no significant advantage of the MTX combination versus monotherapy; withdrawals for lack of efficacy or toxicity were similar in both groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% CI.0.70 to 1.93, absolute risk difference(ARD) 5%, 95%CI-3% to 13%). Trials in MTX or non-MTX DMARDs inadequate responder patients also showed no difference in withdrawal rates between the MTX combo versus mono groups with RR 0.86 95% CI 0.49 to1.51, ARD -2 %, 95% CI-13 % to 8 % and RR 0.75 95% CI 0.41 to 1.35, ARD -10%, 95% CI -31% to 11%, respectively. Significant reductions of pain and improvement in physical function (measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire or HAQ) were found in the MTX combination group, but only in MTX-inadequate responders (absolute risk difference -9.72%, 95%CI -14.7% to -4.75% for pain and mean difference (MD) -0.28, 95%CI -0.36 to -0.21 (0-3) for HAQ).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When the balance of efficacy and toxicity is taken into account, the moderate level of evidence from our systematic review showed no statistically significant advantage of the MTX combination versus monotherapy. Trials are needed that compare currently used MTX doses and combination therapies.

How to ascertain drug safety in the context of benefit. Controversies and concerns

There is great concern about clearly defining benefit and risk in the context of both drug development and clinical practice. In view of this pressure, the OMERACT Executive identified the need to bring together clinical trialists, pharmacoepidemiologists, clinicians, clinical epidemiologists, statistical experts, and regulatory representatives to discuss different approaches to define risk and perhaps improved ways to express it. Each attendee spoke on a given topic and the group was charged to consider the issue of risk in the context of formally posed questions. This article provides a summary of the presentations and outlines the discussions that followed.

Identifying the best treatment among common nonsurgical neck pain treatments: a decision analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Decision analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the best treatment for nonspecific neck pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

In Canada and the United States, the most commonly prescribed neck pain treatments are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), exercise, and manual therapy. Deciding which treatment is best is difficult because of the trade-offs between beneficial and harmful effects, and because of the uncertainty of these effects.

METHODS

(Quality-adjusted) life expectancy associated with standard NSAIDs, Cox-2 NSAIDs, exercise, mobilization, and manipulation were compared in a decisionanalytic model. Estimates of the course of neck pain, background risk of adverse events in the general population, treatment effectiveness and risk, and patient-preferences were input into the model. Assuming equal effectiveness, we conducted a baseline analysis using risk of harm only. We assessed the stability of the baseline results by conducting a second analysis that incorporated effectiveness data from a high-quality randomized trial.

RESULTS

There were no important differences across treatments. The difference between the highest and lowest ranked treatments predicted by the baseline model was 4.5 days of life expectancy and 3.4 quality-adjusted life-days. The difference between the highest and lowest ranked treatments predicted by the second model was 7.3 quality-adjusted life-days.

CONCLUSION

When the objective is to maximize life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy, none of the treatments in our analysis were clearly superior.

Systematic reviews of low back pain prognosis had variable methods and results: guidance for future prognosis reviews

OBJECTIVE

Systematic reviews of prognostic factors for low back pain vary substantially in design and conduct. The objective of this study was to identify, describe, and synthesize systematic reviews of low back pain prognosis, and explore the potential impact of review methods on the conclusions.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We identified 17 low back pain prognosis reviews published between 2000 and 2006. One reviewer extracted and a second checked review characteristics and results. Two reviewers independently assessed review quality.

RESULTS

Review questions and selection criteria varied; there were both focused and broad reviews of prognostic factors. A quarter of reviews did not clearly define search strategies. The number of potential citations identified ranged from 15 to 4,458 and the number of included prognosis studies ranged from 3 to 32 (of 162 distinct citations included across reviews). Seventy percent of reviews assessed quality of included studies, but assessed only a median of four of six potential biases. All reviews reported associations based on statistical significance; they used various strategies for syntheses. Only a small number of important prognostic factors were consistently reported: older age, poor general health, increased psychological or psychosocial stress, poor relations with colleagues, physically heavy work, worse baseline functional disability, sciatica, and the presence of compensation. We found discrepancies across reviews: differences in some selection criteria influenced studies included, and various approaches to data interpretation influenced review conclusions about evidence for specific prognostic factors.

CONCLUSION

There is an immediate need for methodological work in the area of prognosis systematic reviews. Because of methodological shortcomings in the primary and review literature, there remains uncertainty about reliability of conclusions regarding prognostic factors for low back pain.

Efficacy and toxicity of methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy versus MTX combination therapy with non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:

To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy compared with MTX combination with non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis.

Method:

A systematic review of randomised trials comparing MTX alone and in combination with other non-biological DMARDs was carried out. Trials were identified in Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and ACR/EULAR meeting abstracts. Primary outcomes were withdrawals for adverse events or lack of efficacy.

Results:

A total of 19 trials (2025 patients) from 6938 citations were grouped by the type of patients randomised. Trials in DMARD naive patients showed no significant advantage of the MTX combination versus monotherapy; withdrawals for lack of efficacy or toxicity were similar in both groups (relative risk (RR) = 1.16; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.93). Trials in MTX or non-MTX DMARD inadequate responder patients also showed no difference in withdrawal rates between the MTX combo versus mono groups (RR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.51 and RR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.35), but in one study the specific combination of MTX with sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine showed a better efficacy/toxicity ratio than MTX alone with RR = 0.3 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.65). Adding leflunomide to MTX non-responders improved efficacy but increased the risk of gastrointestinal side effects and liver toxicity. Withdrawals for toxicity were most significant with ciclosporin and azathioprine combinations.

Conclusion:

In DMARD naive patients the balance of efficacy/toxicity favours MTX monotherapy. In DMARD inadequate responders the evidence is inconclusive. Trials are needed that compare currently used MTX doses and combination therapies.

