Validity and reproducibility of the modified STarT Back Tool (Dutch version) for patients with neck pain in primary care

© 2017 Elsevier Ltd Objective To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the STarT Back screening Tool (SBT), for patients with neck pain. Methods We modified the SBT to fit patients with neck pain. General practitioners and physiotherapists included patients who completed both a baseline and a follow-up questionnaire at 3 days and 3 months, respectively. The construct validity was assessed using Pearson's correlation between the SBT and the reference questionnaires. The reproducibility was assessed in the first week using the quadratic weighted kappa and the specific agreement. Predictive validity was assessed using a relative-risk ratio (RR) for, amongst others, persisting disability at 3 months. Content validity was analysed using both floor and ceiling effects. Results In total, 100 patients were included; 58% were categorised as being at “low risk” for persisting disability, 37% at “medium risk” and 5% at “high risk”. As expected for the construct validity, we found a moderate to high correlation for all questions except for activity question 3. The reproducibility had a quadratic-weighted kappa of 0.58, and a specific agreement of 90.9% for “low-risk” and 66.7% for “medium-risk” patients. The RRs for persisting disability for “medium-risk” against “low-risk” patients were 1.5 (95% C.I. 0.9–2.4) and 1.5 (95% C.I. 0.5–4.1) for pain. The sample size for high-risk patients was low. Conclusion The original SBT is modified to fit patients with neck pain in Dutch primary care. The psychometric analysis indicates sufficiently reliable outcomes, although the predictive validity showed statistically insignificant results

Red flags presented in current low back pain guidelines: a review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify and descriptively compare the red flags endorsed in guidelines for the detection of serious pathology in patients presenting with low back pain to primary care. METHOD: We searched databases, the World Wide Web and contacted experts aiming to find the multidisciplinary clinical guideline in low back pain in primary care, and selected the most recent one per country. We extracted data on the number and type of red flags for identifying patients with higher likelihood of serious pathology. Furthermore, we extracted data on whether or not accuracy data (sensitivity/specificity, predictive values, etc.) were presented to support the endorsement of specific red flags. RESULTS: We found 21 discrete guidelines all published between 2000 and 2015. One guideline could not be retrieved and after selecting one guideline per country we included 16 guidelines in our analysis from 15 different countries and one for Europe as a whole. All guidelines focused on the management of patients with low back pain in a primary care or multidisciplinary care setting. Five guidelines presented red flags in general, i.e., not related to any specific disease. Overall, we found 46 discrete red flags related to the four main categories of serious pathology: malignancy, fracture, cauda equina syndrome and infection. The majority of guidelines presented two red flags for fracture ('major or significant trauma' and 'use of steroids or immunosuppressors') and two for malignancy ('history of cancer' and 'unintentional weight loss'). Most often pain at night or at rest was also considered as a red flag for various underlying pathologies. Eight guidelines based their choice of red flags on consensus or previous guidelines; five did not provide any reference to support the choice of red flags, three guidelines presented a reference in general, and data on diagnostic accuracy was rarely provided. CONCLUSION: A wide variety of red flags was presented in guidelines for low back pain, with a lack of consensus between guidelines for which red flags to endorse. Evidence for the accuracy of recommended red flags was lacking

Prospective Cohort Study of Patients With Neck Pain in a Manual Therapy Setting: Design and Baseline Measures.

OBJECTIVES:The purpose of this study was to describe the design and baseline measurements of a prospective multicenter cohort study in patients with neck pain treated by Dutch manual therapists. Objectives of the study were to determine which patients seek help from a manual therapist, to describe usual care manual therapy in patients with neck pain, to examine the occurrence of nonserious adverse events after treatment, to describe predictors of adverse events, and to determine whether the occurrence of nonserious adverse events affect outcome after manual therapy care. METHODS:During a 3-month inclusion period, consecutive patients aged between 18 and 80 years presenting with neck pain in manual therapy practices in The Netherlands were included in the study. Baseline questionnaires included the Numeric Rating Scale, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire, Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), and Patient Expectancy List. Within the treatment episode, manual therapist clinical reasoning and applied interventions were registered and patients reported on adverse events. At the end of the treatment episode and at 12-month follow-up, pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale), functional outcomes (NDI, Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire), personal factors (FABQ), and global perceived effect were measured. RESULTS:During the 3-month inclusion period, 263 participating manual therapists collected data on 1193 patients with neck pain. Most patients (69.4%) were female. The mean age was 44.7 (±13.7) years. The NDI showed overall mild disability (mean score 26%). Mean scores in pain intensity were moderate (4.8), and there was low risk of prolonged disability owing to personal factors (FABQ). CONCLUSION:This study provides information on baseline characteristics of patients visiting manual therapists for neck pain. In The Netherlands, patients seeking care of manual therapists are comparable to patients in other countries regarding demographics and neck pain characteristics

