Search

Objectives We aimed to systematically review the published literature regarding adults with clinical suspicion of pneumonia that compares the accuracy of lung ultrasonography (LUS) performed by non-imaging specialists to other reference standards in diagnosing and evaluating the severity of community-acquired pneumonia. Moreover, we aimed to describe LUS training and the speciality of the physician performing LUS, time spent on the LUS procedure and potential harms to patients. Materials and methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up until May 2019. We included studies that used LUS to diagnose pneumonia, but also confirmed pneumonia by other means. Publications were excluded if LUS was performed by a sonographer or radiologist (imaging specialists) or performed on other indications than suspicion of pneumonia. Two review authors screened and selected articles, extracted data and assessed quality using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Results We included 17 studies. The sensitivity of LUS to diagnose pneumonia ranged from 0.68 to 1.00; however, in 14 studies, sensitivity was ≥0.91. Specificities varied from 0.57 to 1.00. We found no obvious differences between studies with low and high diagnostic accuracy. The non-imaging specialists were emergency physicians, internal medicine physicians, intensivists or ‘speciality not described’. Five studies described LUS training, which varied from a 1-hour course to fully credentialed ultrasound education. In general, the methodological quality of studies was good, though, some studies had a high risk of bias. Conclusion We found significant heterogeneity across studies. In the majority of studies, LUS in the hands of the non-imaging specialists demonstrated high sensitivities and specificities in diagnosing pneumonia. However, due to problems with methodology and heterogeneity there is a need for larger studies with uniform and clearly established criteria for diagnosis and blinding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The overall objective of this study was to examine the differences in ultrasound availability in primary care across Europe. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Primary care. Participants Primary care physicians (PCPs). Primary and secondary outcomes measures The primary aim was to describe the variation in in-house primary care ultrasonography availability across Europe using descriptive statistics. The secondary aim was to explore associations between in-house ultrasonography availability and the characteristics of PCPs and their clinics using a mixed-effects logistic regression model. Results We collected data from 20 European countries. A total of 2086 PCPs participated, varying from 59 to 446 PCPs per country. The median response rate per country was 24.8%. The median (minimum–maximum) percentage of PCPs across Europe with access to in-house abdominal ultrasonography was 15.3% (0.0%–98.1%) and 12.1% (0.0%–30.8%) had access to in-house pelvic ultrasonography with large variations between countries. We found associations between in-house abdominal ultrasonography availability and larger clinics (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.9) and clinics with medical doctors specialised in areas, which traditionally use ultrasonography (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.8). Corresponding associations were found between in-house pelvic ultrasonography availability and larger clinics (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.7) and clinics with medical doctors specialised in areas, which traditionally use ultrasonography (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.8 to 5.1). Additionally, we found a negative association between urban clinics and in-house pelvic ultrasound availability (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.9). Conclusions Across Europe, there is a large variation in PCPs’ access to in-house ultrasonography and organisational aspects of primary care seem to determine this variation. If evidence continues to support ultrasonography as a front-line point-of-care test, implementation strategies for increasing its availability in primary care are needed. Future research should focus on facilitators and barriers that may affect the implementation process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To identify baseline patient characteristics that are (1) associated with a poor outcome on follow-up regardless of which treatment was provided (prognosis) or (2) associated with a successful outcome to a specific treatment (treatment effect modifiers). Design Systematic literature review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Data sources Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Web of Science, Cochrane, SportDiscus, OT Seeker and PsychInfo were searched for prospective cohort studies up to February 2019 without limitation in publication date. Eligibility criteria Prospective cohort studies reporting either prognostic factors or treatment effect modifiers on persistent musculoskeletal pain in 0-year-old to 19-year-old children and adolescents. Pain caused by tumours, fractures, infections, systemic and neurological conditions were excluded. Outcome measures Our primary outcome was musculoskeletal pain at follow-up and identification of any baseline characteristics that were associated with this outcome (prognostic factors). No secondary outcomes were declared. Method Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and titles. We included prospective cohort studies investigating the prognosis or treatment effect modifiers of 0-year-old to 19-year-old children and adolescents with self-reported musculoskeletal pain. Risk of bias assessment was conducted with the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. Results Twenty-six studies yielding a total of 111 unique prognostic factors were included. Female sex and psychological symptoms were the most frequent investigated prognostic factors. Increasing age, generalised pain, longer pain duration and smoking were other identified prognostic factors. No treatment effect modifiers were identified. Conclusion Several prognostic factors are associated with a poor