Multinational evidence-based recommendations for the use of methotrexate in rheumatic disorders with a focus on rheumatoid arthritis: integrating systematic literature research and expert opinion of a broad international panel of rheumatologists in the 3E Initiative

Objectives:

To develop evidence-based recommendations for the use of methotrexate in daily clinical practice in rheumatic disorders.

Methods:

751 rheumatologists from 17 countries participated in the 3E (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative of 2007–8 consisting of three separate rounds of discussions and Delphi votes. Ten clinical questions concerning the use of methotrexate in rheumatic disorders were formulated. A systematic literature search in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and 2005–7 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism meeting abstracts was conducted. Selected articles were systematically reviewed and the evidence was appraised according to the Oxford levels of evidence. Each country elaborated a set of national recommendations. Finally, multinational recommendations were formulated and agreement among the participants and the potential impact on their clinical practice was assessed.

Results:

A total of 16 979 references was identified, of which 304 articles were included in the systematic reviews. Ten multinational key recommendations on the use of methotrexate were formulated. Nine recommendations were specific for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), including the work-up before initiating methotrexate, optimal dosage and route, use of folic acid, monitoring, management of hepatotoxicity, long-term safety, mono versus combination therapy and management in the perioperative period and before/during pregnancy. One recommendation concerned methotrexate as a steroid-sparing agent in other rheumatic diseases.

Conclusions:

Ten recommendations for the use of methotrexate in daily clinical practice focussed on RA were developed, which are evidence based and supported by a large panel of rheumatologists, enhancing their validity and practical use.

Reporting disease activity in clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: EULAR/ACR collaborative recommendations

OBJECTIVE

To make recommendations on how to report disease activity in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) endorsed by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

METHODS

The project followed the EULAR standardised operating procedures, which use a three-step approach: (1) expert-based definition of relevant research questions (November 2006); (2) systematic literature search (November 2006 to May 2007); and (3) expert consensus on recommendations based on the literature search results (May 2007). In addition, since this is the first joint EULAR/ACR publication on recommendations, an extra step included a meeting with an ACR panel to approve the recommendations elaborated by the expert group (August 2007).

RESULTS

Eleven relevant questions were identified for the literature search. Based on the evidence from the literature the expert panel recommended that each trial should report the following items: (1) disease activity response and disease activity states; (2) appropriate descriptive statistics of the baseline, the endpoints and change of the single variables included in the core set; (3) baseline disease activity levels (in general); (4) the percentage of patients achieving a low disease activity state and remission; (5) time to onset of the primary outcome; (6) sustainability of the primary outcome; (7) fatigue.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations endorsed by EULAR and ACR will help harmonise the presentations of results from clinical trials. Adherence to these recommendations will provide the readership of clinical trials with more details of important outcomes, while the higher level of homogeneity may facilitate the comparison of outcomes across different trials and pooling of trial results, such as in meta-analyses.

Setting the agenda for multiple sclerosis rehabilitation research

BACKGROUND

Recognizing the need for more evidence-based multiple sclerosis (MS) rehabilitation, in the mid-2000s several initiatives were undertaken to explore why there had been a paucity of such research and to determine strategies to reverse this pattern. EXPERT-OPINION-PAPER: In 2004 the National Multiple Sclerosis Society (NMSS) convened an expert opinion panel, reviewed evidence-based MS rehabilitation research, and published the paper on the web. It was concluded that much of the MS rehabilitation carried out was based on experience, with little research backing it up.

INCREASING THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF MS REHABILITATION RESEARCH

Largely as a result of the conclusions of the Expert-Opinion-Paper, the NMSS convened a conference of a large number of MS and rehabilitation experts in New York in May, 2005. This conference made many recommendations of ways to increase the quantity and quality of MS research.

STATE OF THE SCIENCE CONFERENCE

In September, 2006, a follow-up conference was held in Washington, D.C... This conference, primarily sponsored by the University of Washington Multiple Sclerosis Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (MS RRTC), focused on some of the under-studied "hidden" disabilities present in persons with MS. This paper discusses the details and recommendations of these latter two conferences.

Identifying phases of investigation helps planning, appraising, and applying the results of explanatory prognosis studies

OBJECTIVE

To present an explanatory framework for understanding prognosis and illustrate it using data from a systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A framework including three phases of explanatory prognosis investigation was adapted from earlier work and a discussion of causal understanding was integrated. For illustration, prognosis studies were identified from electronic and supplemental searches of literature between 1966 and December 2006. We extracted characteristics of the populations, exposures, and outcomes and identified three phases of explanatory prognosis investigation: Phase 1, identifying associations; Phase 2, testing independent associations; and Phase 3, understanding prognostic pathways. The purpose of each phase is exploration, confirmation, and development of understanding, respectively.

RESULTS

It is important to consider a framework of explanatory prognosis studies for: (1) defining the study objectives, (2) presenting the study methods and data, and (3) interpreting and applying the results of the study.

CONCLUSION

When conducting and reporting prognosis studies, researchers should consider the approach to prognosis (explanatory or outcome prediction) and phase of investigation, use best methods to limit biases, report completely, and cautiously interpret results. Readers of health care research will then be better able to evaluate the goals and interpret and appropriately use the results of prognosis studies.

