Validation of the Activ8 Activity Monitor for Monitoring Postures, Motions, Transfers, and Steps of Hospitalized Patients

Sedentary behaviors and low physical activity among hospitalized patients have detrimental effects on health and recovery. Wearable activity monitors are a promising tool to promote mobilization and physical activity. However, existing devices have limitations in terms of their outcomes and validity. The Activ8 device was optimized for the hospital setting. This study assessed the concurrent validity of the modified Activ8. Hospital patients performed an activity protocol that included basic (e.g., walking) and functional activities (e.g., room activities), with video recordings serving as the criterion method. The assessed outcomes were time spent walking, standing, upright, sedentary, and newly added elements of steps and transfers. Absolute and relative time differences were calculated, and Wilcoxon and Bland–Altman analyses were conducted. Overall, the observed relative time differences were lower than 2.9% for the basic protocol and 9.6% for the functional protocol. Statistically significant differences were detected in specific categories, including basic standing (p &lt; 0.05), upright time (p &lt; 0.01), and sedentary time (p &lt; 0.01), but they did not exceed the predetermined 10% acceptable threshold. The modified Activ8 device is a valid tool for assessing body postures, motions, steps, and transfer counts in hospitalized patients. This study highlights the potential of wearable activity monitors to accurately monitor and promote PA among hospital patients.</p

Validation of the Activ8 Activity Monitor for Monitoring Postures, Motions, Transfers, and Steps of Hospitalized Patients

Sedentary behaviors and low physical activity among hospitalized patients have detrimental effects on health and recovery. Wearable activity monitors are a promising tool to promote mobilization and physical activity. However, existing devices have limitations in terms of their outcomes and validity. The Activ8 device was optimized for the hospital setting. This study assessed the concurrent validity of the modified Activ8. Hospital patients performed an activity protocol that included basic (e.g., walking) and functional activities (e.g., room activities), with video recordings serving as the criterion method. The assessed outcomes were time spent walking, standing, upright, sedentary, and newly added elements of steps and transfers. Absolute and relative time differences were calculated, and Wilcoxon and Bland–Altman analyses were conducted. Overall, the observed relative time differences were lower than 2.9% for the basic protocol and 9.6% for the functional protocol. Statistically significant differences were detected in specific categories, including basic standing (p &lt; 0.05), upright time (p &lt; 0.01), and sedentary time (p &lt; 0.01), but they did not exceed the predetermined 10% acceptable threshold. The modified Activ8 device is a valid tool for assessing body postures, motions, steps, and transfer counts in hospitalized patients. This study highlights the potential of wearable activity monitors to accurately monitor and promote PA among hospital patients.</p

The dutch version of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score:A validation study

Background: The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was constructed in Sweden. This questionnaire has proved to be valid for several orthopedic interventions of the knee. It has been formally translated and validated in several languages, but not yet in Dutch. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the clinimetric properties of the Dutch version of the KOOS questionnaire in knee patients with various stages of osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: The Swedish version of the KOOS questionnaire was first translated into Dutch according to a standardized procedure and second tested for clinimetric quality. The study population consisted of patients with different stages of OA (mild, moderate and severe) and of patients after primary TKA, and after a revision of the TKA. All patients filled in the Dutch KOOS questionnaire, as well as the SF-36 and a Visual Analogue Scale for pain. The following analyses were performed to evaluate the clinimetric quality of the KOOS: Cronbach's alpha (internal consistency), principal component analyses (factor analysis), intraclass correlation coefficients (reliability), spearman's correlation coefficient (construct validity), and floor and ceiling effects. Results: For all patients groups Cronbach's alpha was for all subscales above 0.70. The ICCs, assessed for the patient groups with mild and moderate OA and after revision of the TKA patients, were above 0.70 for all subscales. Of the predefined hypotheses 60% or more could be confirmed for the patients with mild and moderate OA and for the TKA patients. For the other patient groups less than 45% could be confirmed. Ceiling effects were present in the mild OA group for the subscales Pain, Symptoms and ADL and for the subscale Sport/Recreation in the severe OA group. Floor effects were found for the subscales Sport/ Recreation and Qol in the severe OA and revision TKA groups.Conclusion: Based on these different clinimetric properties within the present study we conclude that the KOOS questionnaire seems to be suitable for patients with mild and moderate OA and for patients with a primary TKA. The Dutch version of the KOOS had a lower construct validity for patients with severe OA on a waiting list for TKA and patients after revision of a TKA. Further validation studies on the Dutch version of the KOOS should also include a knee specific questionnaire for assessing the construct validity.</p

