Effectiveness of manual therapy for chronic tension-type headache: a pragmatic, randomised, clinical trial

To evaluate the effectiveness of manual therapy (MT) in participants with chronic tension-type headache (CTTH)

Trends in the prevalence, incidence and surgical management of carpal tunnel syndrome between 1993 and 2013: an observational analysis of UK primary care records

OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence, incidence and surgical management of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), between 1993 and 2013, as recorded in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). DESIGN: We completed a series of cross-sectional epidemiological analyses to observe trends over time. SETTING: Primary care data collected between 1993 and 2013, stored in the CPRD. POPULATION: Individuals aged ≥18 years were selected. Prevalent and incident episodes of CTS and episodes of surgical intervention were identified using a list of preidentified Read codes. ANALYSIS: We defined incident episodes as those with no preceding diagnostic code for CTS in the past 2 years of data. Episodes of surgery were expressed as a percentage of the prevalent population during the same calendar year. Joinpoint regression was used to determine significant changes in the underlying trend. RESULTS: The prevalence of CTS increased over the study period, with a particular incline between 2000 and 2004 (annual percentage change 7.81). The female-to-male prevalence ratio reduced over time from 2.74 in 1993 to 1.93 in 2013. The median age of females and males with CTS were noted to increase from 49 and 53 years, respectively in 1993 to 54 and 59 years, respectively in 2013. Incidence was also noted to increase over time. After an initial increase between 1993 and 2007, the percentage of prevalent patients with a coded surgical episode began to decrease after 2007 to 27.41% in 2013 (annual percentage change -1.7). CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that the prevalence and incidence of CTS increased over the study period between 1993 and 2013. Rates of surgery for CTS also increased over the study period; however after 2007, the per cent of patients receiving surgery showed a statistically significant decline back to the rate seen in 2004

Predicting surgical intervention in patients presenting with carpal tunnel syndrome in primary care.

Purpose: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a symptomatic compression neuropathy of the median nerve. This study investigated the value of candidate prognostic factors (PFs) in predicting carpal tunnel release surgery. Patients and methods: This is a retrospective cohort study set in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Patients ≥18 years presenting with an incident episode of CTS were identified between 1989 and 2013. Candidate PF's defined in coded electronic patient records were identified following literature review and consultation with clinicians. Time to first carpal tunnel release surgery was the primary end point. A manual backward stepwise selection procedure was used to obtain an optimal prediction model, which included all the significant PFs. Results: In total, 91,412 patients were included in the cohort. The following PFs were included in an optimal model (C-statistic: 0.588 [95% CI 0.584-0.592]) for predicting surgical intervention: geographical region; deprivation status; age hazard ratio (HR 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01-1.02); obesity (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.19-1.27); alcohol drinker (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00-1.10); smoker (HR 1.06, 95% 1.03-1.10); inflammatory condition (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.98-1.29); neck condition (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.23); and multisite pain (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.15). Although not included in the multivariable model, pregnancy (if gender female) within 1 year of the index consultation, reduced the risk of surgery (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.21-0.28). Conclusion: This study shows that patients who are older and who have comorbidities including other pain conditions are more likely to have surgery, whereas patients presenting with CTS during or within a year of pregnancy are less likely to have surgery. This information can help to inform clinicians and patients about the likely outcome of treatment and to be aware of which patients may be less responsive to primary care interventions

Pain and learning in primary school: a population-based study.

Despite the frequency of pain among children, little is known about its effects on learning and school outcomes. The objective of this study was to quantify the association of pain and academic achievement while taking into account the presence of co-occurring emotional symptoms. A population-based stratified random sample of 1239 students aged 8 to 9 years from primary schools in Melbourne, Australia, was recruited for the Childhood to Adolescence Transition Study. Children indicated sites of pain that had lasted for a day or longer in the past month using a pain manikin. Depressive- and anxiety-related symptoms were assessed using child-reported items. National assessment results for reading and numeracy were used to measure academic achievement. Sixty-five percent of children reported pain in at least 1 body site and 16% reported chronic pain. Increasing number of pain sites was associated with poorer reading scores in a dose-response fashion (β = -3.1; 95% confidence interval -4.9 to -1.3; P < 0.001). The association was only partly attenuated when adjusting for emotional symptoms (β = -2.6; 95% confidence interval -4.5 to -0.8; P < 0.001) and was not moderated by emotional symptoms. Children with chronic pain were a year behind their peers in both reading and numeracy. Among primary school students, pain was associated with lower reading scores even after adjusting for the presence of emotional symptoms. Although population-based longitudinal studies will be required to ascertain consistency and possible causality, grounds exist for considering pain and emotional symptoms in the assessment of children with reading difficulties

Does a modified STarT Back Tool predict outcome with a broader group of musculoskeletal patients than back pain? A secondary analysis of cohort data.

