Search

QUESTION: How much are the reductions in pain intensity and improvements in physical function from Pilates exercise mediated by changes in pain catastrophising and kinesiophobia? DESIGN: This was a secondary causal mediation analysis of a four-arm randomised controlled trial testing Pilates exercise dosage (once, twice or thrice per week) against a booklet control. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and fifty-five people with chronic low back pain. DATA ANALYSIS: All analyses were conducted in R software (version 4.1.2) following a preregistered analysis plan. A directed acyclic graph was constructed to identify potential pre-treatment mediator-outcome confounders. For each mediator model, we estimated the intervention-mediator effect, the mediator-outcome effect, the total natural indirect effect (TNIE), the pure natural direct effect (PNDE), and the total effect (TE). RESULTS: Pain catastrophising mediated the effect of Pilates exercise compared with control on the outcomes pain intensity (TNIE MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.03) and physical function (TNIE MD -0.64, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.18). Kinesiophobia mediated the effect of Pilates exercise compared with control on the outcomes pain intensity (TNIE MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.02) and physical function (TNIE MD -1.06, 95% CI -1.70 to -0.49). The proportion mediated by each mediator was moderate (21 to 55%). CONCLUSION: Reductions in pain catastrophising and kinesiophobia partially mediated the pathway to improved pain intensity and physical function when using Pilates exercise for chronic low back pain. These psychological components may be important treatment targets for clinicians and researchers to consider when prescribing exercise for chronic low back pain.

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of early patient-directed rehabilitation versus standard rehabilitation following surgical repair of the rotator cuff of the shoulder. Design: Two-arm, multi-centre pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial. Setting: Five National Health Service hospitals in England. Participants: Adults (n = 73) with non-traumatic rotator cuff tears scheduled for repair were recruited and randomly allocated remotely prior to surgery. Interventions: Early patient-directed rehabilitation (n = 37); advised to remove their sling as soon as able and move as symptoms allow. Standard rehabilitation (n = 36); sling immobilisation for four weeks. Measures: (1) Randomisation of 20% or more eligible patients. (2) Difference in time out of sling of 40% or more between groups. (3) Follow-up greater than 70%. Results: 73/185 (39%) potentially eligible patients were randomised. Twenty participants were withdrawn, 11 due to not receiving rotator cuff repair. The between-group difference in proportions of participants who exceeded the cut-off of 222.6 hours out of the sling was 50% (80% CI = 29%, 72%), with the early patient-directed rehabilitation group reporting greater time out of sling. 52/73 (71%) and 52/53 (98%) participants were followed-up at 12 weeks when withdrawals were included and excluded respectively. Eighteen full-thickness re-tears were reported (early patient-directed rehabilitation = 7, standard rehabilitation = 11). Five serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: A main randomised controlled trial is feasible but would require allocation of participants following surgery to counter the issue of withdrawal due to not receiving surgery.

Background: Clinically, a distinction is made between types of rotator cuff tear, traumatic and non-traumatic, and this sub-classification currently informs the treatment pathway. It is currently recommended that patients with traumatic rotator cuff tears are fast tracked for surgical opinion. However, there is uncertainty about the most clinically and cost-effective intervention for patients with traumatic rotator cuff tears and further research is required. SPeEDy will assess the feasibility of a fully powered, multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the hypothesis that, compared to surgical repair (and usual post-operative rehabilitation), a programme of physiotherapist-led exercise is not clinically inferior, but is more cost-effective for patients with traumatic rotator cuff tears. Methods: SPeEDy is a two-arm, multi-centre pilot and feasibility RCT with integrated Quintet Recruitment Intervention (QRI) and further qualitative investigation of patient experience. A total of 76 patients with traumatic rotator cuff tears will be recruited from approximately eight UK NHS hospitals and randomly allocated to either surgical repair and usual post-operative rehabilitation or a programme of physiotherapist-led exercise. The QRI is a mixed-methods approach that includes data collection and analysis of screening logs, audio recordings of recruitment consultations, interviews with patients and clinicians involved in recruitment, and review of study documentation as a basis for developing action plans to address identified difficulties whilst recruitment to the RCT is underway. A further sample of patient participants will be purposively sampled from both intervention groups and interviewed to explore reasons for initial participation, treatment acceptability, reasons for non-completion of treatment, where relevant, and any reasons for treatment crossover. Discussion: Research to date suggests that there is uncertainty regarding the most clinically and co

