Search

Abstract Background To investigate (1) the association of specific biomechanical factors with knee osteoarthritis and knee osteoarthritis development, and (2) the impact of other relevant risk factors on this association. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus were searched up until April 2017. Studies were included if they fulfilled the following criteria: the study 1) assessed the association of a biomechanical factor with knee osteoarthritis, or knee osteoarthritis development; 2) reported on skeletal malalignment, muscular dysfunction, impaired proprioception, laxity and abnormal loading during gait; 3) was a cohort study with participants developing knee osteoarthritis and participants not developing knee osteoarthritis, or a case-control or cross-sectional study with participants with knee osteoarthritis and without knee osteoarthritis. Risk of bias was assessed with the QUIPS tool and meta-analyses were performed using random effects models. Results Of 6413 unique studies identified, 59 cross-sectional studies were eligible for meta-analyses (9825 participants, 5328 with knee osteoarthritis). No cohort studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Compared with healthy controls, patients with knee osteoarthritis have higher odds of having lower muscle strength, proprioception deficits, more medial varus-valgus laxity and less lateral varus-valgus laxity. Patients with medial knee osteoarthritis have higher odds of having a higher knee adduction moment than healthy controls. Level of evidence was graded as ‘very low’ to ‘moderate’ quality. Due to large between study differences moderation of other risk factors on biomechanical risk factors could not be evaluated. Conclusions Patients with knee osteoarthritis are more likely to display a number of biomechanical characteristics. The causal relationship between specific biomechanical factors and the development of knee osteoarthritis could not be determined as no longitudinal studies were included. There is an urgent need for high quality, longitudinal studies to evaluate the impact of specific biomechanical factors on the development of knee osteoarthritis. Trial Registration (PROSPERO ID: CRD42015025092).

Abstract Background Responsiveness of a clinical test is highly relevant in order to evaluate the effect of a given intervention. However, the responsiveness of clinical tests for people with neck pain has not been adequately evaluated. The objective of the present study was to examine the responsiveness of four clinical tests which are low cost and easy to perform in a clinical setting, including the craniocervical flexion test, cervical active range of movement, test for the cervical extensors and pressure pain threshold testing. Methods This study is a secondary analysis of data collected in a previously published randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomized to either physical training, exercises and pain education combined or pain education only. Participants were tested on the clinical tests at baseline and at 4-month follow-up. An anchor-based approach using Receiver Operator Characteristics (ROC) curves was used to evaluate responsiveness of the clinical tests. The Neck Disability Index was used to discriminate between those who had improved and those who were unchanged at the 4-month follow-up. Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID), together with sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, in addition to positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated. Results In total, 164 participants completed the 4 month follow up. One-hundred forty four participants were classified as unchanged whereas 20 patients were considered to be improved. Twenty-six participants didn’t complete all of the clinical tests, leaving a total of 138 to be included for analyses. Area Under Curve (AUC) ranged from 0.50-0.62 for the clinical tests, and were all below an acceptable level. MCID was generally large, and the corresponding sensitivity and specificity was low with sensitivity ranging from 20 to 60%, and specificity from 54 to 86%. LR+ (0.8-2.07) and LR- (0.7-1.1) showed low diagnostic value for all variables, with PPV ranging from 12.1 to 26.1 and NPV ranging from 84.7 to 89.2. Conclusion Responsiveness of the included clinical tests was generally low when using change in NDI score as the anchor from baseline to the 4-month follow up. Further investigations of responsiveness are warranted, possibly using other anchors, which to a higher degree resemble similar dimensions as the clinical tests.

Abstract Background Clinical examination findings are used in primary care to give an initial diagnosis to patients with low back pain and related leg symptoms. The purpose of this study was to develop best evidence Clinical Diagnostic Rules (CDR] for the identification of the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine; i.e. intervertebral discs, sacroiliac joints, facet joints, bone, muscles, nerve roots, muscles, peripheral nerve tissue, and central nervous system sensitization. Methods A sensitive electronic search strategy using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases was combined with hand searching and citation tracking to identify eligible studies. Criteria for inclusion were: persons with low back pain with or without related leg symptoms, history or physical examination findings suitable for use in primary care, comparison with acceptable reference standards, and statistical reporting permitting calculation of diagnostic value. Quality assessments were made independently by two reviewers using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Clinical examination findings that were investigated by at least two studies were included and results that met our predefined threshold of positive likelihood ratio ≥ 2 or negative likelihood ratio ≤ 0.5 were considered for the CDR. Results Sixty-four studies satisfied our eligible criteria. We were able to construct promising CDRs for symptomatic intervertebral disc, sacroiliac joint, spondylolisthesis, disc herniation with nerve root involvement, and spinal stenosis. Single clinical test appear not to be as useful as clusters of tests that are more closely in line with clinical decision making. Conclusions This is the first comprehensive systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluate clinical examination findings for their ability to identify the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine. In some diagnostic categories we have sufficient evidence to recommend a CDR. In others, we have only preliminary evidence that needs testing in future studies. Most findings were tested in secondary or tertiary care. Thus, the accuracy of the findings in a primary care setting has yet to be confirmed.

Abstract Background When conducting systematic reviews, it is essential to perform a comprehensive literature search to identify all published studies relevant to the specific research question. The Cochrane Collaborations Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) guidelines state that searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL should be considered mandatory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the MECIR recommendations to use MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL combined, and examine the yield of using these to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within the area of musculoskeletal disorders. Methods Data sources were systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group, including at least five RCTs, reporting a search history, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and adding reference- and hand-searching. Additional databases were deemed eligible if they indexed RCTs, were in English and used in more than three of the systematic reviews. Relative recall was calculated as the number of studies identified by the literature search divided by the number of eligible studies i.e. included studies in the individual systematic reviews. Finally, cumulative median recall was calculated for MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL combined followed by the databases yielding additional studies. Results Deemed eligible was twenty-three systematic reviews and the databases included other than MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was AMED, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, MANTIS, OT-Seeker, PEDro, PsychINFO, SCOPUS, SportDISCUS and Web of Science. Cumulative median recall for combined searching in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was 88.9% and increased to 90.9% when adding 10 additional databases. Conclusion Searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was not sufficient for identifying all effect studies on musculoskeletal disorders, but additional ten databases did only increase the median recall by 2%. It is possible that searching databases is not sufficient to identify all relevant references, and that reviewers must rely upon additional sources in their literature search. However further research is needed.