Determinants of the clinical course of musculoskeletal complaints in general practice: design of a cohort study

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal complaints are frequent and have large consequences for public health. Information about the prognosis after presentation in general practice is far from complete. Knowledge about determinants of the clinical course of musculoskeletal complaints is essential for management decisions and to inform patients about their prognosis. The purpose of this study is to provide information about the prognosis of musculoskeletal complaints other than low back pain by studying the course of these complaints in general practice and to identify determinants of this course. METHODS: Patients of 18 years and older, who present in general practice with a new episode of a musculoskeletal complaint of the neck, shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand, arm, hip, knee, ankle or foot, are recruited by their general practitioner (GP). Participants will receive complaint-specific questionnaires by mail at baseline and after 3, 6, 12 and 18 months. The following putative determinants of the course of the complaints will be investigated: sociodemographic characteristics, characteristics of the complaint, psychosocial job characteristics, physical workload, physical activity during leisure time, pain coping, mood, kinesiophobia, social support, optimism. The primary outcomes are perceived recovery, pain, functional status, sick leave and overall quality of life

Reproducibility of the STARD checklist: an instrument to assess the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies

BACKGROUND: In January 2003, STAndards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) were published in a number of journals, to improve the quality of reporting in diagnostic accuracy studies. We designed a study to investigate the inter-assessment reproducibility, and intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of the items in the STARD statement. METHODS: Thirty-two diagnostic accuracy studies published in 2000 in medical journals with an impact factor of at least 4 were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of reporting of these studies using the 25 items of the STARD statement. A consensus evaluation was obtained by discussing and resolving disagreements between reviewers. Almost two years later, the same studies were evaluated by the same reviewers. For each item, percentages agreement and Cohen's kappa between first and second consensus assessments (inter-assessment) were calculated. Intraclass Correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to evaluate its reliability. RESULTS: The overall inter-assessment agreement for all items of the STARD statement was 85% (Cohen's kappa 0.70) and varied from 63% to 100% for individual items. The largest differences between the two assessments were found for the reporting of the rationale of the reference standard (kappa 0.37), number of included participants that underwent tests (kappa 0.28), distribution of the severity of the disease (kappa 0.23), a cross tabulation of the results of the index test by the results of the reference standard (kappa 0.33) and how indeterminate results, missing data and outliers were handled (kappa 0.25). Within and between reviewers, also large differences were observed for these items. The inter-assessment reliability of the STARD checklist was satisfactory (ICC = 0.79 [95% CI: 0.62 to 0.89]). CONCLUSION: Although the overall reproducibility of the quality of reporting on diagnostic accuracy studies using the STARD statement was found to be good, substantial disagreements were found for specific items. These disagreements were not so much caused by differences in interpretation of the items by the reviewers but rather by difficulties in assessing the reporting of these items due to lack of clarity within the articles. Including a flow diagram in all reports on diagnostic accuracy studies would be very helpful in reducing confusion between readers and among reviewers

Costs of shoulder pain in primary care consulters: a prospective cohort study in The Netherlands

BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain is common in primary care, and has an unfavourable outcome in many patients. Information on the costs associated with health care use and loss of productivity in patients with shoulder pain is very scarce. The objective of this study was to determine shoulder pain related costs during the 6 months after first consultation in general practice METHODS: A prospective cohort study consisting of 587 patients with a new episode of shoulder pain was conducted with a follow-up period of 6 months. Data on costs were collected by means of a cost diary during 6 months. RESULTS: 84% of the patients completed all cost diaries. The mean consumption of direct health care and non-health related care was low. During 6 months after first consultation for shoulder pain, the mean total costs a patient generated were €689. Almost 50% of this total concerned indirect costs, caused by sick leave from paid work. A small proportion (12%) of the population generated 74% of the total costs. CONCLUSION: The total costs in the 6 months after first consultation for shoulder pain in primary care, mostly generated by a small part of the population, are not alarmingly high