Risk models for lower extremity injuries among short- and long distance runners: A prospective cohort study

© 2018 Background: Running injuries are very common. Risk factors for running injuries are not consistently described across studies and do not differentiate between runners of long- and short distances within one cohort. Objectives: The aim of this study is to determine risk factors for running injuries in recreational long- and short distance runners separately. Design: A prospective cohort study. Methods: Recreational runners from four different running events are invited to participate. They filled in a baseline questionnaire assessing possible risk factors about 4 weeks before the run and one a week after the run assessing running injuries. Using logistic regression we developed an overall risk model and separate risk models based on the running distance. Results: In total 3768 runners participated in this study. The overall risk model contained 4 risk factors: previous injuries (OR 3.7) and running distance during the event (OR 1.3) increased the risk of a running injury whereas older age (OR 0.99) and more training kilometers per week (OR 0.99) showed a decrease. Models between short- and long distance runners did not differ significantly. Previous injuries increased the risk of a running injury in all models, while more training kilometers per week decreased this risk. Conclusions: We found that risk factors for running injuries were not related to running distances. Previous injury is a generic risk factor for running injuries, as is weekly training distance. Prevention of running injuries is important and a higher weekly training volume seems to prevent injuries to a certain extent

Does the outcome of diagnostic ultrasound influence the treatment modalities and recovery in patients with shoulder pain in physiotherapy practice? Results from a prospective cohort study

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd Study design: Prospective cohort study including patients with shoulder pain in primary care physiotherapy. Background: There is an increased tendency to use diagnostic ultrasound to aid the diagnostic strategy and target treatment. It is a relatively cheap and accessible imaging technique but the implications for practice and patients are unknown. Objectives: To study the influence of diagnostic ultrasound (DUS) on diagnostic work-up, treatment modalities and recovery. Methods: Participants (n = 389) with a new episode of shoulder pain were assessed at baseline and followed for 6, 12 and 26 weeks. Diagnostic work-up, including the use of DUS, and treatment strategies were reported by the therapists at 3, 6 and 12 weeks. Results: Most patients (41%) were diagnosed with subacromial impingement/pain syndrome after physical examination or DUS. DUS was used in 31% of the participants. Tendinopathy was the most found abnormality in this sub-population. Patients who underwent DUS were more frequently treated using exercise therapy. Patients that not had DUS were more likely to receive massage therapy, trigger point therapy or mobilisation techniques. Logistic regression analyses did not show a significant association between DUS and recovery after 26 weeks (0.88, 95%CI:0.50–1.57). Correcting for the therapist as a confounder using a multilevel binary logistic regression did not show a significant cluster effect. Conclusion: Diagnostic US as a work-up component does not seem to influence diagnosis or recovery but does influence the choice of treatment modality. Conclusions are limited to observational data. High quality randomized trials should study the effect of DUS on recovery

Diagnostic accuracy of diagnostic imaging for lumbar disc herniation in adults with low back pain or sciatica is unknown; A systematic review

© 2018 The Author(s). Main text: We aim to summarize the available evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of imaging (index test) compared to surgery (reference test) for identifying lumbar disc herniation (LDH) in adult patients. For this systematic review we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (June 2017) for studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of imaging for LDH in adult patients with low back pain and surgery as the reference standard. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity using bivariate analysis, generated linked ROC plots in case of direct comparison of diagnostic imaging tests and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE-approach. We found 14 studies, all but one done before 1995, including 940 patients. Nine studies investigated Computed Tomography (CT), eight myelography and six Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). The prior probability of LDH varied from 48.6 to 98.7%. The summary estimates for MRI and myelography were comparable with CT (sensitivity: 81.3% (95%CI 72.3-87.7%) and specificity: 77.1% (95%CI 61.9-87.5%)). The quality of evidence was moderate to very low. Conclusions: The diagnostic accuracy of CT, myelography and MRI of today is unknown, as we found no studies evaluating today's more advanced imaging techniques. Concerning the older techniques we found moderate diagnostic accuracy for all CT, myelography and MRI, indicating a large proportion of false positives and negatives

Discontinuation of a randomised controlled trial in general practice due to unsuccessful patient recruitment.

