A manual physical therapy approach versus subacromial corticosteroid injection for treatment of shoulder impingement syndrome: a protocol for a randomised clinical trial

Introduction: Corticosteroid injections (CSI) are a recommended and often-used first-line intervention for shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS) in primary care and orthopaedic settings. Manual physical therapy (MPT) offers a non-invasive approach with negligible risk for managing SIS. There is limited evidence to suggest significant long-term improvements in pain, strength and disability with the use of MPT, and there are conflicting reports from systematic reviews that question the long-term efficacy of CSI. Specifically, the primary objective is to compare the effect of CSI and MPT on pain and disability in subjects with SIS at 12 months. Design: This pragmatic randomised clinical trial will be a mixed-model 235 factorial design. The independent variables are treatment (MPT and CSI) and time with five levels from baseline to 1 year. The primary dependent variable is the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, and the secondary outcome measures are the Global Rating of Change and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. For each ANOVA, the hypothesis of interest will be the two-way group-by-time interaction. Methods and analysis: The authors plan to recruit 104 participants meeting established impingement criteria. Following examination and enrolment, eligible participants will be randomly allocated to receive a pragmatic approach of either CSI or MPT. The MPT intervention will consist of six sessions, and the CSI intervention will consist of one to three sessions. All subjects will continue to receive usual care. Subjects will be followed for 12 months. Dissemination and ethics: The protocol was approved by the Madigan Army Medical Center Institutional Review Board. The results may have an impact on clinical practice guidelines. This study was funded in part by the Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Products Grant through the American Academy of Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapists. Trial Registration: http://clinicaltrials.gov/NCT01190891

Cost-effectiveness of Physical Therapy vs Intra-articular Glucocorticoid Injection for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Secondary Analysis From a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Physical therapy and glucocorticoid injections are initial treatment options for knee osteoarthritis, but available data indicate that most patients receive one or the other, suggesting they may be competing interventions. The initial cost difference for treatment can be substantial, with physical therapy often being more expensive at the outset, and cost-effectiveness analysis can aid patients and clinicians in making decisions. Objective: To investigate the incremental cost-effectiveness between physical therapy and intra-articular glucocorticoid injection as initial treatment strategies for knee osteoarthritis. Design, setting, and participants: This economic evaluation is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial performed from October 1, 2012, to May 4, 2017. Health economists were blinded to study outcomes and treatment allocation. A randomized sample of patients seen in primary care and physical therapy clinics with a radiographically confirmed diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis were evaluated from the clinical trial with 96.2% follow-up at 1 year. Interventions: Physical therapy or glucocorticoid injection. Main outcomes and measures: The main outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness between 2 alternative treatments. Acceptability curves of bootstrapped incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to identify the proportion of ICERs under the specific willingness-to-pay level ($50 000-$100 000). Health care system costs (total and knee related) and health-related quality-of-life based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were obtained. Results: A total of 156 participants (mean [SD] age, 56.1 [8.7] years; 81 [51.9%] male) were randomized 1:1 and followed up for 1 year. Mean (SD) 1-year knee-related medical costs were $2113 ($4224) in the glucocorticoid injection group and $2131 ($1015) in the physical therapy group. The mean difference in QALY significantly favored physical therapy at 1 year (0.076; 95% CI, 0.02-0.126; P = .003). Physical therapy was the more cost-effective intervention, with an ICER of $8103 for knee-related medical costs, with a 99.2$100 000. Conclusions and relevance: A course of physical therapy was cost-effective compared with a course of glucocorticoid injections for patients with knee osteoarthritis. These results suggest that, although the initial cost of delivering physical therapy may be higher than an initial course of glucocorticoid injections, 1-year total knee-related costs are equivalent, and greater improvement in QALYs may justify the initial higher costs. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0142715

Predictive models for musculoskeletal injury risk: why statistical approach makes all the difference