The search for stable prognostic models in multiple imputed data sets

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In prognostic studies model instability and missing data can be troubling factors. Proposed methods for handling these situations are bootstrapping (B) and Multiple imputation (MI). The authors examined the influence of these methods on model composition.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Models were constructed using a cohort of 587 patients consulting between January 2001 and January 2003 with a shoulder problem in general practice in the Netherlands (the Dutch Shoulder Study). Outcome measures were persistent shoulder disability and persistent shoulder pain. Potential predictors included socio-demographic variables, characteristics of the pain problem, physical activity and psychosocial factors. Model composition and performance (calibration and discrimination) were assessed for models using a complete case analysis, MI, bootstrapping or both MI and bootstrapping.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Results showed that model composition varied between models as a result of how missing data was handled and that bootstrapping provided additional information on the stability of the selected prognostic model.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In prognostic modeling missing data needs to be handled by MI and bootstrap model selection is advised in order to provide information on model stability.</p

Reproducibility and responsiveness of the Symptom Severity Scale and the hand and finger function subscale of the Dutch arthritis impact measurement scales (Dutch-AIMS2-HFF) in primary care patients with wrist or hand problems

BACKGROUND: To determine the clinimetric properties of two questionnaires assessing symptoms (Symptom Severity Scale) and physical functioning (hand and finger function subscale of the AIMS2) in a Dutch primary care population. METHODS: The first 84 participants in a 1-year follow-up study on the diagnosis and prognosis of hand and wrist problems completed the Symptom Severity Scale and the hand and finger function subscale of the Dutch-AIMS2 twice within 1 to 2 weeks. The data were used to assess test-retest reliability (ICC) and smallest detectable change (SDC, based on the standard error of measurement (SEM)). To assess responsiveness, changes in scores between baseline and the 3 month follow-up were related to an external criterion to estimate the minimal important change (MIC). We calculated the group size needed to detect the MIC beyond measurement error. RESULTS: The ICC for the Symptom Severity Scale was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.54–0.78). The SDC was 1.00 at individual level and 0.11 at group level, both on a 5-point scale. The MIC was 0.23, exceeding the SDC at group level. The group size required to detect a MIC beyond measurement error was 19 for the Symptom Severity Scale. The ICC for the hand and finger function subscale of the Dutch-AIMS2 was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.47–0.74). The SDC was 3.80 at individual level and 0.42 at group level, both on an 11-point scale. The MIC was 0.31, which was less than the SDC at group level. The group size required to detect a MIC beyond measurement error was 150. CONCLUSION: In our heterogeneous primary care population the Symptom Severity Scale was found to be a suitable instrument to assess the severity of symptoms, whereas the hand and finger function subscale of the Dutch-AIMS2 was less suitable for the measurement of physical functioning in patients with hand and wrist problems

Treatment of forefoot problems in older people: study protocol for a randomised clinical trial comparing podiatric treatment to standardised shoe advice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Foot problems in general and forefoot problems in particular can lead to a decrease in mobility and a higher risk of falling. Forefoot problems increase with age and are more common in women than in men. Around 20% of people over 65 suffer from non-traumatic foot problems and 60% of these problems are localised in the forefoot. Little is known about the best way to treat forefoot problems in older people. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of two common modes of treatment in the Netherlands: shoe advice and podiatric treatment. This paper describes the design of this study.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study is designed as a pragmatic randomised clinical trial (RCT) with 2 parallel intervention groups. People aged 50 years and over who have visited their general practitioner (GP) with non traumatic pain in the forefoot in the preceding year and those who will visit their GP during the recruitment period with a similar complaint will be recruited for this study. Participants must be able to walk unaided for 7 metres and be able to fill in questionnaires. Exclusion criteria are: rheumatoid arthritis, neuropathy of the foot or pain caused by skin problems (e.g. warts, eczema). Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be assessed by a screening questionnaire and baseline assessment. Those consenting to participation will be randomly assigned to either a group receiving a standardised shoe advice leaflet (n = 100) or a group receiving podiatric treatment (n = 100). Primary outcomes will be the severity of forefoot pain (0-10 on a numerical rating scale) and foot function (Foot Function 5-pts Index and Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index). Treatment adherence, social participation and quality of life will be the secondary outcomes. All outcomes will be obtained through self-administered questionnaires at the start of the study and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Data will be analysed according to the "intention-to-treat" principle using multilevel level analysis.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Strength of this study is the comparison between two common primary care treatments for forefoot problems, ensuring a high external validity of this trial.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): <a href="http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2212">NTR2212</a></p