BACKGROUND: A randomised controlled trial (RCT) in general practice, recruiting incident patients with (sub)acute sciatica, was discontinued because of insufficient recruitment. AIM: To describe factors that influenced the recruitment process and ultimately led to discontinuation of this trial, and to enable others to learn from this experience. DESIGN & SETTING: A pragmatic RCT was designed to compare two pain medication prescription strategies for treatment of (sub)acute sciatica in general practice. After 1 year of patient recruitment, the trial was prematurely terminated. METHOD: To analyse the underperforming recruitment, patient information systems of 20 general practices were screened twice a month to search for eligible patients and identify reasons for non-eligibility. Secondly, after study termination, an open question was distributed to the participating GPs for their views on the recruitment process. RESULTS: A total of 116 GPs from 37 general practices collaborated in the trial. Only eight of 234 patients were included after 12 months. The 22 GPs who offered their opinion on the main reasons for unsuccessful recruitment considered that these were the low incidence rate and strict eligibility criteria, a strong patient and/or GP preference, and time constraints. CONCLUSION: For this RCT, multiple factors were related to recruitment problems but it remains unknown which determinants prevailed. As the research question is unanswered but remains relevant, it is recommended that GPs' daily practice is taken into account when designing an RCT, a pilot study should be performed for feasibility of recruitment, and GP assistants should be involved at an early stage

Agreement between physical therapists and radiologists of stratifying patients with shoulder pain into new treatment related categories using ultrasound; an exploratory study

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd Study design: A systematic overview of the literature and an agreement study. Objectives: The aim of this study is to explore the inter-professional agreement of diagnostic musculoskeletal ultrasound (DMUS) between physical therapists (PT) and radiologists, using a new classification strategy based upon the therapeutic consequences in patients with shoulder pain. Background: DMUS is frequently used by PTs, although the agreement regarding traditional diagnostic labels between PTs and radiologists is only fair. Nevertheless, DMUS could be useful when used as a stratifying-tool. Methods: First, a systematic overview of current evidence was performed to assess which traditional diagnostic labels could be recoded into new treatment related categories (referral to secondary care, corticosteroid injections, physical therapy, watchful waiting). Next, kappa values were calculated for these categories between PTs and radiologists. Results: Only three categories were extracted, as none of the traditional diagnostic labels were classified into the ‘corticosteroid injection’ category. Overall, we found moderate agreement to stratify patients into treatment related categories and substantial agreement for the category ‘referral to secondary care’. Both categories ‘watchful waiting’ and ‘indication for physical therapy’ showed moderate agreement between the two professions. Conclusion: Our results indicate that the agreement between radiologists and PTs is moderate to substantial when labelling is based on treatment consequences. DMUS might be able to help the PT to guide treatment, especially for the category ‘referral to secondary care’ as this showed the highest agreement. However, as this is just an explorative study, more research is needed, to validate and assess the consequences of this stratification classification for clinical care

Methodological quality of a systematic review on physical therapy for temporomandibular disorders: influence of hand search and quality scales

The validity of a systematic review depends on completeness of identifying randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and the quality of the included RCTs. The aim of this study was to analyse the effects of hand search on the number of identified RCTs and of four quality lists on the outcome of quality assessment of RCTs evaluating the effect of physical therapy on temporomandibular disorders. In addition, we investigated the association between publication year and the methodological quality of these RCTs. Cochrane, Medline and Embase databases were searched electronically. The references of the included studies were checked for additional trials. Studies not electronically identified were labelled as “obtained by means of hand search”. The included RCTs (69) concerning physical therapy for temporomandibular disorders were assessed using four different quality lists: the Delphi list, the Jadad list, the Megens & Harris list and the Risk of Bias list. The association between the quality scores and the year of publication were calculated. After electronic database search, hand search resulted in an additional 17 RCTs (25%). The mean quality score of the RCTs, expressed as a percentage of the maximum score, was low to moderate and varied from 35.1% for the Delphi list to 54.3% for the Risk of Bias list. The agreement among the four quality assessment lists, calculated by the Interclass Correlation Coefficient, was 0.603 (95% CI, 0.389; 0.749). The Delphi list scored significantly lower than the other lists. The Risk of Bias list scored significantly higher than the Jadad list. A moderate association was found between year of publication and scores on the Delphi list (r = 0.50), the Jadad list (r = 0.33) and the Megens & Harris list (r = 0.43)