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of early patient-directed rehabilitation versus standard rehabilitation following surgical repair of the rotator cuff of the shoulder. Design: Two-arm, multi-centre pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial. Setting: Five National Health Service hospitals in England. Participants: Adults (n = 73) with non-traumatic rotator cuff tears scheduled for repair were recruited and randomly allocated remotely prior to surgery. Interventions: Early patient-directed rehabilitation (n = 37); advised to remove their sling as soon as able and move as symptoms allow. Standard rehabilitation (n = 36); sling immobilisation for four weeks. Measures: (1) Randomisation of 20% or more eligible patients. (2) Difference in time out of sling of 40% or more between groups. (3) Follow-up greater than 70%. Results: 73/185 (39%) potentially eligible patients were randomised. Twenty participants were withdrawn, 11 due to not receiving rotator cuff repair. The between-group difference in proportions of participants who exceeded the cut-off of 222.6 hours out of the sling was 50% (80% CI = 29%, 72%), with the early patient-directed rehabilitation group reporting greater time out of sling. 52/73 (71%) and 52/53 (98%) participants were followed-up at 12 weeks when withdrawals were included and excluded respectively. Eighteen full-thickness re-tears were reported (early patient-directed rehabilitation = 7, standard rehabilitation = 11). Five serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: A main randomised controlled trial is feasible but would require allocation of participants following surgery to counter the issue of withdrawal due to not receiving surgery.

Paul Campbell,1 Jonathan C Hill,1 Joanne Protheroe,1 Ebenezer K Afolabi,1 Martyn Lewis,1 Ruth Beardmore,1 Elaine M Hay,1 Christian D Mallen,1 Bernadette Bartlam,1 Benjamin Saunders,1 Danielle A van der Windt,1 Sue Jowett,2 Nadine E Foster,1 Kate M Dunn1 1Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, 2Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK Abstract: Musculoskeletal conditions represent a considerable burden worldwide, and are predominantly managed in primary care. Evidence suggests that many musculoskeletal conditions share similar prognostic factors. Systematically assessing patient’s prognosis and matching treatments based on prognostic subgroups (stratified care) has been shown to be both clinically effective and cost-effective. This study (Keele Aches and Pains Study) aims to refine and examine the validity of a brief questionnaire (Keele STarT MSK tool) designed to enable risk stratification of primary care patients with the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations. We also describe the subgroups of patients, and explore the acceptability and feasibility of using the tool and how the tool is best implemented in clinical practice. The study design is mixed methods: a prospective, quantitative observational cohort study with a linked qualitative focus group and interview study. Patients who have consulted their GP or health care practitioner about a relevant musculoskeletal condition will be recruited from general practice. Participating patients will complete a baseline questionnaire (shortly after consultation), plus questionnaires 2 and 6 months later. A subsample of patients, along with participating GPs and health care practitioners, will be invited to take part in qualitative focus groups and interviews. The Keele STarT MSK tool will be refined based on face, discriminant, construct, and predictive validity at baseline and 2 months, and

