PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-13 (13)
 

Clipboard (0)
None
Journals
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Incidence and prevalence of upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorders. A systematic appraisal of the literature 
Background
A systematic appraisal of the worldwide incidence and prevalence rates of UEDs available in scientific literature was executed to gauge the range of these estimates in various countries and to determine whether the rates are increasing in time.
Methods
Studies that recruited at least 500 people, collected data by using questionnaires, interviews and/or physical examinations, and reported incidence or prevalence rates of the whole upper-extremity including neck, were included.
Results
No studies were found with regard to the incidence of UEDs and 13 studies that reported prevalence rates of UEDs were included. The point prevalence ranged from 1.6–53%; the 12-months prevalence ranged from 2.3–41%. One study reported on the lifetime prevalence (29%). We did not find evidence of a clear increasing or decreasing pattern over time. The case definitions for UEDs used in the studies, differed enormously. Therefore, it was not possible to pool the data.
Conclusion
There are substantial differences in reported prevalence rates on UEDs. Main reason for this is the absence of a universally accepted way of labelling or defining UEDs. If we want to make progress in this field, the first requirement is to agree on unambiguous terminology and classification of EUDs.
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-7-7
PMCID: PMC1434740  PMID: 16448572
2.  Efficacy of MRI in primary care for patients with knee complaints due to trauma: protocol of a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (TACKLE trial) 
Background
Patients with traumatic knee complaints regularly consult their general practitioner (GP). MRI might be a valuable diagnostic tool to assist GPs in making appropriate treatment decisions and reducing costs. Therefore, this study will assess the cost-effectiveness of referral to MRI by GPs compared with usual care, in patients with persistent traumatic knee complaints.
Design and methods
This is a multi-centre, open-labelled randomised controlled non-inferiority trial in combination with a concurrent observational cohort study. Eligible patients (aged 18–45 years) have knee complaints due to trauma (or sudden onset) occurring in the preceding 6 months and consulting their GP. Participants are randomised to: 1) an MRI group, i.e. GP referral to MRI, or 2) a usual care group, i.e. no MRI. Primary outcomes are knee-related daily function, medical costs (healthcare use and productivity loss), and quality of life. Secondary outcomes are disability due to knee complaints, severity of knee pain, and patients’ perceived recovery and satisfaction. Outcomes are measured at baseline and at 1.5, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up. Also collected are data on patient demographics, GPs’ initial working diagnosis, GPs’ preferred management at baseline, and MRI findings.
Discussion
In the Netherlands, the additional diagnostic value and cost-effectiveness of direct access to knee MRI for patients presenting with traumatic knee complaints in general practice is unknown. Although GPs increasingly refer patients to MRI, the Dutch clinical guideline ‘Traumatic knee complaints’ for GPs does not recommend referral to MRI, mainly because the cost-effectiveness is still unknown.
Trial registration
Dutch Trial Registration: NTR3689.
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-63
PMCID: PMC3973891  PMID: 24588860
Traumatic knee complaint; General practice; Magnetic resonance imaging; Randomised controlled non-inferiority trial; Cost-utility; Cost-effectiveness
3.  Effectiveness of intramuscular corticosteroid injection versus placebo injection in patients with hip osteoarthritis: design of a randomized double-blinded controlled trial 
Background
Recent international guidelines recommend intra-articular corticosteroid injections for patients with hip osteoarthritis who have moderate to severe pain and do not respond satisfactorily to oral analgesic/anti-inflammatory agents. Of the five available randomized controlled trials, four showed positive effects with respect to pain reduction. However, intra-articular injection in the hip is complex because the joint is adjacent to important neurovascular structures and cannot be palpated. Therefore fluoroscopic or ultrasound guidance is needed.
The systemic effect of corticosteroids has been studied in patients with impingement shoulder pain. Gluteal corticosteroid injection was almost as effective as ultrasound-guided subacromial corticosteroid injection. Such a clinically relevant effect of a systemic corticosteroid injection offers a less complex alternative for treatment of patients with hip osteoarthritis not responsive to oral pain medication.