Influence of factor IX on overall plasma coagulability and fibrinolytic potential as measured by global assay: monitoring in haemophilia B

We sought to determine the influence of factor IX (FIX) deficiency upon overall coagulative and fibrinolytic capacities in plasma using the clot formation and lysis (CloFAL) assay, and to investigate the role of this global assay as an adjunctive monitoring tool in haemophilia B. CloFAL assay parameters were measured in vitro in platelet-poor plasma in relation to FIX activity and antigen (FIX:Ag), and were determined ex vivo among FIX-deficient patients (n = 41) in comparison to healthy individuals (n = 48). Supplementation of FIX-deficient plasma with FIX in vitro demonstrated a non-linear concentration dependence of FIX upon overall plasma coagulability. Ex vivo, coagulability was significantly decreased in FIX-deficient vs. healthy subjects among adults [median coagulation index (CI): 4% vs. 104% respectively; P < 0.001] and children (median CI: 9% vs. 63%; P < 0.001). Fibrinolytic capacity was increased in adult FIX-deficient vs. healthy subjects (median fibrinolytic index: 216% vs. 125%, respectively, P < 0.001), and was supported by a trend in shortened euglobulin lysis time (ELT). Severe haemophilia B patients showed heterogeneity in aberrant CloFAL assay waveforms, influenced partly by FIX:Ag levels. Patients with relatively preserved FIX:Ag (i.e. dysfunctional FIX) exhibited a shorter time to maximal amplitude in clot formation than those with type I deficiency. During patient treatment monitoring, markedly hypocoagulable CloFAL assay waveforms normalized following 100% correction with infused FIX. The CloFAL global assay detects FIX deficiency, demonstrates differences in coagulability between dysfunctional FIX and type I deficiency, and appears useful as an adjunctive test to routine FIX measurement in monitoring haemophilia B treatment.

Effect sizes of non-surgical treatments of non-specific low-back pain

Numerous randomized trials have been published investigating the effectiveness of treatments for non-specific low-back pain (LBP) either by trials comparing interventions with a no-treatment group or comparing different interventions. In trials comparing two interventions, often no differences are found and it raises questions about the basic benefit of each treatment. To estimate the effect sizes of treatments for non-specific LBP compared to no-treatment comparison groups, we searched for randomized controlled trials from systematic reviews of treatment of non-specific LBP in the latest issue of the Cochrane Library, issue 2, 2005 and available databases until December 2005. Extracted data were effect sizes estimated as Standardized Mean Differences (SMD) and Relative Risk (RR) or data enabling calculation of effect sizes. For acute LBP, the effect size of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and manipulation were only modest (ES: 0.51 and 0.40, respectively) and there was no effect of exercise (ES: 0.07). For chronic LBP, acupuncture, behavioral therapy, exercise therapy, and NSAIDs had the largest effect sizes (SMD: 0.61, 0.57, and 0.52, and RR: 0.61, respectively), all with only a modest effect. Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation and manipulation had small effect sizes (SMD: 0.22 and 0.35, respectively). As a conclusion, the effect of treatments for LBP is only small to moderate. Therefore, there is a dire need for developing more effective interventions.

Advantages and limitations of utility assessment methods in rheumatoid arthritis

Utility assessment and cost-utility analyses such as costs/quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) are frequently presented to demonstrate the value of new treatment options in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, utility indicators require various methods that introduce significant methodological challenges, which directly influence the results and ensuing reimbursement decisions. Our objective was to review and discuss these challenges and the validity of frequently used utility assessment techniques in the context of RA. Coding the intensity of preferences or variations in patient satisfaction in order to assess utility implies extreme mathematical assumptions about a patient's rationality regarding his/her preferences towards different given health states. The construction and assumptions of commonly used "direct approaches" (standard gamble, time tradeoff, visual analog scale) and indirect approaches (EQ5D, HUI, SF6D) are presented. Other approaches such as transformation in utility of data from clinical (Health Assessment Questionnaire) or quality of life instruments ("mapping technique") are analyzed as they appear to generate uncertainty and a wide variation in estimated utility values in the context of RA. Utility assessment and cost-utility analyses in RA, which form the basis of the QALY, are frequently published and often requested by health technology assessment agencies to assist -reimbursement decisions. However, when interpreting the results, the medical community must take into consideration the limitations and significant uncertainty of these approaches. In light of these findings, real cost-effectiveness analyses based on observed clinical outcomes appear to be more robust and reliable to assist decision-making, particularly in the context of RA.

Quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: does abatacept make a difference?

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, progressive, autoimmune disease that, in addition to causing joint damage, is associated with pain, fatigue, disability and functional loss, which can substantially decrease a patient's quality of life (QoL). Along with improvements in signs and symptoms, QoL benefits have become increasingly important in optimizing treatment outcomes in RA. Measurements of QoL have previously been under-used in all areas of medicine and only recently have clinical trials included them as a measure of treatment effectiveness. The existence of a positive relationship between improvements in signs and symptoms and concomitant improvements in QoL provides additional evidence that QoL measures are useful benchmarks for evaluating the effectiveness of treatment for RA. Furthermore, since these outcome measures evaluate the real-life, patient-centered benefits of RA therapies, they are likely to become increasingly central to the assessment of disease impact in clinical trials and practice, and to both drug approval and reimbursement decisions. This article reviews the impact of abatacept, a selective co-stimulation modulator, on the QoL of patients with active RA across a number of pivotal clinical trials. Firstly, an overview of the key QoL measurements used in abatacept clinical trials is provided, including those such as the Short Form-36, Health Assessment Questionnaire and Visual Analog Scale for pain, sleep and fatigue. We then present QoL data obtained in a wide range of patients with RA, including those with an inadequate response to either methotrexate or anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy, who have been treated with abatacept. Analysis of these data demonstrates that abatacept therapy has the potential to improve QoL across a range of patients with RA.

Interaction between smoking, the shared epitope, and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide: a mixed picture in three large North American rheumatoid arthritis cohorts

OBJECTIVE

Recently, Swedish members of the Epidemiological Investigation of Rheumatoid Arthritis (EIRA) provided evidence that smoking may trigger RA-specific immune reactions to citrullinated protein in carriers of HLA-DR shared epitope alleles. In an effort to confirm this interaction between smoking and shared epitope alleles, we performed a case-only analysis of 3 North American RA cohorts.

