Differences in Patient Characteristics, Number of Treatments, and Recovery Rates Between Referred and Self-referred Patients With Nonspecific Neck Pain in Manual Therapy:A Secondary Analysis

Objective: In various countries, patients can visit a physiotherapist via self-referral. The aims of this study were to evaluate whether there are differences between individuals with nonspecific neck pain who consult a manual therapist via self-referral and those who do so via referral by a physician concerning patient characteristics, number of treatments, and recovery; and whether (self-)referral is associated with recovery. Methods: This study is part of a prospective cohort study with posttreatment and 12-month follow-up in a Dutch manual-therapy setting. Adult patients with nonspecific neck pain were eligible for participation. Baseline measurements included demographic data and data concerning neck pain. At follow-up, number of treatments, recovery, and satisfaction were assessed. To evaluate differences between the groups, we used the χ2 test and the independent t test. A logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between referral status and recovery. Results: In total, 272 manual therapists participated and 1311 patients were included. Of 831 patients whose referral data are available, about half patients consulted a manual therapist by self-referral. The mean number of treatments was 5.4, which did not differ between the 2 groups. We found no differences between the groups concerning age, sex, pain intensity at baseline, or recovery rate. Patients in the self-referral group experienced acute neck pain more frequently, had recurrent complaints more often, and reported less disability compared to the referred group. Referral status was not associated with recovery. Conclusion: We found several small differences between self-referred and referred patients

The NEtherlands Cervical Kinematics (NECK) Trial. Cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with or without interbody fusion and arthroplasty in the treatment of cervical disc herniation; a double-blind randomised multicenter study

Background. Patients with cervical radicular syndrome due to disc herniation refractory to conservative treatment are offered surgical treatment. Anterior cervical discectomy is the standard procedure, often in combination with interbody fusion. Accelerated adjacent disc degeneration is a known entity on the long term. Recently, cervical disc prostheses are developed to maintain motion and possibly reduce the incidence of adjacent disc degeneration. A comparative cost-effectiveness study focused on adjacent segment degeneration and functional outcome has not been performed yet. We present the design of the NECK trial, a randomised study on cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with or without interbody fusion and arthroplasty in patients with cervical disc herniation. Methods/Design. Patients (age 18-65 years) presenting with radicular signs due to single level cervical disc herniation lasting more than 8 weeks are included. Patients will be randomised into 3 groups: anterior discectomy only, anterior discectomy with interbody fusion, and anterior discectomy with disc prosthesis. The primary outcome measure is symptomatic adjacent disc degeneration at 2 and 5 years after surgery. Other outcome parameters will be the Neck Disability Index, perceived recovery, arm and neck pain, complications, re-operations, quality of life, job satisfaction, anxiety and depression assessment, medical consumption, absenteeism, and costs. The study is a randomised prospective multicenter trial, in which 3 surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Patients and research nurses will be kept blinded of the allocated treatment for 2 years. The follow-up period is 5 years. Discussion. Currently, anterior cervical discectomy with fusion is the golden standard in the surgical treatment of cervical disc herniation. Whether additional interbody fusion or disc prothesis is necessary and cost-effective will be determined by this trial. Trial Registration. Netherlands Trial Register NTR1289

Proportion of patients with hip osteoarthritis in primary care identified by differing clinical criteria:a cross-sectional study of 4699 patients

