Forefoot pathology in rheumatoid arthritis identified with ultrasound may not localise to areas of highest pressure: cohort observations at baseline and twelve months

BackgroundPlantar pressures are commonly used as clinical measures, especially to determine optimum foot orthotic design. In rheumatoid arthritis (RA) high plantar foot pressures have been linked to metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint radiological erosion scores. However, the sensitivity of foot pressure measurement to soft tissue pathology within the foot is unknown. The aim of this study was to observe plantar foot pressures and forefoot soft tissue pathology in patients who have RA.Methods A total of 114 patients with established RA (1987 ACR criteria) and 50 healthy volunteers were assessed at baseline. All RA participants returned for reassessment at twelve months. Interface foot-shoe plantar pressures were recorded using an F-Scan® system. The presence of forefoot soft tissue pathology was assessed using a DIASUS musculoskeletal ultrasound (US) system. Chi-square analyses and independent t-tests were used to determine statistical differences between baseline and twelve months. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to determine interrelationships between soft tissue pathology and foot pressures.ResultsAt baseline, RA patients had a significantly higher peak foot pressures compared to healthy participants and peak pressures were located in the medial aspect of the forefoot in both groups. In contrast, RA participants had US detectable soft tissue pathology in the lateral aspect of the forefoot. Analysis of person specific data suggests that there are considerable variations over time with more than half the RA cohort having unstable presence of US detectable forefoot soft tissue pathology. Findings also indicated that, over time, changes in US detectable soft tissue pathology are out of phase with changes in foot-shoe interface pressures both temporally and spatially.Conclusions We found that US detectable forefoot soft tissue pathology may be unrelated to peak forefoot pressures and suggest that patients with RA may biomechanically adapt to soft tissue forefoot pathology. In addition, we have observed that, in patients with RA, interface foot-shoe pressures and the presence of US detectable forefoot pathology may vary substantially over time. This has implications for clinical strategies that aim to offload peak plantar pressures

We should not forget the foot: relations between signs and symptoms, damage, and function in rheumatoid arthritis

We studied rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with foot complaints to address the associations between clinical signs and symptoms, radiographic changes, and function in connection with disease duration. Secondly, we describe the contribution of several foot segments to the clinical presentation and function. In 30 RA patients with complaints of their feet, attributed to either signs of arthritis and/or radiographic damage, we compared radiographic, ultrasound, clinical, and functional parameters of the feet and ankle. Pain and swelling of the ankle were correlated weakly but statistically significantly with limitation and disability (0.273 to 0.293) as measured on the 5-Foot Function Index (FFI). The clinical signs of the forefoot joints did not influence any of the functional outcome measures. Radiographic scores for both forefeet (SvdH) and hindfeet (Larsen) were correlated with the total Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ DI) and the 5-FFI limitation subscale. Pain and disease duration, more than radiographic damage, influence the total HAQ DI significantly. With the progression of time, structural damage and function of the rheumatic foot worsen in RA patients. Pain and swelling of the ankle contribute more to disability than radiographic damage of the foot and ankle

Methods for specifying the target difference in a randomised controlled trial : the Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA) systematic review

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Who Is at Risk for Diagnostic Discrepancies? Comparison of Pre- and Postmortal Diagnoses in 1800 Patients of 3 Medical Decades in East and West Berlin

<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Autopsy rates in Western countries consistently decline to an average of <5%, although clinical autopsies represent a reasonable tool for quality control in hospitals, medically and economically. Comparing pre- and postmortal diagnoses, diagnostic discrepancies as uncovered by clinical autopsies supply crucial information on how to improve clinical treatment. The study aimed at analyzing current diagnostic discrepancy rates, investigating their influencing factors and identifying risk profiles of patients that could be affected by a diagnostic discrepancy.</p> <h3>Methods and Findings</h3><p>Of all adult autopsy cases of the Charité Institute of Pathology from the years 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003 and 2008, the pre- and postmortal diagnoses and all demographic data were analyzed retrospectively. Based on power analysis, 1,800 cases were randomly selected to perform discrepancy classification (class I-VI) according to modified Goldman criteria. The rate of discrepancies in major diagnoses (class I) was 10.7% (95% CI: 7.7%–14.7%) in 2008 representing a reduction by 15.1%. Subgroup analysis revealed several influencing factors to significantly correlate with the discrepancy rate. Cardiovascular diseases had the highest frequency among class-I-discrepancies. Comparing the 1988-data of East- and West-Berlin, no significant differences were found in diagnostic discrepancies despite an autopsy rate differing by nearly 50%. A risk profile analysis visualized by intuitive heatmaps revealed a significantly high discrepancy rate in patients treated in low or intermediate care units at community hospitals. In this collective, patients with genitourinary/renal or infectious diseases were at particularly high risk.</p> <h3>Conclusions</h3><p>This is the current largest and most comprehensive study on diagnostic discrepancies worldwide. Our well-powered analysis revealed a significant rate of class-I-discrepancies indicating that autopsies are still of value. The identified risk profiles may aid both pathologists and clinicians to identify patients at increased risk for a discrepant diagnosis and possibly suboptimal treatment intra vitam.</p> </div

Non-pharmacological care for patients with generalized osteoarthritis: design of a randomized clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-pharmacological treatment (NPT) is a useful treatment option in the management of hip or knee osteoarthritis. To our knowledge however, no studies have investigated the effect of NPT in patients with generalized osteoarthritis (GOA). The primary aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of two currently existing health care programs with different intensity and mode of delivery on daily functioning in patients with GOA. The secondary objective is to compare the cost-effectiveness of both interventions.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>In this randomized, single blind, clinical trial with active controls, we aim to include 170 patients with GOA. The experimental intervention consist of six self-management group sessions provided by a multi-disciplinary team (occupational therapist, physiotherapist, dietician and specialized nurse). The active control group consists of two group sessions and four sessions by telephone, provided by a specialized nurse and physiotherapist. Both therapies last six weeks. Main study outcome is daily functioning during the first year after the treatment, assessed on the Health Assessment Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are health related quality of life, specific complaints, fatigue, and costs. Illness cognitions, global perceived effect and self-efficacy, will also be assessed for a responder analysis. Outcome assessments are performed directly after the intervention, after 26 weeks and after 52 weeks.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This article describes the design of a randomized, single blind, clinical trial with a one year follow up to compare the costs and effectiveness of two non-pharmacological interventions with different modes of delivery for patients with GOA.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Dutch Trial Register NTR2137</p