Value of symptoms and additional diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To summarise available evidence on diagnostic tests that might help primary care physicians to identify patients with an increased risk for colorectal cancer among those consulting for non-acute lower abdominal symptoms

Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies

PURPOSE: To evaluate quality of reporting in diagnostic accuracy articles published in 2000 in journals with impact factor of at least 4 by using items of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement published later in 2003. MATERIALS AND METHODS: English-language articles on primary diagnostic accuracy studies in 2000 were identified with validated search strategy in MEDLINE. Articles published in journals with impact factor of 4 or higher that regularly publish articles on diagnostic accuracy were selected. Two independent reviewers evaluated quality of reporting by using STARD statement, which consists of 25 items and encourages use of a flow diagram. Total STARD score for each article was calculated by summing number of reported items. Subgroup analyses were performed for study design (case-control or cohort study) by using Student t tests for continuous outcomes and chi(2) tests for dichotomous outcomes. RESULTS: Included were 124 articles published in 2000 in 12 journals: 33 case-control and 91 cohort studies. Only 41% of articles (51 of 124) reported on more than 50% of STARD items, while no articles reported on more than 80%. A flow chart was presented in two articles. Assessment of reporting on individual items of STARD statement revealed wide variation, with some items described in 11% of articles and others in 92%. Mean STARD score (0-25 points available) was 11.9 (range, 3.5-19.5). Mean difference in STARD score between cohort studies and case-control studies was 1.53 (95% confidence interval: 0.24, 2.82). CONCLUSION: Quality of reporting in diagnostic accuracy articles published in 2000 is less than optimal, even in journals with high impact factor. Authors, editors, and reviewers should pay more attention to reporting by checking STARD statement items and including a flow diagram to represent study design and patient flow. Supplemental material: radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/2352040507/DC1 (c) RSNA, 200

A Cluster-Randomised Trial Evaluating an Intervention for Patients with Stress-Related Mental Disorders and Sick Leave in Primary Care

Objective: Mental health problems often affect functioning to such an extent that they result in sick leave. The worldwide reported prevalence of mental health problems in the working population is 10%–18%. In developed countries, mental health problems are one of the main grounds for receiving disability benefits. In up to 90% of cases the cause is stress-related, and health-care utilisation is mainly restricted to primary care. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of our Minimal Intervention for Stress-related mental disorders with Sick leave (MISS) in primary care, which is intended to reduce sick leave and prevent chronicity of symptoms. Design: Cluster-randomised controlled educational trial. Setting: Primary health-care practices in the Amsterdam area, The Netherlands. Participants: A total of 433 patients (MISS n ¼ 227, usual care [UC] n ¼ 206) with sick leave and self-reported elevated level of distress. Interventions: Forty-six primary care physicians were randomised to either receive training in the MISS or to provide UC. Eligible patients were screened by mail. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was duration of sick leave until lasting full return to work. The secondary outcomes were levels of self-reported distress, depression, anxiety, and somatisation. Results: No superior effect of the MISS was found on duration of sick leave (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.87–1.29) nor on severity of self-reported symptoms. Conclusions: We found no evidence that the MISS is more effective than UC in our study sample of distressed patients. Continuing research should focus on the potential beneficial effects of the MISS; we need to investigate which elements of the intervention might be useful and which elements should be adjusted to make the MISS effective

Work-related physical and psychosocial risk factors for sick leave in patients with neck or upper extremity complaints