Summary: Objective: Differing clinical criteria for hip osteoarthritis (OA) are applied in primary care, but little is known regarding the utility of these criteria. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the proportion of patients in a primary care setting with hip OA fulfilling the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Danish Health Authority (DHA) criteria. Design: A cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D®) program, a treatment program for patients with symptoms or functional limitations associated with hip OA. The prevalence of hip OA according to the ACR, NICE, and DHA criteria was calculated in all patients and in a subgroup of patients with self-reported radiographic hip OA. Results: 4699 patients were included in the analysis. Mean age (SD) was 66.8 (9.7) years and 71% of the patients were female. 64%, 80%, and 94% fulfilled the ACR, DHA, and NICE criteria, respectively. In those self-reporting radiographic hip OA, the corresponding numbers were 66%, 81%, and 94%. A limited number of patients (4%) did not fulfill any of the criteria. Conclusions: The NICE criteria identified the most patients that were treated because of their symptoms or functional limitations. The DHA and especially the ACR criteria did not identify a significant proportion of these patients. The results suggest the NICE criteria are appropriate to identify individuals treated for hip OA in primary care

Effectiveness of Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Effectiveness of additional supervised exercises compared with conventional treatment alone in patients with acute lateral ankle sprains: systematic review

Objective To summarise the effectiveness of adding supervised exercises to conventional treatment compared with conventional treatment alone in patients with acute lateral ankle sprains

The PEX study – Exercise therapy for patellofemoral pain syndrome: design of a randomized clinical trial in general practice and sports medicine [ISRCTN83938749]

BACKGROUND: Patellofemoral complaints are frequently seen in younger and active patients. Clinical strategy is usually based on decreasing provoking activities as sports and demanding knee activities during work and leisure and reassuring the patient on the presumed good outcome. Exercise therapy is also often prescribed although evidence on effectiveness is lacking. The objective of this article is to present the design of a randomized clinical trial that examines the outcome of exercise therapy supervised by a physical therapist versus a clinically accepted "wait and see" approach (information and advice about the complaints only). The research will address to both effectiveness and cost effectiveness of supervised exercise therapy in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS). METHODS/DESIGN: 136 patients (adolescents and young adults) with patellofemoral pain syndrome are recruited in general practices and sport medicine centers. They will be randomly allocated receiving either 3 months of exercise therapy (or usual care. The primary outcome measures are pain, knee function and perception of recovery after 3 months and 12 months of follow up and will be measured by self reporting. Measurements will take place at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 monthly until 1 year after inclusion in the study. Secondary outcome measurements include an economic evaluation. A cost-utility analysis will be performed that expresses health improvements in Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and incorporates direct medical costs and productivity costs DISCUSSION: This study has been designed after reviewing the literature on exercise therapy for patellofemoral pain syndrome. It was concluded that to merit the effect of exercise therapy a trial based on correct methodological concept needed to be executed. The PEX study is a randomized clinical trial where exercise therapy is compared to usual care. This trial started in April 2005 and will finish in June 2007. The first results will be available around December 2007

Design of the Verbiest trial: cost-effectiveness of surgery versus prolonged conservative treatment in patients with lumbar stenosis

Background: Degenerative changes of lumbar spine anatomy resulting in the encroachment of neural structures are often regarded progressive, ultimately necessitating decompressive surgery. However the natural course is not necessarily progressive and the efficacy of a variety of nonsurgical interventions has also been described. At present there is insufficient data to compare surgical and nonsurgical interventions in terms of their relative benefit and safety. Previous attempts failed to provide clear clinical recommendations or to distinguish subgroups that substantially benefit from a certain treatment strategy. We present the design of a randomized controlled trial on (cost-) effectiveness of surgical decompression versus prolonged conservative treatment in patients with neurogenic intermittent claudication caused by lumbar stenosis. Methods/Design. The aim of the Verbiest trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of prolonged conservative treatment compared to decompressive surgery. The study is a multi-center randomized controlled trial with two parallel groups design. Patients (age over 50) presenting

An updated overview of clinical guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care

