A questionnaire to identify patellofemoral pain in the community: an exploration of measurement properties

Background Community-based studies of patellofemoral pain (PFP) need a questionnaire tool that discriminates between those with and those without the condition. To overcome these issues, we have designed a self-report questionnaire which aims to identify people with PFP in the community. Methods Study designs: comparative study and cross-sectional study. Study population: comparative study: PFP patients, soft-tissue injury patients and adults without knee problems. Cross-sectional study: adults attending a science festival. Intervention: comparative study participants completed the questionnaire at baseline and two weeks later. Cross-sectional study participants completed the questionnaire once. The optimal scoring system and threshold was explored using receiver operating characteristic curves, test-retest reliability using Cohen’s kappa and measurement error using Bland-Altman plots and standard error of measurement. Known-group validity was explored by comparing PFP prevalence between genders and age groups. Results Eighty-four participants were recruited to the comparative study. The receiver operating characteristic curves suggested limiting the questionnaire to the clinical features and knee pain map sections (AUC 0.97 95 % CI 0.94 to 1.00). This combination had high sensitivity and specificity (over 90 %). Measurement error was less than the mean difference between the groups. Test–retest reliability estimates suggest good agreement (N = 51, k = 0.74, 95 % CI 0.52–0.91). The cross-sectional study (N = 110) showed expected differences between genders and age groups but these were not statistically significant. Conclusion A shortened version of the questionnaire, based on clinical features and a knee pain map, has good measurement properties. Further work is needed to validate the questionnaire in community samples

Hip fracture evaluation with alternatives of total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty (HEALTH): protocol for a multicentre randomised trial

Introduction: Hip fractures are a leading cause of mortality and disability worldwide, and the number of hip fractures is expected to rise to over 6 million per year by 2050. The optimal approach for the surgical management of displaced femoral neck fractures remains unknown. Current evidence suggests the use of arthroplasty; however, there is lack of evidence regarding whether patients with displaced femoral neck fractures experience better outcomes with total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA). The HEALTH trial compares outcomes following THA versus HA in patients 50 years of age or older with displaced femoral neck fractures. Methods and analysis: HEALTH is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial where 1434 patients, 50 years of age or older, with displaced femoral neck fractures from international sites are randomised to receive either THA or HA. Exclusion criteria include associated major injuries of the lower extremity, hip infection(s) and a history of frank dementia. The primary outcome is unplanned secondary procedures and the secondary outcomes include functional outcomes, patient quality of life, mortality and hiprelated complications—both within 2 years of the initial surgery. We are using minimisation to ensure balance between intervention groups for the following factors: age, prefracture living, prefracture functional status, American Society for Anesthesiologists (ASA) Class and centre number. Data analysts and the HEALTH Steering Committee are blinded to the surgical allocation throughout the trial. Outcome analysis will be performed using a χ2 test (or Fisher’s exact test) and Cox proportional hazards modelling estimate. All results will be presented with 95% CIs. Ethics and dissemination: The HEALTH trial has received local and McMaster University Research Ethics Board (REB) approval (REB#: 06-151). Results: Outcomes from the primary manuscript will be disseminated through publications in academic journals and presentations at relevant orthopaedic conferences. We will communicate trial results to all participating sites. Participating sites will communicate results with patients who have indicated an interest in knowing the results. Trial registration number: The HEALTH trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00556842)

Early intervention for adolescents with Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome - a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Self-reported knee pain is highly prevalent among adolescents. As much as 50% of the non-specific knee pain may be attributed to Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome (PFPS). In the short term, exercise therapy appears to have a better effect than patient education consisting of written information and general advice on exercise or compared with placebo treatment. But the long-term effect of exercise therapy compared with patient education is conflicting. The purpose of this study is to examine the short- and long-term effectiveness of patient education compared with patient education and multimodal physiotherapy applied at a very early stage of the condition among adolescents.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This study is a single blind pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. Four upper secondary schools have been invited to participate in the study (approximately 2500 students, aged 15-19 years). Students are asked to answer an online questionnaire regarding musculoskeletal pain. The students who report knee pain are contacted by telephone and offered a clinical examination by a rheumatologist. Subjects who fit the inclusion criteria and are diagnosed with PFPS are invited to participate in the study. A minimum of 102 students with PFPS are then cluster-randomised into two intervention groups based on which school they attend. Both intervention groups receive written information and education. In addition to patient education, one group receives multimodal physiotherapy consisting primarily of neuromuscular training of the muscles around the foot, knee and hip and home exercises.</p> <p>The students with PFPS fill out self-reported questionnaires at baseline, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after inclusion in the study. The primary outcome measure is perception of recovery measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "completely recovered" to "worse than ever" at 12 months.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study is designed to investigate the effectiveness of patient education compared with patient education combined with multimodal physiotherapy. If patient education and multimodal physiotherapy applied at an early stage of Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome proves effective, it may serve as a basis for optimising the clinical pathway for those suffering from the condition, where specific emphasis can be placed on early diagnosis and early treatment.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>clinicaltrials.gov reference: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01438762">NCT01438762</a></p

Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random-effects model meta-analyses

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is increasing awareness that meta-analyses require a sufficiently large information size to detect or reject an anticipated intervention effect. The required information size in a meta-analysis may be calculated from an anticipated <it>a priori </it>intervention effect or from an intervention effect suggested by trials with low-risk of bias.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Information size calculations need to consider the total model variance in a meta-analysis to control type I and type II errors. Here, we derive an adjusting factor for the required information size under any random-effects model meta-analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We devise a measure of diversity (<it>D</it>²) in a meta-analysis, which is the relative variance reduction when the meta-analysis model is changed from a random-effects into a fixed-effect model. <it>D</it>²is the percentage that the between-trial variability constitutes of the sum of the between-trial variability and a sampling error estimate considering the required information size. <it>D</it>²is different from the intuitively obvious adjusting factor based on the common quantification of heterogeneity, the inconsistency (<it>I</it>²), which may underestimate the required information size. Thus, <it>D</it>²and <it>I</it>²are compared and interpreted using several simulations and clinical examples. In addition we show mathematically that diversity is equal to or greater than inconsistency, that is <it>D</it>²≥ <it>I</it>², for all meta-analyses.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We conclude that <it>D</it>²seems a better alternative than <it>I</it>²to consider model variation in any random-effects meta-analysis despite the choice of the between trial variance estimator that constitutes the model. Furthermore, <it>D</it>²can readily adjust the required information size in any random-effects model meta-analysis.</p

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the 10(th )of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the literature on integrating values and consumers in guideline development. METHODS: We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We reviewed the titles of all citations and retrieved abstracts and full text articles if the citations appeared relevant to the topic. We checked the reference lists of articles relevant to the questions and used snowballing as a technique to obtain additional information. We did not conduct a full systematic review ourselves. Our conclusions based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: We did not find a systematic review of methods for integrating values in guidelines, but we found several systematic reviews that dealt with related topics. Whose values should WHO use when making recommendations? • Values, the relative importance or worth of a state or consequences of a decision (outcomes relating to benefits, harms, burden and costs), play a role in every recommendation. Ethical considerations, concepts that determine what is right, also play a role. • The values used in making recommendations should reflect those of the people affected. Judgements should be explicit and should be informed by input from those affected (including citizens, patients, clinicians and policy makers). • When differences in values may lead to different decisions or there is uncertainty about values, this should also be explicit. If differences in values are likely to affect a decision, such that people in different setting would likely make different choices about interventions or actions based on differences in their values, global recommendations should be explicit in terms of which values were applied and allow for adaptation after incorporating local values. How should WHO ensure that appropriate values are integrated in recommendations? • All WHO guideline groups should uniformly apply explicit, transparent and clearly described methods for integrating values. • WHO should consider involving relevant stakeholders if this is feasible and efficient. • WHO should develop a checklist for guidelines panels to help them to ensure that ethical considerations relevant to recommendations are addressed explicitly and transparently. How should users and consumers be involved in generating recommendations? • Including consumers in groups that are making global recommendations presents major challenges with respect to the impossibility of including a representative spectrum of consumers from a variety of cultures and settings. Nonetheless, consideration should be given to including consumers in groups who are able to challenge assumptions that are made about the values used for making recommendations, rather than represent the values of consumers around the world. • WHO should establish a network to facilitate involvement of users. • Draft recommendations should be reviewed by consumers, who should be asked explicitly to consider the values that were used. How should values be presented in recommendations? • Recommendations should include a description of how decisions were made about the relative importance of the consequences (benefits, harms and costs) of a decision. • Values that influence recommendations should be reported along with the research evidence underlying recommendations. • When differences in values would lead to different decisions or there is important uncertainty about values that are critical to a decision, this should be flagged and reflected in the strength of the recommendation. • Adaptable guideline templates that allow for integration of different values should be developed and used when differences in values are likely to be critical to a decision