prognosis in children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain. These prognostic factors may help guide clinical practice and shared decision-making. None of the included studies was conducted within a general practice setting which highlights an area in need of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Investigate the prognosis of adolescent knee pain, and evaluate its impact on health, care-seeking and career choices 5 years later. Design Pre-registered, prospective cohort study. Setting Population-based cohort initiated in school setting. Participants From a cohort of 2200 adolescents aged 15-19 years in 2011, 504 reported knee pain on at least a monthly basis, and were followed prospectively in this cohort study, together with 252 controls who did not have knee pain in 2011. Main outcome measures Outcomes included the Pain and Symptoms subscales from the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), pain intensity measured with a Numeric Rating Scale, pain frequency, knee-related and health-related quality of life, sports participation, physical activity level, KOOS subscales: Function and Sport/recreation, quality of sleep, healthcare consultations, treatments received for their knee pain, the use of painkillers and impact on choice of job or career. Results At follow-up, 358 (71.0%) from the knee pain group and 182 (72.2%) from the control group responded. Of note, 40.5% (95% CI: 35.4% to 45.6%) from the knee pain group reported knee pain 5 years later which was frequent and intense compared with 13.2% (95% CI: 8.2 to 18.1) of the control group. Those from the knee pain group still suffering from knee pain reported poorer physical health (13 points worse on KOOS Function and 30 points worse on KOOS Sport/recreation), stopped or reduced their sports participation because of knee pain (60%), reported worse sleep quality and worse knee-related and general quality of life. In terms of health behaviours, those still with knee pain reported more healthcare consultations. Onethird used pain killers regularly, and 15% (95% CI: 12% to 20%) reported that knee pain influenced their choice of job or career. Conclusion Four out of every 10 adolescents with knee pain still experienced frequent and intense knee pain 5 years later, severe enough to impact health, health behaviours and career choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the completeness of exercise prescription in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for patellofemoral pain (PFP), identify which elements are most frequently missing and supplement recommendations based on additional data from authors.Design: Systematic review.Data Sources: All studies included in the most recent Cochrane review were evaluated. Additionally, the Cochrane search was updated in June 2016 in Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, CINAHL and AMED databases. Two raters independently assessed completeness of reporting using the Toigo and Boutellier mechanobiological exercise descriptors, and Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. Authors were also contacted to provide additional information.Eligibility Criteria For Selecting Studies: RCTs of exercise interventions for PFP.Results: We included 38 RCTs. The level of exercise prescription detail was low, with no study providing complete information. The most commonly reported exercise descriptors were the 'duration of the experimental period' (n=38/38) and 'number of exercise interventions' (n=35). From TIDieR, the most commonly reported items were the 'intervention name' (n=38) and 'rationale' (n=36).The least reported items from the exercise descriptors were 'volitional muscular failure', 'temporal distribution of contraction modes', 'time under tension' and 'recovery between exercise sessions' (all n=2/38). From TIDieR, the least reported item was 'How well (fidelity and adherence)' (n=3/38).36 authors were contacted, with 22 replies and 13 providing additional exercise prescription details .Conclusion: Exercise prescriptions in RCTs with proven efficacy for PFP are poorly reported, impairing their implementation in clinical practice.Prospero Registration Number: CRD42016039138. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The primary aim is to identify, summarise and quality assess the available literature on the costeffectiveness of implementing low back pain guidelines in primary care. The secondary aim is to assess the transferability of the results to determine whether the identified studies can be included in a comparison with a Danish implementation study to establish which strategy procures most value for money. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: The search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Scopus, CINAHL and EconLit. No restrictions were made concerning language, year of publication or publication type. The bibliographies of the included studies were searched for any studies not captured in the literature search. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: To be included, a study must be: (1) based on a randomised controlled trial comparing implementation strategies, (2) the guideline must concern treatment of low back pain in primary care and (3) the economic evaluation should contain primary data on cost and costeffectiveness. Results: The title and abstract were assessed for 308 studies; of these, three studies were found eligible for inclusion. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list showed that the 3 studies were of moderate methodological quality while application of Welte's model showed that cost results from two studies could, with adjustments, be transferred to a Danish setting. It was questionable whether the associated effects could be transferred. Conclusions: Despite the resemblance of the implementation strategies, the 3 studies report conflicting results on cost-effectiveness. This review showed that transferring the results from the identified studies is not straightforward and underlines the importance of transparent reporting. Future research should focus on transferability of effects, for example, development of a supplement to Welte's model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]