The impact of non-traumatic hip and knee disorders on health-related quality of life as measured with the SF-36 or SF-12: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this review is to summarize the available evidence on the impact of non-traumatic hip or knee disorders on health-related quality of life (HRQL), as measured with the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) or Short Form 12 Health Survey (SF-12), by comparing this with data from reference populations. METHODS: Studies were identified by an electronic search of the MEDLINE, PsychInfo and Cinahl databases. Studies with the following features were included: study population included patients with non-traumatic hip or knee disorders, the SF-36 or SF-12 was used as an outcome measure and mean scores on these HRQL measures were presented. Using mean HRQL scores from the selected studies and scores from reference populations, z-scores were computed. Pooled estimates were computed for subgroups of studies with similar patients in similar settings. RESULTS: A total of 40 studies met the inclusion criteria. Patients with non-traumatic hip and knee disorders scored up to 2.5 standard deviations (SDs) below reference population values, especially on the physical aspects of HRQL. Social and mental aspects were up to 1 SD below reference population values, especially in patients in clinical settings. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of non-traumatic hip or knee disorders on HRQL is substantial, especially on the physical aspects of HRQ

Predictors of outcome in patients with (sub) acute low back pain differ across treatment groups

Study Design. Prospective study with 6 weeks of follow-up. Objective. To examine the predictors of outcome for patients with (sub) acute low back pain (LBP) receiving usual care (UC) or a minimal intervention strategy (MIS) aimed at psychosocial factors. Summary of Background Data. A randomized controlled trial in general practice showed no differences in average effect between UC and MIS. Methods. Socio-demographic variables, characteristics of LBP, and psychosocial factors were included as potential predictors of outcome. The outcome clinically important improvement was defined as a reduction of at least 30% on functional disability plus patient perceived recovery. Logistic regression analyses were used to study the associations between predictors and outcome at 6 weeks follow-up. Results. In the UC group (n = 163), the multivariable model included a shorter duration of the LBP episode, few previous episodes, less pain catastrophizing, and good perceived general health. The area under the curve (AUC) of the model was 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.85). In the MIS group (n = 142), the multivariable model included less somatizing symptoms, more solicitous responses by an important other, lower perceived risk for chronic LBP, more fear avoidance beliefs, higher level of education, and shorter duration of the LBP episode. This AUC was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.86). Conclusions. As we found two different profiles, our approach may contribute to the important question: what intervention works for whom

Lateral epicondylitis in general practice: Course and prognostic indicators of outcome

Objective. To investigate the course of lateral epicondylitis and identify prognostic indicators associated with short- and longterm outcome of pain intensity. Methods. We prospectively followed patients (n = 349) from 2 randomized controlled trials investigating conservative interventions for lateral epicondylitis in primary care. Uni- and multivariate linear regression analyses were used to investigate the association between potential prognostic indicators and pain intensity (0-100 point scale) measured at 1,6, and 12 months after randomization. Potential prognostic factors were duration of elbow complaints, concomitant neck pain, concomitant shoulder pain, previous elbow complaints, baseline pain scores, age, gender, involvement of dominant side, social class, and work status. The variables "study" and "treatment" were included as covariates in all models. Results. Pain scores at 1 month followup were higher in patients with severe pain, a long duration of elbow complaints, and concomitant shoulder pain. At 12 month followup, the only different prognostic indicator for poor outcome was concomitant neck pain, in place of shoulder pain. Patients from higher social classes reported lower pain scores at 12 month followup than patients from lower social classes. Conclusions. Lateral epicondylitis seems to be a self-limiting condition in most patients. Long duration of elbow complaints, concomitant neck pain, and severe pain at presentation are associated with poor outcome at 12 months. Our results will help care providers give patients accurate information regarding their prognosis and assist in medical decision-making

Should treatment of (sub)acute low back pain be aimed at psychosocial prognostic factors? Cluster randomised clinical trial in general practice

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of a minimal intervention strategy aimed at assessment and modification of psychosocial prognostic factors and usual care for treatment of (sub)acute low back pain in general practice. DESIGN: Cluster randomised clinical trial. SETTING: 60 general practitioners in 41 general practices. PARTICIPANTS: 314 patients with non-specific low back pain of less than 12 weeks' duration, recruited by their general practitioner. INTERVENTIONS: In the minimal intervention strategy group the general practitioner explored the presence of psychosocial prognostic factors, discussed these factors, set specific goals for reactivation, and provided an educational booklet. The consultation took about 20 minutes. Usual care was not standardised. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Functional disability (Roland-Morris disability questionnaire), perceived recovery, and sick leave because of low back pain assessed at baseline and after 6, 13, 26, and 52 weeks. RESULTS: The dropout rate was 8% in the minimal intervention strategy group and 9% in the usual care group. Multilevel analyses showed no significant differences between the groups on any outcome measure during 12 months of follow-up in the whole group or in relevant subgroups (patients with high scores on psychosocial measures at baseline or a history of frequent or prolonged low back pain). CONCLUSION: This study provides no evidence that (Dutch) general practitioners should adopt our new treatment strategy aimed at psychosocial prognostic factors in patients with (sub)acute low back pain. Further research should examine why our new strategy was not more effective than usual car

Course and prognosis of knee complaints in general practice

OBJECTIVE: Patients frequently present with knee complaints in general practice. Information about the course and prognosis of knee complaints is needed to inform patients and facilitate decisions on referral and treatment. The objective of the study was to assess the course of knee complaints and to identify predictors of outcome in patients visiting their general practitioner with a new episode of knee complaints. METHODS: Data were collected by means of self-administered questionnaires. After 3 and 12 months of followup, the following outcomes were assessed: perceived recovery, change in pain, and change in physical functioning. As potential predictors of outcome, several sociodemographic variables, characteristics of the symptom, baseline scores of the outcome measures, and intra- and extra-individual variables were analyzed using multiple regression analyses. RESULTS: We included 251 patients with a new episode of knee complaints presented in general practice. Only 25% reported recovery after 3 months, increasing to 44% after 12 months. A history of knee complaints, a longer duration of the current episode of knee complaints, other coexisting musculoskeletal complaints, and a higher level of distress were associated with a worse prognosis. In the linear regression models, 41-53% of the variance in pain reduction and improvement in functioning could be explained by the predictors. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves, estimating the predictive accuracy of the Cox regression models concerning perceived recovery, was 0.77 after 3 months and 0.72 after 12 months. CONCLUSION: Many patients did not recover after 12 months. Distress was found to be strongly associated with less pain reduction and less improvement in functionin