Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9: A Study of the Participants From the Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146986/1/pmr2533.pd

Continuous quantification of transcription factor dynamics in individual hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of clinical guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To assess the methodologic quality of existing guidelines for the management of acute low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Guidelines are playing an increasingly important role in evidence-based practice. After publication of the Quebec Task Force in Canada in 1987 and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines in the United States in 1994, guidelines for acute low back pain were developed in many other countries. However, little is known about the methodologic quality of these guidelines. METHODS: Guidelines were selected by electronically searching MEDLINE and the Internet and through personal communication with experts in the field of low back pain research in primary care. The methodologic quality of the guidelines was assessed by two authors independently using the AGREE instrument. RESULTS: A total of 17 guidelines were included. Overall, the quality of reporting of guidelines was disappointing. Most guidelines clearly described the aim of the guideline and its target population, and most guideline development committees were multiprofessional. However, many other methodologic flaws were identified. More than half of the guidelines did not take patients' preferences into account, did not perform a pilot test among target users, did not clearly describe the methods of study identification and selection, did not include an external review, did not provide a procedure for updating, were not supported with tools for application, did not consider potential organizational barriers and cost implications, did not provide criteria for monitoring and audit, did not include recommendations for implementation strategies, and did not adequately record editorial independence and conflict of interest of the members. The diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations of the guidelines were largely similar. CONCLUSIONS: The quality and transparency of the development process and the consistency in the reporting of primary care guidelines for low back pain need to be improved

An administrative data validation study of the accuracy of algorithms for identifying rheumatoid arthritis: the influence of the reference standard on algorithm performance

BACKGROUND: We have previously validated administrative data algorithms to identify patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using rheumatology clinic records as the reference standard. Here we reassessed the accuracy of the algorithms using primary care records as the reference standard. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart abstraction study using a random sample of 7500 adult patients under the care of 83 family physicians contributing to the Electronic Medical Record Administrative data Linked Database (EMRALD) in Ontario, Canada. Using physician-reported diagnoses as the reference standard, we computed and compared the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for over 100 administrative data algorithms for RA case ascertainment. RESULTS: We identified 69 patients with RA for a lifetime RA prevalence of 0.9%. All algorithms had excellent specificity (>97%). However, sensitivity varied (75-90%) among physician billing algorithms. Despite the low prevalence of RA, most algorithms had adequate positive predictive value (PPV; 51-83%). The algorithm of “[1 hospitalization RA diagnosis code] or [3 physician RA diagnosis codes with ≥1 by a specialist over 2 years]” had a sensitivity of 78% (95% CI 69–88), specificity of 100% (95% CI 100–100), PPV of 78% (95% CI 69–88) and NPV of 100% (95% CI 100–100). CONCLUSIONS: Administrative data algorithms for detecting RA patients achieved a high degree of accuracy amongst the general population. However, results varied slightly from our previous report, which can be attributed to differences in the reference standards with respect to disease prevalence, spectrum of disease, and type of comparator group

Multinational evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of gout: integrating systematic literature review and expert opinion of a broad panel of rheumatologists in the 3e initiative