METHODS

A total of 2,476 white patients with RA were studied, 1,105 from the North American Rheumatoid Arthritis Consortium (NARAC) family collection, 753 from the National Inception Cohort of Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients (Inception Cohort), and 618 from the Study of New Onset Rheumatoid Arthritis (SONORA). All patients were HLA-DRB1 typed, and tested for anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) and rheumatoid factor. Information about smoking history was obtained by questionnaire.

RESULTS

A significant association was found between smoking and the presence of anti-CCP in the NARAC and the Inception Cohort, but not in the SONORA. The shared epitope alleles consistently correlated with anti-CCP in all 3 populations. Using multiple logistic regression analyses, shared epitope alleles were still the most significant risk factor for anti-CCP positivity. Weak evidence of gene-environment interaction between smoking and shared epitope alleles for anti-CCP formation was found only in the NARAC.

CONCLUSION

Unlike the EIRA data, we could not confirm a major gene-environment interaction for anti-CCP formation between shared epitope alleles and smoking in 3 North American RA cohorts. Our data indicate a need for further studies to address the full range of environmental factors other than smoking that may be associated with citrullination and RA.

WITHDRAWN: Multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation for chronic low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain is, in many countries, the main cause of long term disability in middle age. Patients with chronic low back pain are often referred for multidisciplinary treatment. Previous published systematic reviews on this topic included no randomised controlled trials and pooled together controlled and non-controlled studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation on pain, function, employment, quality of life and global assessment outcomes in subjects with chronic disabling low back pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychLIT, CINAHL, Health STAR, and The Cochrane Library from the beginning of the database to June 1998 using the comprehensive search strategy recommended by the Back Review Group of the Cochrane Collaboration. INTERVENTION specific key words for this review were: patient care team, patient care management, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, multiprofessional, multimodal, pain clinic and functional restoration. We also reviewed reference lists and consulted the editors of the Back Review Group of the Cochrane Collaboration.

DESIGN

randomised controlled trials comparing multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation with a non-multidisciplinary control intervention.

POPULATION

Adults with disabling low back pain of more than three months in duration.

INTERVENTION

Patients had to be assessed and treated by qualified professionals according to a plan that addresses physical and at least one of psychological, or social/occupational dimensions.

OUTCOMES

Only trials which reported treatment effect in at least one of pain, function, employment status, quality of life or global improvement.Exclusion: Pure educational interventions (back schools) and pure physical interventions were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Selection, data extraction and quality grading of studies was done by two independent authors using pre-tested data forms. Study quality was assessed according to the scheme recommended by the Back Review Group of the Cochrane Collaboration. Trials with internal validity scores of five or more in a ten point scale were considered high quality. Discrepancies between authors were resolved by consensus or by a third author. Given the marked heterogeneity in study settings, interventions and control groups we decided not to pool trial results in a meta-analysis. Instead, we summarized findings by strength of evidence and nature of intervention and control treatments. The evidence was judged to be strong when multiple high quality trials produced generally consistent findings. It was judged to be moderate when multiple low quality or one high quality and one or more low quality trials produced generally consistent findings. Evidence was considered to be limited when only one randomised trial existed or if findings of existing trials were inconsistent.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials (12 randomised comparisons) were included. They randomised a total of 1964 patients with chronic low back pain. There was strong evidence that intensive multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation with a functional restoration approach improved function when compared with inpatient or outpatient non-multidisciplinary treatments. There was moderate evidence that intensive multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation with a functional restoration approach improved pain when compared with outpatient non-multidisciplinary rehabilitation or usual care. There was contradictory evidence regarding vocational outcomes of intensive multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social intervention. Some trials reported improvements in work readiness, but others showed no significant reduction in sickness leaves. Less intensive outpatient psycho-physical treatments did not improve pain, function or vocational outcomes when compared with non-multidisciplinary outpatient therapy or usual care. Few trials reported effects on quality of life or global assessments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The reviewed trials provide evidence that intensive multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation with a functional restoration approach improves pain and function. Less intensive interventions did not show improvements in clinically relevant outcomes.

Early aggressive care and delayed recovery from whiplash: isolated finding or reproducible result?

OBJECTIVE

To test the reproducibility of the finding that early intensive care for whiplash injuries is associated with delayed recovery.

METHODS

We analyzed data from a cohort study of 1,693 Saskatchewan adults who sustained whiplash injuries between July 1, 1994 and December 31, 1994. We investigated 8 initial patterns of care that integrated type of provider (general practitioners, chiropractors, and specialists) and number of visits (low versus high utilization). Cox models were used to estimate the association between patterns of care and time to recovery while controlling for injury severity and other confounders.

RESULTS

Patients in the low-utilization general practitioner group and those in the general medical group had the fastest recovery even after controlling for important prognostic factors. Compared with the low-utilization general practitioner group, the 1-year rate of recovery in the high-utilization chiropractic group was 25% slower (adjusted hazard rate ratio [HRR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.54-1.04), in the low-utilization general practitioner plus chiropractic group the rate was 26% slower (HRR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.93), and in the high-utilization general practitioner plus chiropractic combined group the rate was 36% slower (HRR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.83).

CONCLUSION

The observation that intensive health care utilization early after a whiplash injury is associated with slower recovery was reproduced in an independent cohort of patients. The results add to the body of evidence suggesting that early aggressive treatment of whiplash injuries does not promote faster recovery. In particular, the combination of chiropractic and general practitioner care significantly reduces the rate of recovery.