Methods/Design
This is a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. A total of 135 patients (aged > 40 years) with hip osteoarthritis and persistent pain despite oral analgesics visiting a general practitioner or orthopaedic surgeon will be included. They will be randomized to a gluteal intramuscular corticosteroid injection or a gluteal intramuscular placebo (saline) injection. The randomization will be stratified for setting (general practitioner and outpatient clinics of department of orthopaedics). Treatment effect will be evaluated by questionnaires at 2, 4, 6, and 12 weeks follow-up and a physical examination at 12 weeks. Primary outcome is severity of hip pain reported by the patients at 2-week follow-up. Statistical analyses will be based on the intention-to-treat principle.
Discussion
This study will evaluate the effectiveness of an intramuscular corticosteroid injection on pain in patients with hip osteoarthritis. Patient recruitment has started.
Trial Registration
This trial is registered in the Dutch Trial Registry: number NTR2966.
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-280
PMCID: PMC3268743  PMID: 22151921
4.  Cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy versus general practitioner care for osteoarthritis of the hip: design of a randomised clinical trial 
Background
Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disease, causing pain and functional impairments. According to international guidelines, exercise therapy has a short-term effect in reducing pain/functional impairments in knee OA and is therefore also generally recommended for hip OA. Because of its high prevalence and clinical implications, OA is associated with considerable (healthcare) costs. However, studies evaluating cost-effectiveness of common exercise therapy in hip OA are lacking. Therefore, this randomised controlled trial is designed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in conjunction with the general practitioner's (GP) care, compared to GP care alone, for patients with hip OA.
Methods/Design
Patients aged ≥ 45 years with OA of the hip, who consulted the GP during the past year for hip complaints and who comply with the American College of Rheumatology criteria, are included. Patients are randomly assigned to either exercise therapy in addition to GP care, or to GP care alone. Exercise therapy consists of (maximally) 12 treatment sessions with a physiotherapist, and home exercises. These are followed by three additional treatment sessions in the 5th, 7th and 9th month after the first treatment session. GP care consists of usual care for hip OA, such as general advice or prescribing pain medication. Primary outcomes are hip pain and hip-related activity limitations (measured with the Hip disability Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [HOOS]), direct costs, and productivity costs (measured with the PROductivity and DISease Questionnaire). These parameters are measured at baseline, at 6 weeks, and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up. To detect a 25% clinical difference in the HOOS pain score, with a power of 80% and an alpha 5%, 210 patients are required. Data are analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Effectiveness is evaluated using linear regression models with repeated measurements. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis and an incremental cost-utility analysis will also be performed.
Discussion
The results of this trial will provide insight into the cost-effectiveness of adding exercise therapy to GPs' care in the treatment of OA of the hip. This trial is registered in the Dutch trial registry http://www.trialregister.nl: trial number NTR1462.
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-232
PMCID: PMC3198764  PMID: 21992502
5.  Back Complaints in the Elders (BACE); design of cohort studies in primary care: an international consortium 
Background
Although back complaints are common among older people, limited information is available in the literature about the clinical course of back pain in older people and the identification of older persons at risk for the transition from acute back complaints to chronic back pain.
The aim of this study is to assess the course of back complaints and identify prognostic factors for the transition from acute back complaints to chronic back complaints in older people who visit a primary health care physician.
Methods/design
The design is a prospective cohort study with one-year follow-up. There will be no interference with usual care. Patients older than 55 years who consult a primary health care physician with a new episode of back complaints will be included in this study.
Data will be collected using a questionnaire, physical examination and X-ray at baseline, and follow-up questionnaires after 6 weeks and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months.
The study 'Back Complaints in the Elders' (BACE) will take place in different countries: starting in the Netherlands, Brazil and Australia. The research groups collaborate in the BACE consortium. The design and basic objectives of the study will be the same across the studies.
