Water displacement leg volumetry in clinical studies - A discussion of error sources

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Water displacement leg volumetry is a highly reproducible method, allowing the confirmation of efficacy of vasoactive substances. Nevertheless errors of its execution and the selection of unsuitable patients are likely to negatively affect the outcome of clinical studies in chronic venous insufficiency (CVI).</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Placebo controlled double-blind drug studies in CVI were searched (Cochrane Review 2005, MedLine Search until December 2007) and assessed with regard to efficacy (volume reduction of the leg), patient characteristics, and potential methodological error sources. Almost every second study reported only small drug effects (≤ 30 mL volume reduction). As the most relevant error source the conduct of volumetry was identified. Because the practical use of available equipment varies, volume differences of more than 300 mL - which is a multifold of a potential treatment effect - have been reported between consecutive measurements. Other potential error sources were insufficient patient guidance or difficulties with the transition from the Widmer CVI classification to the CEAP (Clinical Etiological Anatomical Pathophysiological) grading.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Patients should be properly diagnosed with CVI and selected for stable oedema and further clinical symptoms relevant for the specific study. Centres require a thorough training on the use of the volumeter and on patient guidance. Volumetry should be performed under constant conditions. The reproducibility of short term repeat measurements has to be ensured.</p

Topical NSAIDs for acute pain: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: A previous systematic review reported that topical NSAIDs were effective in relieving pain in acute conditions like sprains and strains, with differences between individual drugs for efficacy. More trials, a better understanding of trial quality and bias, and a reclassification of certain drugs necessitate a new review. METHODS: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases and writing to manufacturers. We selected randomised double blind trials comparing topical NSAID with either placebo or another active treatment in adults with acute pain, and extracted dichotomous information approximating to a 50% reduction in pain at one week, together with details of adverse events and withdrawals. Relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and relative risk and number-needed-to-harm (NNH) were calculated, with sensitivity analyses where appropriate to investigate differences between individual drugs and aspects of trial design. RESULTS: Twenty-six double blind placebo controlled trials had information from 2,853 patients for evaluation of efficacy. Topical NSAID was significantly better than placebo in 19 of the 26 trials, with a pooled relative benefit of 1.6 (95% confidence interval 1.4 to 1.7), and NNT of 3.8 (95% confidence interval 3.4 to 4.4) compared with placebo for the outcome of half pain relief at seven days. Results were not affected by outcome reported, or condition treated, but smaller trials yielded a larger estimate of efficacy. Indirect comparisons of individual topical NSAIDs showed that ketoprofen was significantly better than all other topical NSAIDs, while indomethacin was barely distinguished from placebo. Three trials, with 433 patients, compared topical with oral NSAID (two trials compared the same drug, one compared different drugs) and found no difference in efficacy. Local adverse events, systemic adverse events, or withdrawals due to an adverse event were rare, and no different between topical NSAID and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs were effective and safe in treating acute painful conditions for one week

Testing the proficiency to distinguish locations with elevated plantar pressure within and between professional groups of foot therapists

BACKGROUND: Identification of locations with elevated plantar pressures is important in daily foot care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, metatarsalgia and diabetes. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the proficiency of podiatrists, pedorthists and orthotists, to distinguish locations with elevated plantar pressure in patients with metatarsalgia. METHODS: Ten podiatrists, ten pedorthists and ten orthotists working in The Netherlands were asked to identify locations with excessively high plantar pressure in three patients with forefoot complaints. Therapists were instructed to examine the patients according to the methods used in their everyday clinical practice. Regions could be marked through hatching an illustration of a plantar aspect. A pressure sensitive platform was used to quantify the dynamic bare foot plantar pressures and was considered as 'Gold Standard' (GS). A pressure higher than 700 kPa was used as cut-off criterion for categorizing peak pressure into elevated or non-elevated pressure. This was done for both patient's feet and six separate forefoot regions: big toe and metatarsal one to five. Data were analysed by a mixed-model ANOVA and Generalizability Theory. RESULTS: The proportions elevated/non-elevated pressure regions, based on clinical ratings of the therapists, show important discrepancies with the criterion values obtained through quantitative plantar pressure measurement. In general, plantar pressures in the big toe region were underrated and those in the metatarsal regions were overrated. The estimated method agreement on clinical judgement of plantar pressures with the GS was below an acceptable level: i.e. all intraclass correlation coefficient's equal or smaller than .60. The inter-observer agreement for each discipline demonstrated worrisome results: all below .18. The estimated mutual agreements showed that there was virtually no mutual agreement between the professional groups studied. CONCLUSION: Identification of elevated plantar pressure through clinical evaluation is difficult, insufficient and may be potentially harmful. The process of clinical plantar pressure screening has to be re-evaluated. The results of this study point towards the merit of quantitative plantar pressure measurement for clinical practice