Preliminary development of a responder index for chronic low back pain

OBJECTIVE

One of the greatest obstacles to identifying the most effective therapy for chronic low back pain (CLBP) is the lack of standardized outcome measures for assessing treatment effect in clinical trials. The aim of the OMERACT Special Interest Group was to discuss the development and validation of a preliminary responder index in CLBP.

METHODS

Patient data from 5 clinical trials of celecoxib and valdecoxib use in CLBP were used to assess the reliability and validity of multiple items in the outcome domains of pain, functioning, and overall impression of health. Candidate preliminary responder indices were selected on the basis of effect size, high chi-square test values, and a placebo response rate < or = 25%.

RESULTS

Candidate indices comprised improvements in single outcome measures and combinations of improvements and/or avoidance of worsening in multiple measures. The preliminary choice for the responder index was at least 30% improvement in pain, with an improvement of at least 30% in patient global assessment and no worsening in function.

CONCLUSION

Further studies are needed to refine a responder index for CLBP trials that is clinically relevant, reliable, and easy to administer for standardizing assessments across clinical trials.

Worker productivity outcome measures in arthritis

Arthritis is a leading cause of work disability and makes up a significant amount of the socioeconomic cost and health burden to the working age population. We discuss the measurement of worker productivity: that is, absenteeism and presenteeism. Absenteeism refers to the time missed from work due to health reasons and presenteeism refers to the time of impaired performance while at work due to health reasons resulting in productivity loss. While the term absenteeism is commonly used and has several definitions by itself, the current arthritis literature lacks the use of presenteeism as a work outcome measure in describing health states of the workers and for economic costing. Due to advanced medical management and job accommodations that allow workers to stay at work, absenteeism alone may not be enough to give us a complete picture of worker productivity. From our review, we found that the conceptualization and measurement of absenteeism and presenteeism differ. Our research agenda was to carry forward a work outcome measurement that can be used for cost calculation and that can determine levels or states of productivity loss so we can accurately measure the influence of arthritis and advance arthritis care. We recognize the need to perform psychometric testing of work outcome measures and to improve our ability to identify transitions (i.e., move in and out of a productivity state over time) made by workers with arthritis.

Minimal clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state for subjective outcome measures in rheumatic disorders

The concepts of minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) could help in interpreting results of trials involving patient-reported outcomes by translating the response at the group level (change in mean scores) into more clinically meaningful information by addressing the patient level as "therapeutic success (yes/no)." The aims of the special interest group (SIG) at OMERACT 8 were to discuss specific issues concerning the MCII and PASS concepts, especially the wording of the external anchor questions used to determine the MCII and PASS estimates, and to move toward a consensus for the cutoff values to use as the MCII and PASS in the different outcome criteria. The purpose of this SIG at OMERACT 8 was to inform participants of the MCII and PASS concepts and to agree on MCII and PASS values for pain, patient global assessment, and functional impairment.

A pattern recognition approach to the development of a classification system for upper-limb musculoskeletal disorders of workers

OBJECTIVES

Workers' musculoskeletal disorders are often pain-based and elude specific diagnoses; yet diagnosis or classification is the cornerstone to researching and managing these disorders. Clinicians are skilled in pattern recognition and use it in their daily practice. The purpose of this study was to use the clinical reasoning of experienced clinicians to recognize patterns of signs and symptoms and thus create a classification system.

METHODS

Two hundred and forty-two workers consented to a standardized physical assessment and to completing a questionnaire. Each physical assessment finding was dichotomized (normal versus abnormal), and the results were graphically displayed on body diagrams. At two different workshops, groups of experienced researchers or clinicians were led through an exercise of pattern recognition (clustering and naming of clusters) to arrive at a classification system. Interobserver reliability was assessed (8 observers, 40 workers), and the classification system was revised to improve reliability.

RESULTS

The initial classification system had good face validity but low interobserver reliability (kappa <0.3). Revisions were made that resulted in a proposed triaxial classification system. The signs and symptoms axes quantified the areas in the involved upper limbs. The proposed third axis described the likelihood of a specific clinical diagnosis being made and the degree of certainty. The interobserver reliability improved to approximately 0.70.

CONCLUSIONS

This triaxial classification system for musculoskeletal disorders is based on clinically observable findings. Further testing and application in other populations is required. This classification system could be useful for both clinicians and epidemiologists.

Herbal medicine for low back pain: a Cochrane review

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of herbal medicine compared with placebo, no intervention, or "standard/accepted/conventional treatments" for nonspecific low back pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Low back pain is a common condition and a substantial economic burden in industrialized societies. A large proportion of patients with chronic low back pain use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and/or visit CAM practitioners. Several herbal medicines have been purported for use in low back pain.

METHODS

The following databases were searched: Medline (1966 to April 2003), Embase (1980 to April 2003), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 1, 2003), and Cochrane Complementary Medicine (CM) field Trials Register. Additionally, reference lists in review articles, guidelines, and in the retrieved trials were checked. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), using adults (>18 years of age) suffering from acute, subacute, or chronic nonspecific low back pain. Types of interventions included herbal medicines defined as a plant that is used for medicinal purposes in any form. Primary outcome measures were pain and function. Two reviewers (J.J.G. and M.W.T.) conducted electronic searches in all databases. One reviewer (J.J.G.) contacted content experts and acquired relevant citations. Authors, title, subject headings, publication type, and abstract of the isolated studies were downloaded or a hard copy was retrieved. Methodologic quality and clinical relevance were assessed separately by two individuals (J.J.G. and M.W.T.). Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

Ten trials were included in this review. Two high-quality trials utilizing Harpagophytum procumbens (Devil's claw) found strong evidence for short-term improvements in pain and rescue medication for daily doses standardized to 50 mg or 100 mg harpagoside with another high-quality trial demonstrating relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib. Two moderate-quality trials utilizing Salix alba (White willow bark) found moderate evidence for short-term improvements in pain and rescue medication for daily doses standardized to 120 mg or 240 mg salicin with an additional trial demonstrating relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib. Three low-quality trials using Capsicum frutescens (Cayenne) using various topical preparations found moderate evidence for favorable results against placebo and one trial found equivalence to a homeopathic ointment.

