Evidence‐based treatment recommendations for neck and low back pain across Europe:a systematic review of guidelines

Background and objective: This systematic review synthesized evidence from European neck and low back pain (NLBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to identify recommended treatment options for use across Europe. Databases and Data Treatment: Comprehensive searches of thirteen databases were conducted, from 1st January 2013 to 4th May 2020 to identify up-to-date evidence-based European CPGs for primary care management of NLBP, issued by professional bodies/organizations. Data extracted included; aim and target population, methods for development and implementation and treatment recommendations. The AGREE II checklist was used to critically appraise guidelines. Criteria were devised to summarize and synthesize the direction and strength of recommendations across guidelines. Results: Seventeen CPGs (11 low back; 5 neck; 1 both) from eight European countries were identified, of which seven were high quality. For neck pain, there were consistent weak or moderate strength recommendations for: reassurance, advice and education, manual therapy, referral for exercise therapy/programme, oral analgesics and topical medications, plus psychological therapies or multidisciplinary treatment for specific subgroups. Notable recommendation differences between back and neck pain included, i) analgesics for neck pain (not for back pain); ii) options for back pain-specific subgroups—work-based interventions, return to work advice/programmes and surgical interventions (but not for neck pain) and iii) a greater strength of recommendations (generally moderate or strong) for back pain than those for neck pain. Conclusions: This review of European CPGs identified a range of mainly non-pharmacological recommended treatment options for NLBP that have broad consensus for use across Europe. Significance: Consensus regarding evidence-based treatment recommendations for patients with neck and low back pain (NLBP) from recent European clinical practice guidelines identifies a wide range of predominantly non-pharmacological treatment options. This includes options potentially applicable to all patients with NLBP and those applicable to only specific patient subgroups. Future work within our Back-UP research team will transfer these evidence-based treatment options to an accessible clinician decision support tool for first contact clinicians

Factors Influencing the Participation of Older People in Clinical Trials : Data Analysis from the MAVIS Trial

Peer reviewedPostprin

Risk stratified monitoring for methotrexate toxicity in immune mediated inflammatory diseases: prognostic model development and validation using primary care data from the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a prognostic model to inform risk stratified decisions on frequency of monitoring blood tests during long term methotrexate treatment. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Electronic health records within the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Gold and CPRD Aurum. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of an immune mediated inflammatory disease who were prescribed methotrexate by their general practitioner for six months or more during 2007-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Discontinuation of methotrexate owing to abnormal monitoring blood test result. Patients were followed-up from six months after their first prescription for methotrexate in primary care to the earliest of outcome, drug discontinuation for any other reason, leaving the practice, last data collection from the practice, death, five years, or 31 December 2019. Cox regression was performed to develop the risk equation, with bootstrapping used to shrink predictor effects for optimism. Multiple imputation handled missing predictor data. Model performance was assessed in terms of calibration and discrimination. RESULTS: Data from 13 110 (854 events) and 23 999 (1486 events) participants were included in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. 11 candidate predictors (17 parameters) were included. In the development dataset, the optimism adjusted R2 was 0.13 and the optimism adjusted Royston D statistic was 0.79. The calibration slope and Royston D statistic in the validation dataset for the entire follow-up period was 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.02) and 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.83), respectively. The prognostic model performed well in predicting outcomes in clinically relevant subgroups defined by age group, type of immune mediated inflammatory disease, and methotrexate dose. CONCLUSION: A prognostic model was developed and validated that uses information collected during routine clinical care and may be used to risk stratify the frequency of monitoring blood test during long term methotrexate treatment

Patients' experience of shoulder disorders

Objectives: To describe the experiences (including symptoms and perceived impacts on daily living) of people with a shoulder disorder. Methods: Systematic review of qualitative studies. We searched for eligible qualitative studies indexed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL (EBSCO), SportDiscus (EBSCO) and Ovid PsycINFO up until November 2017. Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion, appraised their methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, used thematic synthesis methods to generate themes describing the experiences reported by participants and assessed the confidence in the findings using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in Evidence fro

Prikkelbaredarmsyndroom: criteria én klinische blik.

The syndrome diagnosis 'irritable bowel syndrome' (IBS) is often made on the basis of exclusion, but the question is how many diagnostic tests should be performed in order to establish this diagnosis with a degree of confidence. We present the diagnostic value of various IBS criteria for excluding IBS, based on a systematic review. The potential of the various criteria for distinguishing IBS from organic disease is extremely variable and disappointing. Patients fulfilling IBS criteria have, however, a lower risk of organic disease than patients with abdominal symptoms who do not fulfil the criteria. The same holds true for the diagnostic performance of individual alerting symptoms. These seem to be present frequently in IBS patients in whom there is no underlying organic bowel condition. An organic condition cannot be accurately excluded on the basis of symptom criteria. However, the low prior risk of organic conditions among patients who consult a primary care doctor and who meet IBS criteria argues against exhaustive diagnostic evaluation