Prevalence of osteoporosis and incidence of hip fracture in women - secular trends over 30 years

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The number of hip fractures during recent decades has been reported to be increasing, partly because of an increasing proportion of elderly women in the society. However, whether changes in hip fracture annual incidence in women are attributable to secular changes in the prevalence of osteoporosis is unclear.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Bone mineral density was evaluated by single-photon absorptiometry at the distal radius in 456 women aged 50 years or above and living in the same city. The measurements were obtained by the same densitometer during three separate time periods: 1970-74 (n = 106), 1987-93 (n = 175) and 1998-1999 (n = 178), and the age-adjusted prevalence of osteoporosis in these three cohorts was calculated. Additionally, all hip fractures sustained in the target population of women aged 50 years or above between 1967 and 2001 were registered, whereupon the crude and the age-adjusted annual incidence of hip fractures were calculated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was no significant difference in the age-adjusted prevalence of osteoporosis when the three cohorts were compared (P = 1.00). The crude annual incidence (per 10,000 women) of hip fracture in the target population increased by 110% from 40 in 1967 to 84 in 2001. The overall trend in the crude incidence between 1967 and 2001 was increasing (1.58 per 10,000 women per year; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.17 to 1.99), whereas the age-adjusted incidence was stable over the same period (0.22 per 10,000 women per year; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.16 to 0.60).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The increased number of hip fracture in elderly women is more likely to be attributable to demographic changes in the population than to secular increase in the prevalence of osteoporosis.</p

Minimal important difference, patient acceptable symptom state and longitudinal validity of oxford elbow score and the quickDASH in patients with tennis elbow

Background: The Oxford Elbow Score (OES) and the short version of Disabilities of Arms, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) are common patient-reported outcomes for people with elbow problems. Our primary objective was to define thresholds for the Minimal Important Difference (MID) and Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the OES and QuickDASH. The secondary aim was to compare the longitudinal validity of these outcome measures. Methods: We recruited 97 patients with clinically-diagnosed tennis elbow for a prospective observational cohort study in a pragmatic clinical setting. Fifty-five participants received no specific intervention, 14 underwent surgery (11 as primary treatment and 4 during follow-up), and 28 received either botulinum toxin injection or platelet rich plasma injection. We collected OES (0 to 100, higher is better) and QuickDASH (0 to 100, higher is worse), and global rating of change (as an external transition anchor question) at six weeks, three months, six months and 12 months. We defined MID and PASS values using three approaches. To assess the longitudinal validity of the measures, we calculated the Spearman’s correlation coefficient between the change in the outcome scores and external transition anchor question, and the Area Under the Curve (AUC) from a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. To assess signal-to-noise ratio, we calculated standardized response means. Results: Depending on the method, MID values ranged from 16 to 21 for OES Pain; 10 to 17 for OES Function; 14 to 28 for OES Social-psychological; 14 to 20 for OES Total score, and − 7 to -9 for QuickDASH. Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) cut offs were 74 to 84 for OES Pain; 88 to 91 for OES Function; 75 to 78 with OES Social-psychological; 80 to 81 with OES Total score and 19 to 23 with Quick-DASH. OES had stronger correlations with the anchor items, and AUC values suggested superior discrimination (between improved and not improved) compared with QuickDASH. OES also had superior signal-to-noise ratio compared with QuickDASH. Conclusion: The study provides MID and PASS values for OES and QuickDASH. Due to better longitudinal validity, OES may be a better choice for clinical trials. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02425982 (first registered April 24, 2015).Peer reviewe

Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy versus Sham Surgery for a Degenerative Meniscal Tear

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is one of the most common orthopedic procedures, yet rigorous evidence of its efficacy is lacking. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial in 146 patients 35 to 65 years of age who had knee symptoms consistent with a degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis. Patients were randomly assigned to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or sham surgery. The primary outcomes were changes in the Lysholm and Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) scores (each ranging from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating more severe symptoms) and in knee pain after exercise (rated on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 denoting no pain) at 12 months after the procedure. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months in any primary outcome. The mean changes (improvements) in the primary outcome measures were as follows: Lysholm score, 21.7 points in the partial-meniscectomy group as compared with 23.3 points in the sham-surgery group (between-group difference, -1.6 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.2 to 4.0); WOMET score, 24.6 and 27.1 points, respectively (between-group difference, -2.5 points; 95% CI, -9.2 to 4.1); and score for knee pain after exercise, 3.1 and 3.3 points, respectively (between-group difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.9 to 0.7). There were no significant differences between groups in the number of patients who required subsequent knee surgery (two in the partial-meniscectomy group and five in the sham-surgery group) or serious adverse events (one and zero, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients without knee osteoarthritis but with symptoms of a degenerative medial meniscus tear, the outcomes after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy were no better than those after a sham surgical procedure. (Funded by the Sigrid Juselius Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00549172.).Nejm,free fulltex