Search

To examine the strength of evidence available for multiple facet joint injections (FJIs) and medial branch blocks (MBBs), and to report on the variations in the NHS England framework using the getting it right first time (GIRFT) data. Systematic review using patient, intervention, comparison, outcome and study strategy. The literature search using Cochrane, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases using MeSH terms: lumbar spine, spinal injection and facet joint (“Appendix A”). Three studies were identified that investigated the efficacy of multiple FJIs or MBBs. None of these studies reported sustained positive outcomes at long-term follow-up. There is a paucity of levels I and II evidence available for the efficacy of multiple FJIs and MBBs in treating low back pain. GIRFT data show a high degree of variation in the use of multiple FJIs, which would not be supported by the literature. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Examination of the hand is a key skill for both plastic surgery and orthopaedic surgery trainees alike. There is significant crossover between the two specialities and this article aims to provide a systematic approach to hand examination. It also includes specific pathologies and the special tests that are required to confirm or refute your differential diagnoses from the history. The article works through the anatomy of the hand and then a step by step examination to pick up common elective hand pathologies.

Background Lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) is a common condition affecting adults. Although a lack of treatment consensus continues to prompt numerous effectiveness studies, there is a paucity of clear guidance on the choice of outcome measure. Our aim was to undertake a standardised evaluation of the available clinical rating systems that report patient-centred outcomes in LET. Methods A systematic review of studies reporting the development, assessment of metric properties and/or use of instruments aiming to quantify LET-specific patient-centred outcome measures was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL (inception-2017) adhering to PRISMA guidance. The evidence for each instrument was independently assessed by two reviewers using the standardised evaluating measures of patient-reported outcomes (EMPRO) method evaluating overall and attribute-specific instrument performance (metric properties and usability). EMPRO scores > 50/100 were considered indicative of high performance. Results Out of 7261 references, we identified 105 articles reporting on 15 instruments for EMPRO analysis. Median performance score was 41.6 (range 21.6–72.5), with four instruments meeting high-performance criteria: quick Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand score (qDASH) (72.5), DASH (66.9), Oxford Elbow Score (OES) (66.6) and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) (57.0). One hundred seventy-nine articles reported instrument use internationally with DASH as the most frequent (29.7% articles) followed by PRTEE (25.6%), MEPS (15.1%) and qDASH (8.1%). The correlation between frequency of use and performance was r = 0.35 (95%CI − 0.11; 0.83). Conclusions This is the first study to provide standardised guidance on the choice of measures for LET. A large number of clinical rating systems are both available and being used for patients with LETs. Robust evidence is available for four measures, the DASH, QDASH, PRTEE and OES. The use of instruments in the literature is only in part explained by instrument performance. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40798-019-0183-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical examination of the spine is an essential skill to master that will benefit you throughout your medical and surgical career. This article describes the basic anatomy and surface markings of the spine that will aid your examination and also discusses diagnostic tests for common pathologies. The special tests in the spine examination allow clinicians to tailor the examination to the pathology that they are trying to confirm or refute. Details of the tests for scoliosis, myelopathy, cervical and lumbar radiculopathy are also included.

Background Clinical rating systems are used as outcome measures in clinical trials and attempt to gauge the patient's view of his or her own health. The choice of clinical rating system should be supported by its performance against established quality standards. Methods A search strategy was developed to identify all studies that reported the use of clinical rating systems in the elbow literature. The strategy was run from inception in Medline Embase and CINHAL. Data extraction identified the date of publication, country of data collection, pathology assessed, and the outcome measure used. Results We identified 980 studies that reported clinical rating system use. Seventy-two separate rating systems were identified. Forty-one percent of studies used ≥2 separate measures. Overall, 54% of studies used the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS). For arthroplasty, 82% used MEPS, 17% used Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), and 7% used QuickDASH. For trauma, 66.7% used MEPS, 32% used DASH, and 23% used the Morrey Score. For tendinopathy, 31% used DASH, 23% used Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE), and 13% used MEPS. Over time, there was an increased proportional use of the MEPS, DASH, QuickDASH, PRTEE, and the Oxford Elbow Score. Conclusions This study identified a wide choice and usage of clinical rating systems in the elbow literature. Numerous studies reported measures without a history of either a specific pathology or cross-cultural validation. Interpretability and comparison of outcomes is dependent on the unification of outcome measure choice. This was not demonstrated currently.