Search

BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain is one of the most common presentations of musculoskeletal pain with a 1-month population prevalence of between 7 and 26%. The overall prognosis of shoulder pain is highly variable with 40% of patients reporting persistent pain 1 year after consulting their primary care clinician. Despite evidence for prognostic value of a range of patient and disease characteristics, it is not clear whether these factors also predict (moderate) the effect of specific treatments (such as corticosteroid injection, exercise, or surgery). OBJECTIVES: This study aims to identify predictors of treatment effect (i.e. treatment moderators or effect modifiers) by investigating the association between a number of pre-defined individual-level factors and the effects of commonly used treatments on shoulder pain and disability outcomes. METHODS: This will be a meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD). Eligible trials investigating the effectiveness of advice and analgesics, corticosteroid injection, physiotherapy-led exercise, psychological interventions, and/or surgical treatment in patients with shoulder conditions will be identified from systematic reviews and an updated systematic search for trials, and risk of bias will be assessed. Authors of all eligible trials will be approached for data sharing. Outcomes measured will be shoulder pain and disability, and our previous work has identified candidate predictors. The main analysis will be conducted using hierarchical one-stage IPD meta-analysis models, examining the effect of treatment-predictor interaction on outcome for each of the candidate predictors and describing relevant subgroup effects where significant interaction effects are detected. Random effects will be used to account for clustering and heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses will be based on (i) exclusion of trials at high risk of bias, (ii) use of restricted cubic splines to model potential non-linear associations for candidate predictors

© 2016 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. Aims: At least 50% of patients with heart failure (HF) may have sleep-disordered breathing (SDB). Overnight in-hospital polysomnography (PSG) is considered the gold standard for diagnosis, but a lack of access to such testing contributes to under-diagnosis of SDB. Therefore, there is a need for simple and reliable validated methods to aid diagnosis in patients with HF. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of a non-contact type IV screening device, SleepMinderTM (SM), compared with in-hospital PSG for detecting SDB in patients with HF. Methods and results: The study included 75 adult patients with systolic HF and suspected SDB who underwent simultaneous PSG and SM recordings. An algorithm was developed from the SM signals, using digital signal processing and pattern recognition techniques to calculate the SM apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI). This was then compared with expert-scored PSGAHI. The SM algorithm had 70% sensitivity and 89% specificity for identifying patients with clinically significant SDB (AHI ≥ 15/h). At this threshold, it had a positive likelihood ratio of 6.3 and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.16. The overall accuracy of the SMAHI algorithm was 85.8% as shown by the area under a receiver operator characteristic curve. The mean AHI with SM was 3.8/h (95% confidence interval 0.5–7.1) lower than that with PSG. Conclusions: The accuracy of the non-contact type IV screening device SM is good for clinically significant SDB in patients with systolic HF and could be considered as a simple first step in the diagnostic pathway.

Sleep disordered breathing has a high prevalence. There new methods are developed for an unobtrusive diagnosis at home or at places outside of regular sleep medicine centers. This study compares the performance of non-contact sleep measurement devices for measuring sleep parameters in subjects against polysomnography, and to assess their relative performance. The devices compared to each other were two non-contact radio-frequency biomotion sensors (SleepMinder and HSL- 101) and a wrist worn actigraphy system (Actiwatch). Stuides were carried out in the sleep lab with polysomnography in 20 normal subjects. All recordings were done with simultaneous assessment of rlevant sleep parameters. The parameters measured for sleep were total sleep time (TST), sleep efficiency (SE), sleep onset latency (SOL) and wake after sleep onset (WASO). The per-epoch agreement level for sleep/wake distinction was evaluated. The TSTs reported by the three devices were 426±34, 434± 22, and 441± 16 mins, for the SleepMinder, HSL-101 and Actiwatch, respectively, against PSG reported TST of 391±49 mins. The SOLs were 10±10, 5±6 and 3±2 mins for the SleepMinder, HSL-101 and Actiwatch, respectively against PSG SOL of 19±13 mins. The WASO times were 46±33, 43±22, and 38±17 mins, as against PSG-reported 69±46 mins. All three devices had a statistically significant bias to overestimate sleep time and underestimate WASO and SOL compared to PSG. The performance of the three devices was basically equivalent, with only minor inter-device differences. The overall per-epoch agreement levels were 86% for the Sleepminder, 86% for the HSL-101 and 85% for the Actiwatch. Non-contact biomotionsensors for sleep recordings yield reasonable estimates for sleepparameters. We observed an over estimation of sleep. The radio-frequency biomotion sensors provided similar accuracies for sleep/wake determination in normal subjects as actigraphy. and slightly improved estimates of Total Sleep Time, SOL and WASO.