We aimed to develop evidence-based multinational recommendations for the diagnosis and management of gout. Using a formal voting process, a panel of 78 international rheumatologists developed 10 key clinical questions pertinent to the diagnosis and management of gout. Each question was investigated with a systematic literature review. Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and abstracts from 2010-2011 European League Against Rheumatism and American College of Rheumatology meetings were searched in each review. Relevant studies were independently reviewed by two individuals for data extraction and synthesis and risk of bias assessment. Using this evidence, rheumatologists from 14 countries (Europe, South America and Australasia) developed national recommendations. After rounds of discussion and voting, multinational recommendations were formulated. Each recommendation was graded according to the level of evidence. Agreement and potential impact on clinical practice were assessed. Combining evidence and clinical expertise, 10 recommendations were produced. One recommendation referred to the diagnosis of gout, two referred to cardiovascular and renal comorbidities, six focused on different aspects of the management of gout (including drug treatment and monitoring), and the last recommendation referred to the management of asymptomatic hyperuricaemia. the level of agreement with the recommendations ranged from 8.1 to 9.2 (mean 8.7) on a 1-10 scale, with 10 representing full agreement. Ten recommendations on the diagnosis and management of gout were established. They are evidence-based and supported by a large panel of rheumatologists from 14 countries, enhancing their utility in clinical practice.AbbVieAustralian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)Hosp Gen Univ Elda, Dept Reumatol, Elda 03600, SpainHosp Gen Univ Alicante, Dept Reumatol, Alicante, SpainUniv Camilo Jose Cela, Fac Ciencias Salud, Madrid, SpainUniv British Columbia, Div Rheumatol, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, CanadaRoyal Melbourne Hosp, Parkville, Vic 3050, AustraliaUniv Hosp Southampton NHS Fdn Trust, Southampton, Hants, EnglandNIHR Wellcome Trust Clin Res Facil, Southampton, Hants, EnglandCtr Hosp Univ Liege, Liege, BelgiumMaastricht Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Internal Med Rheumatol, Maastricht, NetherlandsAtrium Med Ctr, Heerlen, NetherlandsUniv Toronto, Div Rheumatol, Toronto, ON, CanadaRepatriat Gen Hosp, Rheumatol Res Unit, Adelaide, SA, AustraliaFlinders Univ S Australia, Adelaide, SA 5001, AustraliaMed Univ Vienna, Dept Internal Med 3, Div Rheumatol, Vienna, AustriaUniv Toronto, Dept Hlth Policy Management & Evaluat, Toronto, ON, CanadaMt Sinai Hosp, Univ Hlth Network, Toronto Gen Res Inst, Div Clin Decis Making & Hlth Care, Toronto, ON M5G 1X5, CanadaCabrini Hosp, Monash Dept Clin Epidemiol, Malvern, Vic, AustraliaMonash Univ, Dept Epidemiol & Prevent Med, Malvern, Vic, AustraliaUniv Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dept Clin Immunol & Rheumatol, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, NetherlandsUniv Med Ctr Utrecht, Dept Rheumatol & Clin Immunol, Utrecht, NetherlandsUniv Nova Lisboa, Fac Ciencias Med, CEDOC, P-1200 Lisbon, PortugalEPE Hosp Egas Moniz, CHLO, Dept Rheumatol, Lisbon, PortugalHosp Gen Mexico City, Rheumatol Unit, Mexico City, DF, MexicoKarolinska Univ Hosp, Dept Rheumatol, Stockholm, SwedenKarolinska Inst, Stockholm, SwedenGhent Univ Hosp, Dept Rheumatol, Ghent, BelgiumUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Div Rheumatol, São Paulo, BrazilSt Georges Healthcare NHS Trust, Dept Rheumatol, London, EnglandState Hosp Stockerau, Ctr Rheumatol, Lower Austria, Stockerau, AustriaUniv Pavia, IRCCS Policlin S Matteo, Cattedra Reumatol, I-27100 Pavia, ItalyUniv Giessen, Kerckhoff Klin, Dept Rheumatol & Clin Immunol, Bad Nauheim, GermanyCopenhagen Univ Hosp, Ctr Rheumatol & Spine Dis, Copenhagen Ctr Arthrit Res, Glostrup, DenmarkMenzies Res Inst Tasmania, Hobart, Tas, AustraliaColumbia Univ, Med Ctr, New York, NY USALeiden Univ, Med Ctr, Leiden, NetherlandsUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Div Rheumatol, São Paulo, BrazilWeb of Scienc

Character, Incidence, and Predictors of Knee Pain and Activity after Infrapatellar Intramedullary Nailing of an Isolated Tibia Fracture