How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol

Background Clinical practice guidelines are largely conceived as tools that will inform health professionals' decisions rather than foster patient involvement in decision making. The time now seems right to adapt clinical practice guidelines in such a way that both the professional's perspective as care provider and the patients' preferences and characteristics are being weighed equally in the decision-making process. We hypothesise that clinical practice guidelines can be adapted to facilitate the integration of individual patients' preferences in clinical decision making. This research protocol asks two questions: How should clinical practice guidelines be adapted to elicit patient preferences and to support shared decision making? What type of clinical decisions are perceived as most requiring consideration of individual patients' preferences rather than promoting a single best choice? Methods Stakeholders' opinions and ideas will be explored through an 18-month qualitative study. Data will be collected from in-depth individual interviews. A purposive sample of 20 to 25 key-informants will be selected among three groups of stakeholders: health professionals using guidelines (e.g., physicians, nurses); experts at the macro- and meso-level, including guideline and decision aids developers, policy makers, and researchers; and patient representatives. Ideas and recommendations expressed by stakeholders will be prioritized by nominal group technique in expert meetings. Discussion One-for-all guidelines do not account for differences in patients' characteristics and for their preferences for medical interventions and health outcomes, suggesting a need for flexible guidelines that facilitate patient involvement in clinical decision making. The question is how this can be achieved. This study is not about patient participation in guideline development, a closely related and important issue that does not however substitute for, or guarantee individual patient involvement in clinical decisions. The study results will provide the needed background for recommendations about potential effective and feasible strategies to ensure greater responsiveness of clinical practice guidelines to individual patient's preferences in clinical decision-making

All-arthroscopic versus mini-open repair of small or moderate-sized rotator cuff tears: A protocol for a randomized trial [NCT00128076]

BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff tears are the most common source of shoulder pain and disability. Only poor quality studies have compared mini-open to arthroscopic repair, leaving surgeons with inadequate evidence to support optimal, minimally-invasive repair. METHODS/DESIGN: This randomized, multi-centre, national trial will determine whether an arthroscopic or mini-open repair provides better quality of life for patients with small or moderate-sized rotator cuff tears. A national consensus meeting of investigators in the Joint Orthopaedic Initiative for National Trials of the Shoulder (JOINTS Canada) identified this question as the top priority for shoulder surgeons across Canada. The primary outcome measure is a valid quality-of-life scale (Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC)) that addresses 5 domains of health affected by rotator cuff disease. Secondary outcomes will assess rotator cuff functionality (ROM, strength, Constant score), secondary dimensions of health (general health status (SF-12) and work limitations), and repair integrity (MRI). Outcomes are measured at baseline, at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-operatively by blinded research assistants and musculoskeletal radiologists. Patients (n = 250) with small or medium-sized cuff tears identified by clinical examination and MRI who meet eligibility criteria will be recruited. This sample size will provide 80% power to statistically detect a clinically important difference of 20% in WORC scores between procedures after controlling for baseline WORC score (α = 0.05). A central methods centre will manage randomization, data management, and monitoring under supervision of experienced epidemiologists. Surgeons will participate in either conventional or expertise-based designs according to defined criteria to avoid biases from differential surgeon expertise. Mini-open or all-arthroscopic repair procedures will be performed according to a standardized protocol. Central Adjudication (of cases), Trial Oversight and Safety Committees will monitor trial conduct. We will use an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the baseline WORC score is used as a covariate, to compare the quality of life (WORC score) at 2 years post-operatively. As a secondary analysis, we will conduct the same statistical test but will include age and tear size as covariates with the baseline score. Enrollment will require 2 years and follow-up an additional 2 years. The trial will commence when funding is in place. DISCUSSION: These results will have immediate impact on the practice behaviors of practicing surgeons and surgical trainees at JOINTS centres across Canada. JOINTS Canada is actively engaged in knowledge exchange and will publish and present findings internationally to facilitate wider application. This trial will establish definitive evidence on this question at an international level