Discussion
This consortium is a collaboration between different research groups, aiming to provide insight into the course of back complaints in older people and to identify prognostic factors for the transition from acute back complaints to chronic back complaints in older persons. The BACE consortium allows to investigate differences between older people with back complaints and the health care systems in the different countries and to increase the statistical power by enabling meta-analyses using the individual patient data. Additional research groups worldwide are invited to join the BACE consortium.
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-193
PMCID: PMC3182961  PMID: 21854620
6.  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 to the neurologist or neurosurgeon with at least 3 months complaints of neurogenic intermittent claudication and considering surgical treatment are eligible for inclusion. Participants are randomly allocated to either prolonged conservative treatment, receiving further treatment from their general practitioner and physical therapist, or allocated to surgery and operated within 4 weeks. Primary outcome measure is the functional assessment of the patient as measured by the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire at 24 months of follow-up. Data is analyzed according to the intention to treat principle.
Discussion
With a cost-effectiveness analysis the trade off between the costs of prolonged conservative treatment and delayed surgery in a smaller number of patients are compared with the current policy of surgical management. As surgery is expected to be inevitable in certain subgroups of patients, the distinction of and classification by predictive patient characteristics is most relevant to clinical practice.
Trial registration
Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR2216
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-57
PMCID: PMC3058072  PMID: 21371314
7.  Adverse effects of extra-articular corticosteroid injections: a systematic review 
Background
To estimate the occurrence and type of adverse effects after application of an extra-articular (soft tissue) corticosteroid injection.
Methods
A systematic review of the literature was made based on a PubMed and Embase search covering the period 1956 to January 2010. Case reports were included, as were prospective and retrospective studies that reported adverse events of corticosteroid injection. All clinical trials which used extra-articular corticosteroid injections were examined. We divided the reported adverse events into major (defined as those needing intervention or not disappearing) and minor ones (transient, not requiring intervention).
Results
The search yielded 87 relevant studies:44 case reports, 37 prospective studies and 6 retrospective studies. The major adverse events included osteomyelitis and protothecosis; one fatal necrotizing fasciitis; cellulitis and ecchymosis; tendon ruptures; atrophy of the plantar fat was described after injecting a neuroma; and local skin effects appeared as atrophy, hypopigmentation or as skin defect. The minor adverse events effects ranged from skin rash to flushing and disturbed menstrual pattern. Increased pain or steroid flare after injection was reported in 19 studies. After extra-articular injection, the incidence of major adverse events ranged from 0-5.8% and that of minor adverse events from 0-81%. It was not feasible to pool the risk for adverse effects due to heterogeneity of study populations and difference in interventions and variance in reporting.
Conclusion
In this literature review it was difficult to accurately quantify the incidence of adverse effects after extra-articular corticosteroid injection. The reported adverse events were relatively mild, although one fatal reaction was reported.
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-11-206
PMCID: PMC2945953  PMID: 20836867
8.  Effectiveness of diclofenac versus acetaminophen in primary care patients with knee osteoarthritis: [NTR1485], DIPA-Trial: design of a randomized clinical trial 
Background
Osteoarthritis is the most frequent chronic joint disease which causes pain and disability of especially hip and knee. According to international guidelines and the Dutch general practitioners guidelines for non-traumatic knee symptoms, acetaminophen should be the pain medication of first choice for osteoarthritis. However, of all prescribed pain medication in general practice, 90% consists of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs compared to 10% of acetaminophen. Because general practitioners may lack evidence showing a similar efficacy of acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, we present the design of a randomized open-label trial to investigate the efficacy of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (diclofenac) compared with acetaminophen in new consulters with knee osteoarthritis in general practice.