Although self-monitoring of blood pressure is common among people with hypertension, little is known about how general practitioners (GPs) use such readings. This survey aimed to ascertain current views and practice on self-monitoring of UK primary care physicians. An internet-based survey of UK GPs was undertaken using a provider of internet services to UK doctors. The hyperlink to the survey was opened by 928 doctors, and 625 (67%) GPs completed the questionnaire. Of them, 557 (90%) reported having patients who self-monitor, 191 (34%) had a monitor that they lend to patients, 171 (31%) provided training in self-monitoring for their patients and 52 (9%) offered training to other GPs. Three hundred and sixty-seven GPs (66%) recommended at least two readings per day, and 416 (75%) recommended at least 4 days of monitoring at a time. One hundred and eighty (32%) adjusted self-monitored readings to take account of lower pressures in out-of-office settings, and 10/5 mm Hg was the most common adjustment factor used. Self-monitoring of blood pressure was widespread among the patients of responding GPs. Although the majority used appropriate schedules of measurement, some GPs suggested much more frequent home measurements than usual. Further, interpretation of home blood pressure was suboptimal, with only a minority recognising that values for diagnosis and on-treatment target are lower than those for clinic measurement. Subsequent national guidance may improve this situation but will require adequate implementation.

Although self-monitoring of blood pressure is common among people with hypertension, little is known about how general practitioners (GPs) use such readings. This survey aimed to ascertain current views and practice on self-monitoring of UK primary care physicians. An internet-based survey of UK GPs was undertaken using a provider of internet services to UK doctors. The hyperlink to the survey was opened by 928 doctors, and 625 (67%) GPs completed the questionnaire. Of them, 557 (90%) reported having patients who self-monitor, 191 (34%) had a monitor that they lend to patients, 171 (31%) provided training in self-monitoring for their patients and 52 (9%) offered training to other GPs. Three hundred and sixty-seven GPs (66%) recommended at least two readings per day, and 416 (75%) recommended at least 4 days of monitoring at a time. One hundred and eighty (32%) adjusted self-monitored readings to take account of lower pressures in out-of-office settings, and 10/5 mm Hg was the most common adjustment factor used. Self-monitoring of blood pressure was widespread among the patients of responding GPs. Although the majority used appropriate schedules of measurement, some GPs suggested much more frequent home measurements than usual. Further, interpretation of home blood pressure was suboptimal, with only a minority recognising that values for diagnosis and on-treatment target are lower than those for clinic measurement. Subsequent national guidance may improve this situation but will require adequate implementation.

Although self-monitoring of blood pressure is common among people with hypertension, little is known about how general practitioners (GPs) use such readings. This survey aimed to ascertain current views and practice on self-monitoring of UK primary care physicians. An internet-based survey of UK GPs was undertaken using a provider of internet services to UK doctors. The hyperlink to the survey was opened by 928 doctors, and 625 (67%) GPs completed the questionnaire. Of them, 557 (90%) reported having patients who self-monitor, 191 (34%) had a monitor that they lend to patients, 171 (31%) provided training in self-monitoring for their patients and 52 (9%) offered training to other GPs. Three hundred and sixty-seven GPs (66%) recommended at least two readings per day, and 416 (75%) recommended at least 4 days of monitoring at a time. One hundred and eighty (32%) adjusted self-monitored readings to take account of lower pressures in out-of-office settings, and 10/5 mm Hg was the most common adjustment factor used. Self-monitoring of blood pressure was widespread among the patients of responding GPs. Although the majority used appropriate schedules of measurement, some GPs suggested much more frequent home measurements than usual. Further, interpretation of home blood pressure was suboptimal, with only a minority recognising that values for diagnosis and on-treatment target are lower than those for clinic measurement. Subsequent national guidance may improve this situation but will require adequate implementation.