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.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Evidence is lacking on the prognosis and prognostic factors of back-related leg pain and sciatica in patients seeing their primary care physicians. This evidence could guide timely appropriate treatment and referral decisions. PURPOSE: The present study aims to describe the prognosis and prognostic factors in primary care patients with low back-related leg pain and sciatica. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: The present study included adults visiting their family doctor with back-related leg pain in the United Kingdom. OUTCOME MEASURES: Information about pain, function, psychological, and clinical variables, was collected. Good outcome was defined as 30% or more reduction in disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire). METHODS: Participants completed the questionnaires, underwent clinical assessments, received a magnetic resonance imaging scan, and were followed-up 12 months later. Mixed-effects logistic regression evaluated the prognostic value of six a priori defined variable sets (leg pain duration, pain intensity, neuropathic pain, psychological factors, clinical examination, and imaging variables). A combined model, including variables from all models, examined independent effects. The National Institute for Health Research funded the study. There are no conflicts of interest. RESULTS: A total of 609 patients were included. At 12 months, 55% of patients improved in both the total sample and the sciatica group. For the whole cohort, longer leg pain duration (odds ratio [OR] 0.41; confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.90), higher identity score (OR 0.70; CI 0.53-0.93), and patient's belief that the problem will last a long time (OR 0.27; CI 0.13-0.57) were the strongest independent prognostic factors negatively associated with improvement. These last two factors were similarly negatively associated with improvement in the sciatica subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides new evidence on the prognosis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Evidence is lacking on the prognosis and prognostic factors of back-related leg pain and sciatica in patients seeing their primary care physicians. This evidence could guide timely appropriate treatment and referral decisions. PURPOSE: The present study aims to describe the prognosis and prognostic factors in primary care patients with low back-related leg pain and sciatica. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: The present study included adults visiting their family doctor with back-related leg pain in the United Kingdom. OUTCOME MEASURES: Information about pain, function, psychological, and clinical variables, was collected. Good outcome was defined as 30% or more reduction in disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire). METHODS: Participants completed the questionnaires, underwent clinical assessments, received a magnetic resonance imaging scan, and were followed-up 12 months later. Mixed-effects logistic regression evaluated the prognostic value of six a priori defined variable sets (leg pain duration, pain intensity, neuropathic pain, psychological factors, clinical examination, and imaging variables). A combined model, including variables from all models, examined independent effects. The National Institute for Health Research funded the study. There are no conflicts of interest. RESULTS: A total of 609 patients were included. At 12 months, 55% of patients improved in both the total sample and the sciatica group. For the whole cohort, longer leg pain duration (odds ratio [OR] 0.41; confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.90), higher identity score (OR 0.70; CI 0.53-0.93), and patient's belief that the problem will last a long time (OR 0.27; CI 0.13-0.57) were the strongest independent prognostic factors negatively associated with improvement. These last two factors were similarly negatively associated with improvement in the sciatica subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides new evidence on the prognosis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Evidence is lacking on the prognosis and prognostic factors of back-related leg pain and sciatica in patients seeing their primary care physicians. This evidence could guide timely appropriate treatment and referral decisions. PURPOSE: The present study aims to describe the prognosis and prognostic factors in primary care patients with low back-related leg pain and sciatica. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: The present study included adults visiting their family doctor with back-related leg pain in the United Kingdom. OUTCOME MEASURES: Information about pain, function, psychological, and clinical variables, was collected. Good outcome was defined as 30% or more reduction in disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire). METHODS: Participants completed the questionnaires, underwent clinical assessments, received a magnetic resonance imaging scan, and were followed-up 12 months later. Mixed-effects logistic regression evaluated the prognostic value of six a priori defined variable sets (leg pain duration, pain intensity, neuropathic pain, psychological factors, clinical examination, and imaging variables). A combined model, including variables from all models, examined independent effects. The National Institute for Health Research funded the study. There are no conflicts of interest. RESULTS: A total of 609 patients were included. At 12 months, 55% of patients improved in both the total sample and the sciatica group. For the whole cohort, longer leg pain duration (odds ratio [OR] 0.41; confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.90), higher identity score (OR 0.70; CI 0.53-0.93), and patient's belief that the problem will last a long time (OR 0.27; CI 0.13-0.57) were the strongest independent prognostic factors negatively associated with improvement. These last two factors were similarly negatively associated with improvement in the sciatica subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides new evidence on the prognosis