Methods/Design
Patients aged 45 years or older consulting their general practitioner with non-traumatic knee pain, meeting the clinical American College of Rheumatology criteria, and with a pain severity score of 2 or higher (on a 0-10 scale), will be randomly allocated to either diclofenac (maximum daily dose of 150 mg) or acetaminophen (maximum daily dose of 3000 mg) for 2 weeks and, if required, an additional 1-2 weeks, with a total follow-up period of 12 weeks. The primary outcomes are knee pain measured with a daily diary, and pain and function measured with the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at baseline, and at 3, 6, 9, and 12-weeks follow-up. Secondary outcomes are patients' perceived recovery, quality of life, medical, patient, and productivity costs, compliance to therapy, co-interventions, and adverse reactions.
Discussion
The successful completion of this trial would lead to a better understanding of which medication should be used in the treatment of primary care patients with mild knee osteoarthritis.
Trial registration
Dutch trial registry NTR1485.
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-11-7
PMCID: PMC2835660  PMID: 20067607
9.  Knee complaints seen in general practice: active sport participants versus non-sport participants 
Background
Since knee complaints are common among athletes and are frequently presented in general practice, it is of interest to investigate the type of knee complaints represented in general practice of athletes in comparison with those of non-athletes. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the differences in type of knee complaints between sport participants, in this study defined as athletes, and non-sport participants, defined as non-athletes, presenting in general practice. Further, differences in the initial policy of the GP, medical consumption, and outcome at one-year follow-up were also investigated.
Methods
Patients consulting their GP for a new episode of knee complaints were invited to participate in this prospective cohort study. From the total HONEUR knee cohort population (n = 1068) we extracted patients who were athletes (n = 421) or non-athletes (n = 388).
Results
The results showed that acute distortions of the knee were significantly more diagnosed in athletes than in non-athletes (p = 0.04). Further, more athletes were advised by their GP to 'go easy on the knee' than the non-athletes (p < 0.01), but no differences were found in number of referrals and medication prescribed by the GP. The medical consumption was significantly higher among athletes; however, no significant differences were found between the two groups for recovery at one-year follow-up.
Conclusion
There are no major differences in the diagnosis and prognosis of knee complaints between athletes and non-athletes presented to the GP. This implies that there are no indications for different treatment strategies applied in both groups. However, athletes are more often advised to 'go easy on the knee' and to rest than non-athletes. Further, there is a trend towards increased medical consumption among athletes while functional disability and pain are lower than among the non-athletes.
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-9-36
PMCID: PMC2278141  PMID: 18366679
10.  Kinesiophobia in patients with non-traumatic arm, neck and shoulder complaints: a prospective cohort study in general practice 
Background
Complaints of arm, neck and shoulder are common in Western societies. Of those consulting a general practitioner (GP) with non-traumatic arm, neck or shoulder complaints, about 50% do not recover within 6 months.
Kinesiophobia (also known as fear of movement/(re)injury) may also play a role in these complaints, as it may lead to avoidance behaviour resulting in hypervigilance to bodily sensations, followed by disability, disuse and depression. However, in relation to arm, neck and shoulder complaints little is known about kinesiophobia and its associated variables.
Therefore this study aimed to: describe the degree of kinesiophobia in patients with non-traumatic complaints of arm, neck and shoulder in general practice; to determine whether mean scores of kinesiophobia change over time in non-recovered patients; and to evaluate variables associated with kinesiophobia at baseline.
Methods
In this prospective cohort study set in general practice, consulters with a first or new episode of non-traumatic arm, neck or shoulder complaints (aged 18–64 years) entered the cohort. Baseline data were collected on kinesiophobia using the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, the 13-item adjusted version: TSK-AV, and on patient-, complaint-, and psychosocial variables using self-administered questionnaires. The mean TSK-AV score was calculated. In non-recovered patients the follow-up TSK-AV scores at 6 and 12 months were analyzed with the general linear mixed model. Variables associated with kinesiophobia at baseline were evaluated using multivariate linear regression analyses.
Results
The mean TSK-AV score at baseline was 24.8 [SD: 6.2]. Among non-recovered patients the mean TSK-AV score at baseline was 26.1 [SD: 6.6], which remained unchanged over 12- months follow-up period. The strongest associations with kinesiophobia were catastrophizing, disability, and comorbidity of musculoskeletal complaints. Additionally, having a shoulder complaint, low social support, high somatization and high distress contributed to the kinesiophobia score.