Objectives: To study work-related physical and psychosocial risk factors for sick leave among patients who have visited their general practitioner for neck or upper extremity complaints. Methods: Three hundred and forty two patients with neck or upper extremity complaints completed self-report questionnaires at baseline and after 3 months. Cox regression models were used to investigate the association between work-related risk factors and sick leave (i.e., lost days from work due to neck or upper extremity complaints in 3 months). Effect modification by sick leave at baseline, sex, worrying and musculoskeletal co-morbidity was evaluated by adding product terms to the regression models. Results: In the subgroup of patients who scored high on the pain copying scale "worrying" the hazard ratio of sick leave was 1.32 (95% CI 1.07-1.62) per 10% increase in heavy physical work. The subgroup of patients who were sitting for long periods of time had a reduced risk of sick leave as compared to patients who did not spend a lot of time sitting, again only in patients who scored high on the pain coping scale "worrying" (adjusted HR = 0.17, 95%-CI 0.04-0.72). Other work-related risk factors were not significantly related to sick leave. Conclusions: Heavy physical work increased the risk of sick leave and prolonged sitting reduced the risk of sick leave in a subgroup of patients who worried much about their pain. Additional large longitudinal studies of sufficiently large size among employees with neck or upper extremity complaints are needed to confirm our results. © Springer-Verlag 2007

Low back pain in general practice: cost-effectiveness of a minimal psychosocial intervention versus usual care

An intervention that can prevent low back pain (LBP) becoming chronic, may not only prevent great discomfort for patients, but also save substantial costs for the society. Psychosocial factors appear to be of importance in the transition of acute to chronic LBP. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of an intervention aimed at psychosocial factors to usual care in patients with (sub)acute LBP. The study design was an economic evaluation alongside a cluster-randomized controlled trial, conducted from a societal perspective with a follow-up of 1 year. Sixty general practitioners in 41 general practices recruited 314 patients with non-specific LBP of less than 12 weeks’ duration. General practitioners in the minimal intervention strategy (MIS) group explored and discussed psychosocial prognostic factors. Usual care (UC) was not protocolized. Clinical outcomes were functional disability (Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire), perceived recovery and health-related quality of life (EuroQol). Cost data consisted of direct and indirect costs and were measured by patient cost diaries and general practitioner registration forms. Complete cost data were available for 80% of the patients. Differences in clinical outcomes between both the groups were small and not statistically significant. Differences in cost data were in favor of MIS. However, the complete case analysis and the sensitivity analyses with imputed cost data were inconsistent with regard to the statistical significance of this difference in cost data. This study presents conflicting points of view regarding the cost-effectiveness of MIS. We conclude that (Dutch) general practitioners, as yet, should not replace their usual care by this new intervention

Profiling Dizziness in Older Primary Care Patients: An Empirical Study

The diagnostic approach to dizzy, older patients is not straightforward as many organ systems can be involved and evidence for diagnostic strategies is lacking. A first differentiation in diagnostic subtypes or profiles may guide the diagnostic process of dizziness and can serve as a classification system in future research. In the literature this has been done, but based on pathophysiological reasoning only

Prediction of persistent shoulder pain in general practice: Comparing clinical consensus from a Delphi procedure with a statistical scoring system

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In prognostic research, prediction rules are generally statistically derived. However the composition and performance of these statistical models may strongly depend on the characteristics of the derivation sample. The purpose of this study was to establish consensus among clinicians and experts on key predictors for persistent shoulder pain three months after initial consultation in primary care and assess the predictive performance of a model based on clinical expertise compared to a statistically derived model.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A Delphi poll involving 3 rounds of data collection was used to reach consensus among health care professionals involved in the assessment and management of shoulder pain.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Predictors selected by the expert panel were: symptom duration, pain catastrophizing, symptom history, fear-avoidance beliefs, coexisting neck pain, severity of shoulder disability, multisite pain, age, shoulder pain intensity and illness perceptions. When tested in a sample of 587 primary care patients consulting with shoulder pain the predictive performance of the two prognostic models based on clinical expertise were lower compared to that of a statistically derived model (Area Under the Curve, AUC, expert-based dichotomous predictors 0.656, expert-based continuous predictors 0.679 vs. 0.702 statistical model).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The three models were different in terms of composition, but all confirmed the prognostic importance of symptom duration, baseline level of shoulder disability and multisite pain. External validation in other populations of shoulder pain patients should confirm whether statistically derived models indeed perform better compared to models based on clinical expertise.</p