OBJECTIVES: The STarT Back Tool has good predictive performance for non-specific low back pain in primary care. We therefore aimed to investigate whether a modified STarT Back Tool predicted outcome with a broader group of musculoskeletal patients, and assessed the consequences of using existing risk-group cut-points across different pain regions. SETTING: Secondary analysis of prospective data from 2 cohorts: (1) outpatient musculoskeletal physiotherapy services (PhysioDirect trial n=1887) and (2) musculoskeletal primary-secondary care interface services (SAMBA study n=1082). PARTICIPANTS: Patients with back, neck, upper limb, lower limb or multisite pain with a completed modified STarT Back Tool (baseline) and 6-month physical health outcome (Short Form 36 (SF-36)). OUTCOMES: Area under the receiving operator curve (AUCs) tested discriminative abilities of the tool's baseline score for identifying poor 6-month outcome (SF-36 lower tertile Physical Component Score). Risk-group cut-points were tested using sensitivity and specificity for identifying poor outcome using (1) Youden's J statistic and (2) a clinically determined rule that specificity should not fall below 0.7 (false-positive rate <30%). RESULTS: In PhysioDirect and SAMBA, poor 6-month physical health was 18.5% and 28.2%, respectively. Modified STarT Back Tool score AUCs for predicting outcome in back pain were 0.72 and 0.79, neck 0.82 and 0.88, upper limb 0.79 and 0.86, lower limb 0.77 and 0.83, and multisite pain 0.83 and 0.82 in PhysioDirect and SAMBA, respectively. Differences between pain region AUCs were non-significant. Optimal cut-points to discriminate low-risk and medium-risk/high-risk groups depended on pain region and clinical services. CONCLUSIONS: A modified STarT Back Tool similarly predicts 6-month physical health outcome across 5 musculoskeletal pain regions. However, the use of consistent risk-group cut-points was not possible and resulted in poor sensitivity (too many with long-term disability being missed) or specificity (too many with good outcome inaccurately classified as 'at risk') for some pain regions. The draft tool is now being refined and validated within a new programme of research for a broader musculoskeletal population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN55666618; Post results

Comparison of clinical burden between patients with erosive hand osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthritis in symptomatic community-dwelling adults: the Keele clinical assessment studies.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate in the general population the clinical impact of erosive OA in interphalangeal joints (IPJs) compared with symptomatic radiographic hand OA and inflammatory arthritis. METHODS: Standardized assessments with hand radiographs were performed in participants of two population-based cohorts in North Staffordshire with hand symptoms lasting ≥1 day in the past month. Erosive OA was defined as the presence of an eroded or remodelled phase in ≥1 IPJ using the Verbruggen-Veys method. Radiographic hand OA was defined as the presence of ≥1 IPJ/first carpometacarpal joint with a Kellgren-Lawrence score of ≥2. Diagnoses of inflammatory arthritis were based on medical records. Hand pain and disability were assessed with the Australian/Canadian Hand Osteoarthritis Index (AUSCAN). Linear regression analyses were used to compare clinical determinants between groups and calculate mean differences with 95% CIs, adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: Of 1076 participants with hand symptoms [60% women, mean age 64.8 years (s.d. 8.3 years)]; 80 persons (7.4%) had erosive OA. The population prevalence of erosive OA in ≥1 IPJ was 2.4% (95% CI 1.8, 3.0). Persons with erosive OA reported more pain and disability than persons with symptomatic radiographic hand OA [adjusted mean difference 1.3 (95% CI 0.3, 2.3) and 2.3 (95% CI 0.4, 4.2), respectively]. Individuals with inflammatory arthritis (n = 44) reported more pain and disability than those with erosive OA [adjusted mean difference 1.7 (95% CI 0.05, 3.4) and 6.3 (95% CI 2.8, 9.9), respectively]. CONCLUSION: While erosive OA has a greater impact than symptomatic radiographic hand OA in the general population, it is not as severe in terms of hand pain and disability as inflammatory RA

Management of shoulder pain by UK general practitioners (GPs): a national survey

OBJECTIVES: Studies in Canada, the USA and Australia suggested low confidence among general practitioners (GPs) in diagnosing and managing shoulder pain, with frequent use of investigations. There are no comparable studies in the UK; our objective was to describe the diagnosis and management of shoulder pain by GPs in the UK. METHODS: A national survey of a random sample of 5000 UK GPs collected data on shoulder pain diagnosis and management using two clinical vignettes that described primary care presentations with rotator cuff tendinopathy (RCT) and adhesive capsulitis (AdhC). RESULTS: Seven hundred and fourteen (14.7%) responses were received. 56% and 83% of GPs were confident in their diagnosis of RCT and AdhC, respectively, and a wide range of investigations and management options were reported. For the RCT presentation, plain radiographs of the shoulder were most common (60%), followed by blood tests (42%) and ultrasound scans (USS) (38%). 19% of those who recommended a radiograph and 76% of those who recommended a USS did so 'to confirm the diagnosis'. For the AdhC presentation, the most common investigations were blood tests (60%), plain shoulder radiographs (58%) and USS (31%). More than two-thirds of those recommending a USS did so 'to confirm the diagnosis'. The most commonly recommended treatment for both presentations was physiotherapy (RCT 77%, AdhC 71%) followed by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (RCT 58%, AdhC 74%). 17% opted to refer the RCT to secondary care (most often musculoskeletal interface service), compared with 31% for the AdhC. CONCLUSIONS: This survey of GPs in the UK highlights reliance on radiographs and blood tests in the management of common shoulder pain presentations. GPs report referring more than 7 out of 10 patients with RCT and AdhC to physiotherapists. These findings need to be viewed in the context of low response to the survey and, therefore, potential non-response bias