Diagnostic labelling as determinant of antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract episodes in general practice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Next to other GP characteristics, diagnostic labelling (the proportion of acute respiratory tract (RT) episodes to be labelled as infections) probably contributes to a higher volume of antibiotic prescriptions for acute RT episodes. However, it is unknown whether there is an independent association between diagnostic labelling and the volume of prescribed antibiotics, or whether diagnostic labelling is associated with the number of presented acute RT episodes and consequently with the number of antibiotics prescribed per patient per year.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were used from the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice (DNSGP-2) with 163 GPs from 85 Dutch practices, serving a population of 359,625 patients. Data over a 12 month period were analysed by means of multiple linear regression analysis. Main outcome measure was the volume of antibiotic prescriptions for acute RT episodes per 1,000 patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The incidence was 236.9 acute RT episodes/1,000 patients. GPs labelled about 70% of acute RT episodes as infections, and antibiotics were prescribed in 41% of all acute RT episodes. A higher incidence of acute RT episodes (beta 0.67), a stronger inclination to label episodes as infections (beta 0.24), a stronger endorsement of the need of antibiotics in case of white spots in the throat (beta 0.11) and being male (beta 0.11) were independent determinants of the prescribed volume of antibiotics for acute RT episodes, whereas diagnostic labelling was not correlated with the incidence of acute RT episodes.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Diagnostic labelling is a relevant factor in GPs' antibiotic prescribing independent from the incidence of acute RT episodes. Therefore, quality assurance programs and postgraduate courses should emphasise to use evidence based prognostic criteria (e.g. chronic respiratory co-morbidity and old age) as an indication to prescribe antibiotics in stead of single inflammation signs or diagnostic labels.</p

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

Evaluation of the measurement properties of the Manchester foot pain and disability index

BACKGROUND: The Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index (MFPDI, 19 items) was developed to measure functional limitations, pain and appearance for patients with foot pain and is frequently used in both observational studies and randomised controlled trials. A Dutch version of the MFPDI was developed. The aims of this study were to evaluate all the measurement properties for the Dutch version of the MFPDI and to evaluate comparability to the original version. METHOD: The MFPDI was translated into Dutch using a forward/backward translation process. The dimensionality was evaluated using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Measurement properties were evaluated per subscale according to the COSMIN taxonomy consisting of: reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability and measurement error), validity (structural validity, content validity and cross-cultural validity comparing the Dutch version to the English version) responsiveness and interpretation. RESULTS: The questionnaire consists of three scales, measuring foot function, foot pain and perception. The reliability of the foot function scale is acceptable (Cronbach’s α > 0.7, ICC = 0.7, SEM = 2.2 on 0-18 scale). The construct validity of the function and pain scale was confirmed and only the pain scale contains one item with differential item functioning (DIF). The responsiveness of the function and pain scale is moderate when compared to anchor questions. CONCLUSION: Results using the Dutch MFPDI version can be compared to results using the original version. The foot function sub-scale (items 1-9) is a reliable and valid sub-scale. This study indicates that the use of the MFPDI as a longitudinal instrument might be problematic for measuring change in musculoskeletal foot pain due to moderate responsiveness

Generation of subject-specific, dynamic, multisegment ankle and foot models to improve orthotic design: a feasibility study

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Currently, custom foot and ankle orthosis prescription and design tend to be based on traditional techniques, which can result in devices which vary greatly between clinicians and repeat prescription. The use of computational models of the foot may give further insight in the biomechanical effects of these devices and allow a more standardised approach to be taken to their design, however due to the complexity of the foot the models must be highly detailed and dynamic. METHODS: Functional and anatomical datasets will be collected in a multicentre study from 10 healthy participants and 15 patients requiring orthotic devices. The patient group will include individuals with metarsalgia, flexible flat foot and drop foot. Each participant will undergo a clinical foot function assessment, 3D surface scans of the foot under different loading conditions, and detailed gait analysis including kinematic, kinetic, muscle activity and plantar pressure measurements in both barefoot and shod conditions. Following this each participant will undergo computed tomography (CT) imaging of their foot and ankle under a range of loads and positions while plantar pressures are recorded. A further subgroup of participants will undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the foot and ankle. Imaging data will be segmented to derive the size of bones and orientation of the joint axes. Insertion points of muscles and ligaments will be determined from the MRI and CT-scans and soft tissue material properties computed from the loaded CT data in combination with the plantar pressure measurements. Gait analysis data will be used to drive the models and in combination with the 3D surface scans for scaling purposes. Predicted plantar pressures and muscle activation patterns predicted from the models will be compared to determine the validity of the models. DISCUSSION: This protocol will lead to the generation of unique datasets which will be used to develop linked inverse dynamic and forward dynamic biomechanical foot models. These models may be beneficial in predicting the effect of and thus improving the efficacy of orthotic devices for the foot and ankle

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