Objective Compare performance between an injury prediction model categorising predictors and one that did not and compare a selection of predictors based on univariate significance versus assessing non-linear relationships.Methods Validation and replication of a previously developed injury prediction model in a cohort of 1466 service members followed for 1 year after physical performance, medical history and sociodemographic variables were collected. The original model dichotomised 11 predictors. The second model (M2) kept predictors continuous but assumed linearity and the third model (M3) conducted non-linear transformations. The fourth model (M4) chose predictors the proper way (clinical reasoning and supporting evidence). Model performance was assessed with R2, calibration in the large, calibration slope and discrimination. Decision curve analyses were performed with risk thresholds from 0.25 to 0.50.Results 478 personnel sustained an injury. The original model demonstrated poorer R2 (original:0.07; M2:0.63; M3:0.64; M4:0.08), calibration in the large (original:−0.11 (95% CI −0.22 to 0.00); M2: −0.02 (95% CI −0.17 to 0.13); M3:0.03 (95% CI −0.13 to 0.19); M4: −0.13 (95% CI −0.25 to –0.01)), calibration slope (original:0.84 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.07); M2:0.97 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.08); M3:0.90 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.05); M4: 081 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.03) and discrimination (original:0.63 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.66); M2:0.90 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.92); M3:0.90 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.92); M4: 0.63 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.66)). At 0.25 injury risk, M2 and M3 demonstrated a 0.43 net benefit improvement. At 0.50 injury risk, M2 and M3 demonstrated a 0.33 net benefit improvement compared with the original model.Conclusion Model performance was substantially worse in the models with dichotomised variables. This highlights the need to follow established recommendations when developing prediction models

Patients\u27 perceptions with musculoskeletal disorders regarding their experience with healthcare providers and health services: an overview of reviews

Objectives: This overview of reviews aimed to identify (1) aspects of the patient experience when seeking care for musculoskeletal disorders from healthcare providers and the healthcare system, and (2) which mechanisms are used to measure aspects of the patient experience. Data sources: Four databases were searched from inception to December 20th, 2019. Review methods: Systematic or scoping reviews examining patient experience in seeking care for musculoskeletal from healthcare providers and the healthcare system were included. Independent authors screened and selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of the reviews. Patient experience concepts were compiled into five themes from a perspective of a) relational and b) functional aspects. A list of mechanisms used to capture the patient experience was also collected. Results: Thirty reviews were included (18 systematic and 12 scoping reviews). Relational aspects were reported in 29 reviews and functional aspects in 25 reviews. For relational aspects, the most prevalent themes were information needs (education and explanation on diseases, symptoms, and self-management strategies) and understanding patient expectations (respect and empathy). For functional aspects, the most prevalent themes were patient\u27s physical and environmental needs, (cleanliness, safety, and accessibility of clinics), and trusted expertise, (healthcare providers\u27 competence and clinical skills to provide holistic care). Interviews were the most frequent mechanism identified to collect patient experience. Conclusions: Measuring patient experience provides direct insights about the patient\u27s perspectives and may help to promote better patient-centered health services and increase the quality of care. Areas of improvement identified were interpersonal skills of healthcare providers and logistics of health delivery, which may lead to a more desirable patient-perceived experience and thus better overall healthcare outcomes

Predictors of chronic prescription opioid use after orthopedic surgery: derivation of a clinical prediction rule.

Abstract Background Prescription opioid use at high doses or over extended periods of time is associated with adverse outcomes, including dependency and abuse. The aim of this study was to identify mediating variables that predict chronic opioid use, defined as three or more prescriptions after orthopedic surgery. Methods Individuals were ages between 18 and 50 years and undergoing arthroscopic hip surgery between 2004 and 2013. Two categories of chronic opioid use were calculated based on individuals (1) having three or more unique opioid prescriptions within 2 years and (2) still receiving opioid prescriptions > 1 year after surgery. Univariate elationships were identified for each predictor variable, then significant variables (P > 0.15) were entered into a multivariate logistic regression model to identify the most parsimonious group of predictor variables for each chronic opioid use classification. Likelihood ratios were derived from the most robust groups of variables. Results There were 1642 participants (mean age 32.5 years, SD 8.2, 54.1% male). Nine predictor variables met the criteria after bivariate analysis for potential inclusion in each multivariate model. Eight variables: socioeconomic status (from enlisted rank family), prior use of opioid medication, prior use of non-opioid pain medication, high health-seeking behavior before surgery, a preoperative diagnosis of insomnia, mental health disorder, or substance abuse were all predictive of chronic opioid use in the final model (seven variables for three or more opioid prescriptions; four variables for opioid use still at 1 year; all< 0.05). Post-test probability of having three or more opioid prescriptions was 93.7% if five of seven variables were present, and the probability of still using opioids after 1 year was 69.6% if three of four variables were present. Conclusion A combination of variables significantly predicted chronic opioid use in this cohort. Most of these variables were mediators, indicating that modifying them may be feasible, and the potential focus of interventions to decrease the risk of chronic opioid use, or at minimum better inform opioid prescribing decisions. This clinical prediction rule needs further validation