The aim of this study was to present and compare the content of (inter)national clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain. To rationalise the management of low back pain, evidence-based clinical guidelines have been issued in many countries. Given that the available scientific evidence is the same, irrespective of the country, one would expect these guidelines to include more or less similar recommendations regarding diagnosis and treatment. We updated a previous review that included clinical guidelines published up to and including the year 2000. Guidelines were included that met the following criteria: the target group consisted mainly of primary health care professionals, and the guideline was published in English, German, Finnish, Spanish, Norwegian, or Dutch. Only one guideline per country was included: the one most recently published. This updated review includes national clinical guidelines from 13 countries and 2 international clinical guidelines from Europe published from 2000 until 2008. The content of the guidelines appeared to be quite similar regarding the diagnostic classification (diagnostic triage) and the use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Consistent features for acute low back pain were the early and gradual activation of patients, the discouragement of prescribed bed rest and the recognition of psychosocial factors as risk factors for chronicity. For chronic low back pain, consistent features included supervised exercises, cognitive behavioural therapy and multidisciplinary treatment. However, there are some discrepancies for recommendations regarding spinal manipulation and drug treatment for acute and chronic low back pain. The comparison of international clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain showed that diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations are generally similar. There are also some differences which may be due to a lack of strong evidence regarding these topics or due to differences in local health care systems. The implementation of these clinical guidelines remains a challenge for clinical practice and research

Association between clinical findings and the presence of lumbar spine osteoarthritis imaging features:A systematic review

OBJECTIVE: Spinal osteoarthritis is difficult to study and diagnose, partly due to the lack of agreed diagnostic criteria. This systematic review aims to give an overview of the associations between clinical and imaging findings suggestive of spinal osteoarthritis in patients with low back pain to make a step towards agreed diagnostic criteria.DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to April 29, 2021 to identify observational studies in adults that assessed the association between selected clinical and imaging findings suggestive of spinal osteoarthritis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the quality of evidence was graded using an adaptation of the GRADE approach.RESULTS: After screening 7902 studies, 30 met the inclusion criteria. High-quality evidence was found for the longitudinal association between low back pain (LBP) intensity, and both disc space narrowing and osteophytes, as well as for the association between LBP-related physical functioning and lumbar disc degeneration, the presence of spinal morning stiffness and disc space narrowing and for the lack of association between physical functioning and Schmorl's nodes.CONCLUSIONS: There is high- and moderate-quality evidence of associations between clinical and imaging findings suggestive of spinal osteoarthritis. However, the majority of the studied outcomes had low or very low-quality of evidence. Furthermore, clinical and methodological heterogeneity was a serious limitation, adding to the need and importance of agreed criteria for spinal osteoarthritis, which should be the scope of future research.</p

The IMPACT study:A clustered randomized controlled trial to assess the effect of a referral algorithm for axial spondyloarthritis

Background A substantial number of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) have axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but early recognition of these patients is difficult for general practitioners (GPs). The Case Finding Axial Spondyloarthritis (CaFaSpA) referral strategy has shown to be able to identify patients with CLBP at risk for axSpA, but its impact on clinical daily practice is yet unknown. Objective To assess the effect of the CaFaSpA referral strategy on pain caused by disability in primary care patients with CLBP. Methods Within this clustered randomized controlled trial 93 general practices were randomized to either the CaFaSpA referral model (intervention) or usual primary care (control). In each group primary care patients between 18 and 45 years with CLBP were included. The primary outcome was disability caused by CLBP, measured with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) at baseline and four months. Secondary outcome was the frequency of new axSpA diagnosis. Descriptive analyses were performed, and a linear mixed-effects model was used. Results In total 679 CLBP patients were included of which 333 patients were allocated to the intervention group and 346 to the control group. Sixty-four percent were female and mean age was 36.2 years. The mean RMDQ score at baseline was 8.39 in the intervention group and 8.61 in the control group. At four months mean RMDQ score was 7.65 in the intervention group and 8.15 in the control group. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.50). Six (8%) out of the 75 finally referred patients, were diagnosed with axSpA by their rheumatologist. Conclusions The CaFaSpA referral strategy for axSpA did not have an effect on disability after four months caused by CLBP. However, the strategy is able to detect the axSpA patient within the large CLBP population sufficiently