© Copyright 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. Objective: To study the activity and incidence of knee pain after sustaining an isolated tibia fracture treated with an infrapatellar intramedullary nail at 1 year. Design: Retrospective review of prospective cohort. Setting: Multicenter Academic and Community hospitals. Patients: Four hundred thirty-seven patients with an isolated tibia fracture completed a 12-month assessment on pain and self-reported activity. Intervention: Infrapatellar intramedullary nail. Outcomes: Demographic information, comorbid conditions, injury characteristics, and surgical technique were recorded. Knee pain was defined on a 1-7 scale with 1 being no pain and 7 being a very great deal of pain. Knee pain \u3e4 was considered clinically significant. Patients reported if they were able, able with difficulty, or unable to perform the following activities: kneel, run, climb stairs, and walk prolonged. Variables were tested in multilevel multivariable regression analyses. Results: In knee pain, 11% of patients reported a good deal to a very great deal of pain (\u3e4), and 52% of patients reported no or very little pain at 12 months. In activity at 12 months, 26% and 29% of patients were unable to kneel or run, respectively, and 31% and 35% of patients, respectively, stated they were able with difficulty or unable to use stairs or walk. Conclusions: Clinically significant knee pain (\u3e4/7) was present in 11% of patients 1 year after a tibia fracture. Of note, 31%-71% of patients had difficulty performing or were unable to perform routine daily activities of kneeling, running, and stair climbing, or walking prolonged distances

Exhausted Cytotoxic Control of Epstein-Barr Virus in Human Lupus

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) pathology has long been associated with an increased Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) seropositivity, viremia and cross-reactive serum antibodies specific for both virus and self. It has therefore been postulated that EBV triggers SLE immunopathology, although the mechanism remains elusive. Here, we investigate whether frequent peaks of EBV viral load in SLE patients are a consequence of dysfunctional anti-EBV CD8+ T cell responses. Both inactive and active SLE patients (n = 76 and 42, respectively), have significantly elevated EBV viral loads (P = 0.003 and 0.002, respectively) compared to age- and sex-matched healthy controls (n = 29). Interestingly, less EBV-specific CD8+ T cells are able to secrete multiple cytokines (IFN-γ, TNF-α, IL-2 and MIP-1β) in inactive and active SLE patients compared to controls (P = 0.0003 and 0.0084, respectively). Moreover, EBV-specific CD8+ T cells are also less cytotoxic in SLE patients than in controls (CD107a expression: P = 0.0009, Granzyme B release: P = 0.0001). Importantly, cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific responses were not found significantly altered in SLE patients. Furthermore, we demonstrate that EBV-specific CD8+ T cell impairment is a consequence of their Programmed Death 1 (PD-1) receptor up-regulation, as blocking this pathway reverses the dysfunctional phenotype. Finally, prospective monitoring of lupus patients revealed that disease flares precede EBV reactivation. In conclusion, EBV-specific CD8+ T cell responses in SLE patients are functionally impaired, but EBV reactivation appears to be an aggravating consequence rather than a cause of SLE immunopathology. We therefore propose that autoimmune B cell activation during flares drives frequent EBV reactivation, which contributes in a vicious circle to the perpetuation of immune activation in SLE patients

Recommendations for the appropriate use of anti-inflammatory drugs in the era of the coxibs: Defining the role of gastroprotective agents

Treatment with anti-inflammatory drugs and the analgesic efficacy of conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are compromised by a two-to fourfold increased risk of gastrointestinal complications. This increased risk has resulted in an increasing use of the new selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors or coxibs, which, in clinical trials and outcomes studies, reduced gastrointestinal adverse events by 50% to 65% compared with conventional NSAIDs. However, the coxibs are not available to all patients who need them, and NSAIDs are still widely used. Moreover, treatment with a coxib cannot heal preexisting gastrointestinal lesions, and cotherapy with an antisecretory drug or mucosal protective agent may be required. This paper addresses the management of patients with risk factors for gastrointestinal complications who are taking NSAIDs and makes recommendations for the appropriate use of 'gastroproteccontinued on next pag