CONCLUSIONS

Harpagophytum procumbens, Salix alba, and Capsicum frutescens seem to reduce pain more than placebo. Additional trials testing these herbal medicines against standard treatments will clarify their equivalence in terms of efficacy. The quality of reporting in these trials was generally poor; thus, trialists should refer to the CONSORT statement in reporting clinical trials of herbal medicines.

Limited search strategies were effective in finding relevant nonrandomized studies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Searching for nonrandomized studies in electronic databases is complicated because there is a variety of study designs and lack of standardization in the terminology. The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate a method to limit search strategies according to study design of comparative nonrandomized studies (cNRSs).

METHODS

Four updated Cochrane systematic reviews that included nonrandomized studies (cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies) of the effects of health care interventions were selected. Search strategies limited to study design were devised for each one of these topic areas in two electronic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE). A progressive method (PM) and a fixed method for selecting the most appropriate search terms associated with study design of nonrandomized studies are suggested.

RESULTS

The results showed that the sensitivity of search strategies (in two databases combined) limited to study design were between 90% and 100% for the PM using both controlled vocabulary (CV) and textwords (TWs) and between 95% and 100% for a fixed set of controlled vocabulary and TWs.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible and acceptable to use search strategies limited to study design of cNRSs of health care interventions.

Cardiovascular outcomes with etoricoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in the Multinational Etoricoxib and Diclofenac Arthritis Long-term (MEDAL) programme: a randomised comparison

BACKGROUND

Cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective inhibitors have been associated with an increased risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in placebo-controlled trials, but no clinical trial has been reported with the primary aim of assessing relative cardiovascular risk of these drugs compared with traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The MEDAL programme was designed to provide a precise estimate of thrombotic cardiovascular events with the COX-2 selective inhibitor etoricoxib versus the traditional NSAID diclofenac.

METHODS

We designed a prespecified pooled analysis of data from three trials in which patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis were randomly assigned to etoricoxib (60 mg or 90 mg daily) or diclofenac (150 mg daily). The primary hypothesis stated that etoricoxib is not inferior to diclofenac, defined as an upper boundary of less than 1.30 for the 95% CI of the hazard ratio for thrombotic cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis. Intention-to-treat analyses were also done to assess consistency of results. These trials are registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov with the numbers NCT00092703, NCT00092742, and NCT00250445.

FINDINGS

34 701 patients (24 913 with osteoarthritis and 9 787 with rheumatoid arthritis) were enrolled. Average treatment duration was 18 months (SD 11.8). 320 patients in the etoricoxib group and 323 in the diclofenac group had thrombotic cardiovascular events, yielding event rates of 1.24 and 1.30 per 100 patient-years and a hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% CI 0.81-1.11) for etoricoxib compared with diclofenac. Rates of upper gastrointestinal clinical events (perforation, bleeding, obstruction, ulcer) were lower with etoricoxib than with diclofenac (0.67 vs 0.97 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio 0.69 [0.57-0.83]), but the rates of complicated upper gastrointestinal events were similar for etoricoxib (0.30) and diclofenac (0.32).

INTERPRETATION

Rates of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with arthritis on etoricoxib are similar to those in patients on diclofenac with long-term use of these drugs.

Recommendations for reporting randomized controlled trials of herbal interventions: explanation and elaboration

Controlled trials that use randomized allocation are the best tool to control for bias and confounding in trials testing clinical interventions. Investigators must be sure to include information that is required by the reader to judge the validity and implications of the findings in the reports of these trials. In part, complete reporting of trials will allow clinicians to modify their clinical practice to reflect current evidence toward the improvement of clinical outcomes. The consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to assist investigators, authors, reviewers, and editors on the necessary information to be included in reports of controlled clinical trials. The CONSORT statement is applicable to any intervention, including herbal medicinal products. Controlled trials of herbal interventions do not adequately report the information suggested in CONSORT. Recently, reporting recommendations were developed in which several CONSORT items were elaborated to become relevant and complete for randomized controlled trials of herbal medicines. We expect that these recommendations will lead to more complete and accurate reporting of herbal trials. We wrote this explanatory document to outline the rationale for each recommendation and to assist authors in using them by providing the CONSORT items and the associated elaboration, together with examples of good reporting and empirical evidence, where available, for each. These recommendations for the reporting of herbal medicinal products presented here are open to revision as more evidence accumulates and critical comments are collected.

Current topics on models of care in the management of inflammatory arthritis

While there is strong evidence supporting a multidisciplinary team approach in arthritis management, access and use are hindered by limited human and financial resources. To safeguard the provision of comprehensive care throughout the disease trajectory, alternative care models are being developed. Three promising arthritis care models include the use of information technology and telemedicine, patient initiated care, and extended roles of health professionals. Future research projects should focus on: (1) the cost-effectiveness of information technology for exchange of patient-based data and education and management support; (2) the characteristics and needs of patients who can versus those who cannot self-manage; (3) strategies to improve access to care for patients with early arthritis, such as extending roles of health professionals to include triage; and (4) further structuring and standardizing rheumatology training of nursing and allied health professionals.

Setting priorities in arthritis care: Care III Conference

The disparity between supply and demand in arthritis services can lead to delays in diagnosis and access to effective treatments. The focus of 2005 CARE III Conference was to develop a research agenda to improve care for people with arthritis. Topics included models of care, nonpharmacological/nonsurgical interventions for arthritis, and issues around study design, outcome measures and knowledge translation and exchange. Seven priority areas emerged from the discussion: (1) Develop new, innovative arthritis care strategies; (2) Adapt and implement effective service models to address local needs; (3) Understand factors related to successful team care; (4) Match patients' needs with appropriate care models; (5) Design new or improve outcome measures for participation and quality of life; (6) Foster partnerships in sharing research evidence; and (7) Address needs for training and quality assurance.

Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of herbal medicine interventions

BACKGROUND

Public interest in herbal medicines has generated an increasing number of trials evaluating their efficacy. Trials with poor methodologic quality have exaggerated estimates of treatment effect, and incomplete reporting of trials causes difficulties in assessing trial methodologic quality. The objective of this project was to examine the quality of reporting of randomized controlled intervention trials of herbal medicine.

METHODS

MEDLINE (1966 to September 2003) was searched for randomized controlled trials of 10 herbal medicines. Two individuals (J. G. and J. D.) independently assessed trials using the Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials checklist. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The mean number of checklist items reported across all and for individual herbal medicines was calculated. The influence of decade of publication and species of herbal medicine tested was explored using an analysis of variance.

RESULTS

A total of 206 randomized controlled trials of herbal medicine were included. Interrater reliability on reporting quality assessment was high. A total of 45% of items were reported across all trials. The quality of reporting improved across decades from the 1970s to the 2000s. Individual herbal species differed in the total number of items reported, with echinacea, ginkgo, St. John's wort, and kava trials reporting the most items.

CONCLUSIONS

Important methodologic components of randomized controlled trials of herbal medicines are incompletely reported including allocation concealment, method used to generate the allocation sequence, and whether an intention-to-treat analysis was used. Also, key information unique to these trials may be missing, such as percentage of active constituents and type or form of the herbal medicine preparation. We suggest trialists consult a recent extension of the Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials statement specific to herbal medicine trials when designing and reporting randomized controlled intervention trials of herbal medicines.

Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials evaluating herbal interventions: implementing the CONSORT statement [corrected]

BACKGROUND

Given that herbal medicinal products are widely used, vary greatly in content and quality, and are actively tested in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), such RCTs must clearly report the specifics of the intervention.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to develop recommendations for reporting RCTs of herbal medicine interventions.

METHODS

We identified and invited potential participants with expertise in clinical trial methodology, clinical trial reporting, pharmacognosy, herbal medicinal products, medical statistics, and/or herbal product manufacturing to participate in phone calls and a consensus meeting. Three phases were conducted: (1) Premeeting item generation via telephone calls, (2) Consensus meeting, and (3) Postmeeting feedback. Sixteen experts participated in premeeting phone calls for item generation, and 14 participants attended a consensus meeting in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, in June of 2004. During the consensus meeting, a modified Delphi technique was used to aid discussion and debate of information required for reporting RCTs of herbal medicines.

RESULTS

After extensive discussion, the group decided that context-specific elaborations of nine Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) items to RCTs of herbal medicines were necessary: Item 1 (Title and Abstract), 2 (Background), 3 (Participants), 4 (Interventions), 6 (Outcomes), 15 (Baseline data), 20 (Interpretation), 21 (Generalizability), and 22 (Overall evidence).

DISCUSSION

The elaboration of item 4 of the CONSORT statement outlines specific information required for complete reporting of the herbal medicine intervention. The reporting suggestions presented will support clinical trialists, editors, and reviewers in reporting and reviewing RCTs of herbal medicines and readers in interpreting the results.

Reliability and validity of the body image after breast cancer questionnaire

The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability and validity of the Body Image After Breast Cancer Questionnaire (BIBCQ) in a series of outpatients with breast cancer. One hundred sixty-four breast cancer patients attending outpatient clinics completed questionnaires at baseline. The patients' BIBCQ scores were compared with their scores on related psychological measures including depression, self-esteem, quality of life, and sexual functioning. Scores on the BIBCQ for women after mastectomy and breast conservation were compared. Select items of the BIBCQ were compared between women with and without breast cancer. Patients received a second questionnaire after a 2 week interval to assess test-retest reliability. Good reliability was found for the six scales (ranging from 0.77 to 0.87). The BIBCQ correlated with similar measures as predicted, but not with a measure of social desirability. The BIBCQ distinguished between women treated with lumpectomy and mastectomy, and between women with breast cancer and a control group, supporting the validity of the BIBCQ. The BIBCQ provides a reliable and valid assessment of the long-term impact of breast cancer on body image. It is suitable for use in research focusing on this issue.

Primary therapist model for patients referred for rheumatoid arthritis rehabilitation: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICE) of services from a primary therapist compared with traditional physical therapists and/or occupational therapists for managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA), from the societal perspective.

METHODS

Patients with RA were randomly assigned to the primary therapist model (PTM) or traditional treatment model (TTM) for approximately 6 weeks of rehabilitation treatment. Health outcomes were expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), measured with the EuroQol instrument at baseline, 6 weeks, and 6 months. Direct and indirect costs, including visits to health professionals, use of investigative tests, hospital visits, use of medications, purchases of adaptive aids, and productivity losses incurred by patients and their caregivers, were collected monthly.

RESULTS

Of 144 consenting patients, 111 remained in the study after the baseline assessment: 63 PTM (87.3% women, mean age 54.2 years, disease duration 10.6 years) and 48 TTM (79.2% women, mean age 56.8 years, disease duration 13.2 years). From a societal perspective, PTM generated higher QALYs (mean +/- SD 0.068 +/- 0.22) and resulted in a higher mean cost ($6,848 Canadian, interquartile range [IQR] $1,984-$9,320) compared with TTM (mean +/- SD QALY -0.017 +/- 0.24; mean costs $6,266, IQR $1,938-$10,194) in 6 months, although differences were not statistically significant. The estimated ICE ratio was $13,700 per QALY gained (95% nonparametric confidence interval -$73,500, $230,000).