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

Effectiveness of manual therapy compared to usual care by the general practitioner for chronic tension-type headache: design of a randomised clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patients with Chronic Tension Type Headache (CTTH) report functional and emotional impairments (loss of workdays, sleep disturbances, emotional well-being) and are at risk for overuse of medication. Manual therapy may improve symptoms through mobilisation of the spine, correction of posture, and training of cervical muscles.</p> <p>We present the design of a randomised clinical trial (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of manual therapy (MT) compared to usual care by the general practitioner (GP) in patients with CTTH.</p> <p>Methods and design</p> <p>Patients are eligible for participation if they present in general practice with CTTH according to the classification of the International Headache Society (IHS).</p> <p>Participants are randomised to either usual GP care according to the national Dutch general practice guidelines for headache, or manual therapy, consisting of mobilisations (high- and low velocity techniques), exercise therapy for the cervical and thoracic spine and postural correction. The primary outcome measures are the number of headache days and use of medication. Secondary outcome measures are severity of headache, functional status, sickness absence, use of other healthcare resources, active cervical range of motion, algometry, endurance of the neckflexor muscles and head posture. Follow-up assessments are conducted after 8 and 26 weeks.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This is a pragmatic trial in which interventions are offered as they are carried out in everyday practice. This increases generalisability of results, but blinding of patients, GPs and therapists is not possible.</p> <p>The results of this trial will contribute to clinical decision making of the GP regarding referral to manual therapy in patients with chronic tension headache.</p

Conducting research in individual patients: lessons learnt from two series of N-of-1 trials

BACKGROUND: Double-blind randomised N-of-1 trials (N-of-1 trials) may help with decisions concerning treatment when there is doubt regarding the effectiveness and suitability of medication for individual patients. The patient is his or her own control, and receives the experimental and the control treatment during several periods of time in random order. Reports of N-of-1 trials are still relatively scarce, and the research methodology is not as firmly established as that of RCTs. Recently, we have conducted two series of N-of-1 trials in general practice. Before, during, and after data-collection, difficulties regarding outcome assessment, analysis of the results, the withdrawal of patients, and the follow-up had to be dealt with. These difficulties are described and our solutions are discussed. DISCUSSION: To prevent or anticipate difficulties in N-of-1 trials, we argue that that it is important to individualise the outcome measures, and to carefully consider the objective, type of randomisation and the analysis. It is recommended to use the same dosages and dosage forms that the patient used before the trial, to start the trial with a run-in period, to formulate both general and individualised decision rules regarding the efficacy of treatment, to adjust treatment policies immediately after the trial, and to provide adequate instructions and support if treatment is adjusted. SUMMARY: Because of the specific characteristics of N-of-1 trials it is difficult to formulate general 'how to do it' guidelines for designing N-of-1 trials. However, when the design of each N-of-1 trial is tailored to the specific characteristics of each individual patient and the underlying medical problem, most difficulties in N-of-1 trials can be prevented or overcome. In this way, N-of-1 trials may be of help when deciding on drug treatment for individual patients

Functional outcome in older adults with joint pain and comorbidity: design of a prospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Joint pain is a highly prevalent condition in the older population. Only a minority of the older adults consult the general practitioner for joint pain, and during consultation joint pain is often poorly recognized and treated, especially when other co-existing chronic conditions are involved. Therefore, older adults with joint pain and comorbidity may have a higher risk of poor functional outcome and decreased quality of life (QoL), and possibly need more attention in primary care. The main purpose of the study is to explore functioning in older adults with joint pain and comorbidity, in terms of mobility, functional independence and participation and to identify possible predictors of poor functional outcome. The study will also identify predictors of decreased QoL. The results will be used to develop prediction models for the early identification of subgroups at high risk of poor functional outcome and decreased QoL. This may contribute to better targeting of treatment and to more effective health care in this population.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The study has been designed as a prospective cohort study, with measurements at baseline and after 6, 12 and 18 months. For the recruitment of 450 patients, 25 general practices will be approached. Patients are eligible for participation if they are 65 years or older, have at least two chronic conditions and report joint pain on most days. Data will be collected using various methods (i.e. questionnaires, physical tests, patient interviews and focus groups). We will measure different aspects of functioning (e.g. mobility, functional independence and participation) and QoL. Other measurements concern possible predictors of functioning and QoL (e.g. pain, co-existing chronic conditions, markers for frailty, physical performance, psychological factors, environmental factors and individual factors). Furthermore, health care utilization, health care needs and the meaning and impact of joint pain will be investigated from an older person's perspective.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>In this paper, we describe the protocol of a prospective cohort study in Dutch older adults with joint pain and comorbidity and discuss the potential strengths and limitations of the study.</p