Conclusion
The mean TSK-AV score in our population seems comparable to those in other populations in primary care.
In patients who did not recover during the 12- month follow-up, the degree of kinesiophobia remained unchanged during this time period.
The variables associated with kinesiophobia at baseline appear to be in line with the fear-avoidance model.
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-8-117
PMCID: PMC2219996  PMID: 18045457
11.  Effect of corticosteroid injection for trochanter pain syndrome: design of a randomised clinical trial in general practice 
Background
Regional pain in the hip in adults is a common cause of a general practitioner visit. A considerable part of patients suffer from (greater) trochanteric pain syndrome or trochanteric bursitis. Local corticosteroid injections is one of the treatment options. Although clear evidence is lacking, small observational studies suggest that this treatment is effective in the short-term follow-up. So far, there are no randomised controlled trials available evaluating the efficacy of injection therapy.
This study will investigate the efficacy of local corticosteroid injections in the trochanter syndrome in the general practice, using a randomised controlled trial design. The cost effectiveness of the corticosteroid injection therapy will also be assessed. Secondly, the role of co-morbidity in relation to the efficacy of local corticosteroid injections will be investigated.
Methods/Design
This study is a pragmatic, open label randomised trial.
A total of 150 patients (age 18–80 years) visiting the general practitioner with complaints suggestive of trochanteric pain syndrome will be allocated to receive local corticosteroid injections or to receive usual care. Usual care consists of analgesics as needed. The randomisation is stratified for yes or no co-morbidity of low back pain, osteoarthritis of the hip, or both. The treatment will be evaluated by means of questionnaires at several time points within one year, with the 3 month and 1 year evaluation of pain and recovery as primary outcome. Analyses of primary and secondary outcomes will be made according to the intention-to-treat principle. Direct and indirect costs will be assessed by questionnaires. The cost effectiveness will be estimated using the following ratio: CE ratio = (cost of injection therapy minus cost of usual care)/(effect of injection therapy minus effect of usual care).
Discussion
This study design is appropriate to estimate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the injection therapy. We choose to use a pragmatic study design and are thus not able to study specific effects of the injection with corticosteroids. A distinction between placebo effect of the injection and specific effects of the corticosteroids is therefore not possible.
Trial Registration
The trial is listed in the Dutch Trial Registry with the number ISRCTN16994576
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-8-95
PMCID: PMC2045096  PMID: 17880718
12.  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.
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-7-31
PMCID: PMC1431535  PMID: 16545120
13.  The effect of glucosamine sulphate on osteoarthritis: design of a long-term randomised clinical trial [ISRCTN54513166] 
Background
Pharmacological treatment for osteoarthritis (OA) can be divided into two groups: symptom-modifying drugs and disease-modifying drugs. Symptom-modifying drugs are currently the prescription of choice for patients with OA, as disease-modifying drugs are not yet available in usual care. However, there has recently been a lot of debate about glucosamine sulphate (GS), a biological agent that is thought to have both symptom-modifying and disease-modifying properties. This assumption has yet to be proved.
The objective of this article is to present the design of a blind randomised clinical trial that examines the long-term symptom-modifying and disease-modifying effectiveness of GS in patients with hip OA. This trial is ongoing and will finish in March 2006.
Methods/design
Patients with hip OA meeting the ACR-criteria are randomly allocated to either 1500 mg of oral GS or placebo for the duration of two years. The primary outcome measures, which are joint space narrowing (JSN), and change in the pain and function score of the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), are determined at baseline and after two years of follow-up during the final assessment. Intermediate measures at three-month intervals throughout the trial are used to study secondary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measures are changes in WOMAC stiffness score, quality of life, medical consumption, side effects and differences in biomarker CTX-II.
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-6-20
PMCID: PMC1090586  PMID: 15850497

Results 1-13 (13)