The dutch version of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score:A validation study

Background: The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was constructed in Sweden. This questionnaire has proved to be valid for several orthopedic interventions of the knee. It has been formally translated and validated in several languages, but not yet in Dutch. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the clinimetric properties of the Dutch version of the KOOS questionnaire in knee patients with various stages of osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: The Swedish version of the KOOS questionnaire was first translated into Dutch according to a standardized procedure and second tested for clinimetric quality. The study population consisted of patients with different stages of OA (mild, moderate and severe) and of patients after primary TKA, and after a revision of the TKA. All patients filled in the Dutch KOOS questionnaire, as well as the SF-36 and a Visual Analogue Scale for pain. The following analyses were performed to evaluate the clinimetric quality of the KOOS: Cronbach's alpha (internal consistency), principal component analyses (factor analysis), intraclass correlation coefficients (reliability), spearman's correlation coefficient (construct validity), and floor and ceiling effects. Results: For all patients groups Cronbach's alpha was for all subscales above 0.70. The ICCs, assessed for the patient groups with mild and moderate OA and after revision of the TKA patients, were above 0.70 for all subscales. Of the predefined hypotheses 60% or more could be confirmed for the patients with mild and moderate OA and for the TKA patients. For the other patient groups less than 45% could be confirmed. Ceiling effects were present in the mild OA group for the subscales Pain, Symptoms and ADL and for the subscale Sport/Recreation in the severe OA group. Floor effects were found for the subscales Sport/ Recreation and Qol in the severe OA and revision TKA groups.Conclusion: Based on these different clinimetric properties within the present study we conclude that the KOOS questionnaire seems to be suitable for patients with mild and moderate OA and for patients with a primary TKA. The Dutch version of the KOOS had a lower construct validity for patients with severe OA on a waiting list for TKA and patients after revision of a TKA. Further validation studies on the Dutch version of the KOOS should also include a knee specific questionnaire for assessing the construct validity.</p

Socioeconomic inequalities in patient-reported outcome measures of Dutch primary hip and knee arthroplasty patients for osteoarthritis

Objective:To study socio-economic inequalities in patient-reported outcomes in primary hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) patients for osteoarthritis, using two analytical techniques. Methods: We obtained data from 44,732 THA and 30,756 TKA patients with preoperative and 12-month follow-up PROMs between 2014 and 2020 from the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry. A deprivation indicator based on neighborhood income, unemployment rate, and education level was linked and categorized into quintiles. The primary outcome measures were the EQ-5D-3L index and Oxford Hip/Knee Score (OHS/OKS) preoperative, at 12-month follow-up, and the calculated change score between these measurements. We contrasted the most and least deprived quintiles using multivariable linear regression, adjusting for patient characteristics. Concurrently, we calculated concentration indices as a non-arbitrary tool to quantify inequalities. Results: Compared to the least deprived, the most deprived THA patients had poorer preoperative (EQ-5D −0.03 (95%CI −0.02, -0.04), OHS −1.26 (−0.99, −1.52)) and 12-month follow-up health (EQ-5D −0.02 (−0.01, −0.02), OHS −0.42 (−0.19, −0.65)), yet higher mean change (EQ-5D 0.02 (0.01, 0.03), OHS 0.84 (0.52, 1.16)). The most deprived TKA patients had similar results. The higher mean change among the deprived resulted from lower preoperative health in this group (confounding). After accounting for this, the most deprived patients had a lower mean change. The concentration indices showed similar inequality effects and provided information on the magnitude of inequalities over the entire socio-economic range. Conclusion: The most deprived THA and TKA patients have worse preoperative health, which persisted after surgery. The concentration indices allow comparison of inequalities across different outcomes (e.g., revision risk).</p

Do physical tests have a prognostic value in chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy?