Although self-monitoring of blood pressure is common among people with hypertension, little is known about how general practitioners (GPs) use such readings. This survey aimed to ascertain current views and practice on self-monitoring of UK primary care physicians. An internet-based survey of UK GPs was undertaken using a provider of internet services to UK doctors. The hyperlink to the survey was opened by 928 doctors, and 625 (67%) GPs completed the questionnaire. Of them, 557 (90%) reported having patients who self-monitor, 191 (34%) had a monitor that they lend to patients, 171 (31%) provided training in self-monitoring for their patients and 52 (9%) offered training to other GPs. Three hundred and sixty-seven GPs (66%) recommended at least two readings per day, and 416 (75%) recommended at least 4 days of monitoring at a time. One hundred and eighty (32%) adjusted self-monitored readings to take account of lower pressures in out-of-office settings, and 10/5 mm Hg was the most common adjustment factor used. Self-monitoring of blood pressure was widespread among the patients of responding GPs. Although the majority used appropriate schedules of measurement, some GPs suggested much more frequent home measurements than usual. Further, interpretation of home blood pressure was suboptimal, with only a minority recognising that values for diagnosis and on-treatment target are lower than those for clinic measurement. Subsequent national guidance may improve this situation but will require adequate implementation.

Although self-monitoring of blood pressure is common among people with hypertension, little is known about how general practitioners (GPs) use such readings. This survey aimed to ascertain current views and practice on self-monitoring of UK primary care physicians. An internet-based survey of UK GPs was undertaken using a provider of internet services to UK doctors. The hyperlink to the survey was opened by 928 doctors, and 625 (67%) GPs completed the questionnaire. Of them, 557 (90%) reported having patients who self-monitor, 191 (34%) had a monitor that they lend to patients, 171 (31%) provided training in self-monitoring for their patients and 52 (9%) offered training to other GPs. Three hundred and sixty-seven GPs (66%) recommended at least two readings per day, and 416 (75%) recommended at least 4 days of monitoring at a time. One hundred and eighty (32%) adjusted self-monitored readings to take account of lower pressures in out-of-office settings, and 10/5 mm Hg was the most common adjustment factor used. Self-monitoring of blood pressure was widespread among the patients of responding GPs. Although the majority used appropriate schedules of measurement, some GPs suggested much more frequent home measurements than usual. Further, interpretation of home blood pressure was suboptimal, with only a minority recognising that values for diagnosis and on-treatment target are lower than those for clinic measurement. Subsequent national guidance may improve this situation but will require adequate implementation.

Although self-monitoring of blood pressure is common among people with hypertension, little is known about how general practitioners (GPs) use such readings. This survey aimed to ascertain current views and practice on self-monitoring of UK primary care physicians. An internet-based survey of UK GPs was undertaken using a provider of internet services to UK doctors. The hyperlink to the survey was opened by 928 doctors, and 625 (67%) GPs completed the questionnaire. Of them, 557 (90%) reported having patients who self-monitor, 191 (34%) had a monitor that they lend to patients, 171 (31%) provided training in self-monitoring for their patients and 52 (9%) offered training to other GPs. Three hundred and sixty-seven GPs (66%) recommended at least two readings per day, and 416 (75%) recommended at least 4 days of monitoring at a time. One hundred and eighty (32%) adjusted self-monitored readings to take account of lower pressures in out-of-office settings, and 10/5 mm Hg was the most common adjustment factor used. Self-monitoring of blood pressure was widespread among the patients of responding GPs. Although the majority used appropriate schedules of measurement, some GPs suggested much more frequent home measurements than usual. Further, interpretation of home blood pressure was suboptimal, with only a minority recognising that values for diagnosis and on-treatment target are lower than those for clinic measurement. Subsequent national guidance may improve this situation but will require adequate implementation.

RR and PR intervals were extracted from single channel electrocardiograms in normal human subjects using a wavelet based technique. RR and PR intervals were shown to be correlated with respiration due to common autonomic nervous activation of the sino-atrial and atrio-ventricular nodes. However, evidence for independent autonomic nervous activation of these nodes is also shown based on RR and PR interval spectra, and on RR vs. PR plots., Presented at Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (23rd) held in Istanbul, Turkey on 25-28 Oct 2001. See also ADM001351 for entire conference on CD-ROM., The original document contains color images.