In a secondary care setting, differences between neck pain subgroups classified using the Quebec task force classification system were typically small - A longitudinal study

Background: The component of the Quebec Task Force Classification System that subgroups patients based on the extent of their radiating pain and neurological signs has been demonstrated to have prognostic implications for patients with low back pain but has not been tested on patients with neck pain (NP). The main aim of this study was to examine the association between these subgroups, their baseline characteristics and outcome in chronic NP patients referred to an outpatient hospital department. Methods: This was an observational study of longitudinal data extracted from systematically collected, routine clinical data. Patients were classified into Local NP only, NP + arm pain above the elbow, NP + arm pain below the elbow, and NP with signs of nerve root involvement (NP + NRI). Outcome was pain intensity and activity limitation. Associations were tested in longitudinal linear mixed models. Results: A total of 1,852 people were classified into subgroups (64 % females, mean age 49 years). Follow ups after 3, 6 and 12 months were available for 45 %, 32 % and 40 % of those invited to participate at each time point. A small improvement in pain was observed over time in all subgroups. There was a significant interaction between subgroups and time, but effect sizes were small. The local NP subgroup improved slightly less after 3 months as compared with all other groups, but continued to have the lowest level of pain. After 6 and 12 months, those with NP + pain above the elbow had improved the least and patients with NP + NRI had experienced the largest improvements in pain intensity. Similar results were obtained for activity limitation. Conclusions: This study found baseline and outcome differences between neck pain subgroups classified using the Quebec Task Force Classification System. However, differences in outcome were typically small in size and mostly differentiated the local NP subgroup from the other subgroups. A caveat to these results is that they were obtained in a cohort of chronic neck pain patients who only displayed small improvements over time and the results may not apply to other cohorts, such as people at earlier stages of their clinical course and in other clinical settings

Clinical and cost effectiveness of surgery for morbid obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of surgery for people with morbid obesity. DESIGN: A systematic review of randomised control trials (RCTs), prospective clinical trials and economic evaluations identified from 14 electronic databases (including Medline, Cochrane library and Embase from their inception to October 2001), bibliographies and consultation with experts and manufacturers was performed to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of different surgical procedures and nonsurgical management for morbid obesity. An economic evaluation was undertaken to assess cost effectiveness in the UK. SUBJECTS: People diagnosed as morbidly obese, defined as a body mass index (BMI) (weight in kilograms/height in metres(2)) &gt;40 kg/m(2), or with a BMI&gt;35 kg/m(2) with serious comorbid disease, in whom previous nonsurgical interventions had failed. MEASUREMENTS: The outcomes assessed included weight change, quality of life, peri- and postoperative morbidity and mortality, revision rates and obesity comorbidities. Cost effectiveness was modelled from these data and presented as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: Included studies differed in methodological quality. Surgery resulted in a significantly greater loss of weight (23-37 kg more weight) than nonsurgical treatment, which was maintained to 8 years and led to improvements in quality of life and comorbidities. The economic evaluation of surgery compared with nonsurgical management suggested that surgery was cost effective at pound 11000 per QALY. Comparisons of the different types of surgery were equivocal. CONCLUSION: Surgery for morbid obesity appears to be clinically and cost effective. Because of the nature of the evidence, particularly the uncertainty in the clinical and economic evaluations, it is difficult to distinguish between the different surgical procedures.<br/