Objectives: To determine whether baseline physical tests have a prognostic value on patient-reported outcomes in Achilles tendinopathy. Design: Prospective cohort study, secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial. Methods: Patients with chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy performed a progressive calf muscle exercise program. At baseline and after 2, 6, 12 and 24 weeks, patients completed the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment—Achilles questionnaire and performed the following physical tests: ankle dorsiflexion range of motion with a bent knee or an extended knee, calf muscle strength, jumping height and pain on palpation (Visual Analogue Scale; 0–100) and after 10 hops (Visual Analogue Scale-10-hops). Associations between baseline test results and improvement (Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment—Achilles scores) were determined using a Mixed Linear Model. Results: 80 patients were included. The mean Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment—Achilles score improved 20 points (95 % confidence interval, 16–25, P &lt; .001) after 24 weeks. There were significant associations between the baseline ankle dorsiflexion range of motion with a bent knee (β 0.2, 95 % confidence interval 0.001 to 0.3, P = .049), the baseline pain provocation tests (Visual Analogue Scale palpation: β − 0.2; 95 % confidence interval: − 0.4 to − 0.1; P &lt; .001, Visual Analogue Scale-10-hops: β − 0.3; 95 % confidence interval: − 0.4 to − 0.2; P &lt; .001) and the change in the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment—Achilles score. Conclusions: In patients with chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy, easy-to-perform pain provocation tests have a clinically relevant prognostic value on patient-reported improvement. Patients with less pain during pain provocation tests at baseline have a better improvement in pain, function and activities after 24 weeks than patients with high baseline pain scores.</p

The CAST study protocol:A cluster randomized trial assessing the effect of circumferential casting versus plaster splinting on fracture redisplacement in reduced distal radius fractures in adults

Background There is no consensus concerning the optimal casting technique for displaced distal radius fractures (DRFs) following closed reduction. This study evaluates whether a splint or a circumferential cast is most optimal to prevent fracture redisplacement in adult patients with a reduced DRF. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of both cast types will be calculated. Methods/design This multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial will compare initial immobilization with a circumferential below-elbow cast versus a below-elbow plaster splint in reduced DRFs. Randomization will take place on hospital-level (cluster, n = 10) with a cross-over point halfway the inclusion of the needed number of patients per hospital. Inclusion criteria comprise adult patients (≥ 18 years) with a primary displaced DRF which is treated conservatively after closed reduction. Multiple trauma patients (Injury Severity Score ≥ 16), concomitant ulnar fractures (except styloid process fractures) and patients with concomitant injury on the ipsilateral arm or inability to complete study forms will be excluded. Primary study outcome is fracture redisplacement of the initial reduced DRF. Secondary outcomes are patient-reported outcomes assessed with the Disability Arm Shoulder Hand score (DASH) and Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score (PRWE), comfort of the cast, quality of life assessed with the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, analgesics use, cost-effectiveness and (serious) adverse events occurence. In total, 560 patients will be included and followed for 1 year. The estimated time required for inclusion will be 18 months. Discussion The CAST study will provide evidence whether the type of cast immobilization is of influence on fracture redisplacement in distal radius fractures. Extensive follow-up during one year concerning radiographic, functional and patient reported outcomes will give a broad view on DRF recovery. Trial registration Registered in the Dutch Trial Registry on January 14th 2020. Registration number: NL8311

Cohort profile: the Utrecht Cardiovascular Cohort-Second Manifestations of Arterial Disease (UCC-SMART) Study-an ongoing prospective cohort study of patients at high cardiovascular risk in the Netherlands

Purpose The Utrecht Cardiovascular Cohort-Second Manifestations of Arterial Disease (UCC-SMART) Study is an ongoing prospective single-centre cohort study with the aim to assess important determinants and the prognosis of cardiovascular disease progression. This article provides an update of the rationale, design, included patients, measurements and findings from the start in 1996 to date. Participants The UCC-SMART Study includes patients aged 18-90 years referred to the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, for management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or severe cardiovascular risk factors. Since September 1996, a total of 14 830 patients have been included. Upon inclusion, patients undergo a standardised screening programme, including questionnaires, vital signs, laboratory measurements, an ECG, vascular ultrasound of carotid arteries and aorta, ankle-brachial index and ultrasound measurements of adipose tissue, kidney size and intima-media thickness. Outcomes of interest are collected through annual questionnaires and adjudicated by an endpoint committee. Findings to date By May 2022, the included patients contributed to a total follow-up time of over 134 000 person-years. During follow-up, 2259 patients suffered a vascular endpoint (including non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and vascular death) and 2794 all-cause deaths, 943 incident cases of diabetes and 2139 incident cases of cancer were observed up until January 2020. The UCC-SMART cohort contributed to over 350 articles published in peer-reviewed journals, including prediction models recommended by the 2021 European Society of Cardiology CVD prevention guidelines. Future plans The UCC-SMART Study guarantees an infrastructure for research in patients at high cardiovascular risk. The cohort will continue to include about 600 patients yearly and follow-up will be ongoing to ensure an up-to-date cohort in accordance with current healthcare and scientific knowledge. In the near future, UCC-SMART will be enriched by echocardiography, and a food frequency questionnaire at baseline enabling the assessment of associations between nutrition and CVD and diabetes