CONCLUSION

The PTM has potential to be an alternative to traditional physical/occupational therapy, although it is premature to recommend widespread use of this model in other regions. Further research should focus on strategies to reduce costs of the model and assess the long-term economic consequences in managing RA and other rheumatologic conditions.

Herbal medicine for low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low-back pain is a common condition and a substantial economic burden in industrialized societies. A large proportion of patients with chronic low-back pain use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), visit CAM practitioners, or both. Several herbal medicines have been purported for use in low-back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of herbal medicine for non-specific low-back pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field Trials Register (Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2005), EMBASE (1980 to July 2005); checked reference lists in review articles, guidelines and retrieved trials; and personally contacted individuals with expertise in this very specialized area.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials, examining adults (over 18 years of age) suffering from acute, sub-acute or chronic non-specific low-back pain. The interventions were herbal medicines, defined as plants that are used for medicinal purposes in any form. Primary outcome measures were pain and function.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors (JJG & MVT) conducted the database searches. One author contacted content experts and acquired relevant citations. Full references and abstracts of the identified studies were downloaded. A hard copy was retrieved for final inclusion decisions. Methodological quality and clinical relevance were assessed separately by two individuals. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials were included in this review. Two high quality trials examining the effects of Harpagophytum Procumbens (Devil's Claw) found strong evidence that daily doses standardized to 50 mg or 100 mg harpagoside were better than placebo for short-term improvements in pain and rescue medication. Another high quality trial demonstrated relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib (Vioxx). Two trials examining the effects of Salix Alba (White Willow Bark) found moderate evidence that daily doses standardized to 120 mg or 240 mg salicin were better than placebo for short-term improvements in pain and rescue medication. An additional trial demonstrated relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib. Three low quality trials on Capsicum Frutescens (Cayenne), examining various topical preparations, found moderate evidence that Capsicum Frutescens produced more favourable results than placebo and one trial found equivalence to a homeopathic ointment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Harpagophytum Procumbens, Salix Alba and Capsicum Frutescens seem to reduce pain more than placebo. Additional trials testing these herbal medicines against standard treatments are needed. The quality of reporting in these trials was generally poor. Trialists should refer to the CONSORT statement extension for reporting trials of herbal medicine interventions.

Back belt use for prevention of occupational low back pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Back pain continues to be the leading overall cause of morbidity and lost productivity in the workplace. Recently, there has been a renewed interest in the use of back belts by industry to reduce occupational low back pain (LBP).

OBJECTIVES

To examine the literature and evaluate the effectiveness of back belt use for the primary prevention of occupational LBP.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and HEALTHSTAR were searched for relevant articles published up to July 2003. Studies were included if participants were material handlers, and outcomes included the incidence and/or duration of lost time of reported LBP among workers who wore back belts compared with those who did not. The quality of the evidence was scored independently by 2 reviewers using a double rating method, first according to research design followed by an internal validity rating. Final synthesis of the evidence was performed in which the evidence was classified as good, fair, conflicting, or insufficient.

RESULTS

Ten epidemiologic studies meeting inclusion criteria were identified. Of 5 randomized controlled trials, 3 showed no positive results with back belt use; 2 cohort studies had conflicting results; and 2 nonrandomized controlled studies and 1 survey showed positive results.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, because of conflicting evidence and the absence of high-quality trials, there is no conclusive evidence to support back belt use to prevent or reduce lost time from occupational LBP.

Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

To provide valid assessments of answers to prognostic questions, systematic reviews must appraise the quality of the available evidence. However, no standard quality assessment method is currently available.

PURPOSE

To appraise how authors assess the quality of individual studies in systematic reviews about prognosis and to propose recommendations for these quality assessments.

DATA SOURCES

English-language publications listed in MEDLINE from 1966 to October 2005 and review of cited references.

STUDY SELECTION

163 systematic reviews about prognosis that included assessments of the quality of studies.

DATA EXTRACTION

A total of 882 distinct quality items were extracted from the assessments that were reported in the various reviews. Using an iterative process, 2 independent reviewers grouped the items into 25 domains. The authors then specifically identified domains necessary to assess potential biases of studies and evaluated how often those domains had been addressed in each review.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Fourteen of the domains addressed 6 sources of bias related to study participation, study attrition, measurement of prognostic factors, measurement of and controlling for confounding variables, measurement of outcomes, and analysis approaches. Reviews assessed a median of 2 of the 6 potential biases; only 2 (1%) included criteria aimed at appraising all potential sources of bias. Few reviews adequately assessed the impact of confounding (12%), although more than half (59%) appraised the methods used to measure the prognostic factors of interest.

LIMITATIONS

Reviews may have been missed by the search or misclassified because of incomplete reporting. Validity and reliability testing of the authors' recommendations are required.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality appraisal, a necessary step in systematic reviews, is incomplete in most reviews of prognosis studies. Adequate quality assessment should include judgments about 6 areas of potential study biases. Authors should incorporate these quality assessments into their synthesis of evidence about prognosis.

Reporting randomized, controlled trials of herbal interventions: an elaborated CONSORT statement

Herbal medicinal products are widely used, vary greatly in content and quality, and are actively tested in randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). The authors' objective was to develop recommendations for reporting RCTs of herbal medicine interventions, based on the need to elaborate on the 22-item CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) checklist. Telephone calls were made and a consensus meeting was held with 16 participants in Toronto, Canada, to develop these recommendations. The group agreed on context-specific elaborations of 9 CONSORT checklist items for RCTs of herbal medicines. Item 4, concerning the herbal medicine intervention, required the most extensive elaboration. These recommendations have been developed to improve the reporting of RCTs using herbal medicine interventions.