scholarly journals Second Opinions for Spine Surgery: A Scoping Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni E Ferreira ◽  
Joshua Zadro ◽  
Chang Liu ◽  
Ian Harris ◽  
Chris Maher
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Prescription Drugs ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Spinal Surgery ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Second Opinion ◽  
Healthcare Use ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Surgery Rates

Abstract Background: Second opinions have the goal of clarifying uncertainties around diagnosis or management, particularly when healthcare decisions are complex, unpleasant, and carry considerable risks. Second opinions might be particularly useful for people recommended surgery for their back pain as surgery has at best a limited role in the management of back pain. No studies have attempted to summarise the available evidence for second opinion services designed for people with back pain that have been recommended to have surgery.Methods: We conducted a scoping review. Two independent researchers screened PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL from their inception to May 6th, 2021. Studies of any design were eligible provided that they described a second opinion intervention for people with spinal pain (low back or neck pain with or without radicular pain) either considering surgery or to whom surgery had been recommended. We assessed the methodological quality of studies with the Downs & Black scale. Outcomes were: i) characteristics of second opinion services for people considering or who have been recommended spinal surgery, ii) agreement between first and second opinions in terms of diagnoses, need for surgery and type of surgery, iii) their effectiveness in reducing surgery rates and improving patient –reported outcomes; and iv) the costs and healthcare use associated with these services. Outcomes were presented descriptively. Results: We included 12 studies (11 had poor methodological quality; one had fair). Studies described patient, doctor, and insurance-initiated second opinion services. Diagnostic agreement between first and second opinions varied from 53% to 96% across studies. Agreement for need for surgery between first and second opinions ranged from 0% to 83%. There is some very-low quality evidence that second opinion services may reduce surgery rates in the short-term, but it is unclear whether these reductions are sustained in the long-term or if patients only delay surgery. Second opinion services may reduce costs and some healthcare use (e.g. imaging), but might increase others (e.g. injections, prescription drugs). Conclusions: There is a need for high-quality studies to determine the value of second opinion services for reducing spinal surgery.

scholarly journals Clinical Significance and Diagnostic Value of Pain Extent Extracted from Pain Drawings: A Scoping Review

Diagnostics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 604
Author(s):  
Marco Barbero ◽  
Marcos J. Navarro-Santana ◽  
María Palacios-Ceña ◽  
Ricardo Ortega-Santiago ◽  
Corrado Cescon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Pain Drawings ◽  
Pain Extent

The current scoping review aimed to map current literature investigating the relationship between pain extent extracted from pain drawings with clinical, psychological, and psycho-physiological patient-reported outcome measures in people with pain. Electronic databases were searched for cross-sectional cohort studies that collected pain drawings using digital technology or a pen-on-paper approach and assessed for correlations between pain extent and clinical, psychological or psycho-physical outcomes. Data were extracted by two different reviewers. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Mapping of the results included: 1, description of included studies; 2, summary of results; and 3, identification of gaps in the existing literature. Eleven cross-sectional cohort studies were included. The pain disorders considered were heterogeneous, ranging from musculoskeletal to neuropathic conditions, and from localized to generalized pain conditions. All studies included pain and/or pain-related disability as clinical outcomes. Psychological outcomes included depression and anxiety, kinesiophobia and catastrophism. Psycho-physical measures included pressure or thermal pain thresholds. Ten studies were considered of high methodological quality. There was heterogeneity in the associations between pain extent and patient-reported outcome measures depending on the pain condition. This scoping review found that pain extent is associated with patient-reported outcome measures more so in patients presenting with musculoskeletal pain, e.g., neck pain or osteoarthritis, rather than for those with neuropathic pain or headache.

scholarly journals Which patient-reported factors predict referral to spinal surgery? A cohort study among 4987 chronic low back pain patients

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (11) ◽  
pp. 2782-2788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna M. van Dongen ◽  
Miranda L. van Hooff ◽  
Maarten Spruit ◽  
Marinus de Kleuver ◽  
Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Spinal Surgery ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Pain Patients

scholarly journals Independent prescribing by advanced physiotherapists for patients with low back pain in primary care: protocol for a feasibility trial with an embedded qualitative component

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e027745 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy David Noblet ◽  
John F Marriott ◽  
Alison B Rushton
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Prescription Drugs ◽  
Feasibility Trial ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Independent Prescribing ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Qualitative Component

IntroductionLow back pain (LBP) is the most prevalent musculoskeletal condition in the UK. Guidelines advocate a multimodal approach, including prescription of medications. Advanced physiotherapy practitioners (APPs) are well placed to provide this care in primary care. Physiotherapist independent prescribing remains novel, with the first prescribers qualifying in 2014. This feasibility trial aims to evaluate the feasibility, suitability and acceptability of assessing the effectiveness of independent prescribing by APPs for patients with LBP in primary care, to inform the design of a future definitive stepped-wedged cluster trial.Method and analysis(1) Trial component. An APP (registered prescriber) will complete the initial participant consultation. If prescription drugs are required within the multimodal physiotherapeutic context, these will be prescribed. Patient-reported outcome measures will be completed prior to initial assessment and at 6 and 12 weeks to assess feasibility of follow-up and data collection procedures. Accelerometers will be fitted for 7 days to assess physical activity, sedentary behaviour and feasibility of use. (2) Embedded qualitative component. A focus group and semistructured interviews will be used to evaluate the views and experiences of the participants and APPs respectively, about the feasibility, suitability and acceptability of the proposed full trial. A Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials diagram will be used to analyse feasible eligibility, recruitment and follow-up rates. Descriptive analysis of the data will be completed to evaluate procedures. Thematic analysis will be used to analyse and synthesise the qualitative data.Ethics and disseminationThis feasibility trial is approved by the Health Research Authority (HRA). Ethical approval was sought and granted via the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) ID 250734.Data will be disseminated via publication in peer reviewed journal and conference presentation. It is anticipated that the results of this study will be used in conjunction with ethical evaluation, economic and risk analyses, as well as consultation with key stakeholders including the British health consumer when contemplating change, enhancement or redesign of the essential full randomised controlled trial.Trial registration numberISRCTN15516596, Pre-results.

scholarly journals Limited evidence for return to sport testing after ACL reconstruction in children and adolescents under 16 years: a scoping review

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martijn Dietvorst ◽  
Maarten H. Brzoskowski ◽  
Marieke van der Steen ◽  
Eugenie Delvaux ◽  
Rob P. A. Janssen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Test Battery ◽  
Ligament Injury ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Movement Quality ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Strength Tests

Abstract Specific return to sport criteria for children and adolescents after anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction are unknown. The aim of this scoping review is to provide an overview of current tests regarding return to sport for children and adolescents. This scoping review was performed according to the PRISMA statement. A systematic search was performed on PubMed and EMBASE. The inclusion criteria were diagnostic and prognostic studies evaluating tests regarding return to sport after ACL injury and reconstruction in children/adolescents (age < 18 years). Twenty-six studies were included, of which 22 studies evaluated tests in the age category of 16 to 18 years. All studies evaluated tests after ACL reconstruction, no studies have been conducted in non-operative patients. Strength tests, movement quality and patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are investigated most frequently. Clearance for return to sport should be based on a test battery including strength tests, movement quality during sport-specific tasks and (paediatric) patient reported outcome measures. There are no recommendations on which specific tests regarding quantity and quality of movement should be used. Future research should aim at at developing and validating a test battery including movement quality and neuromotor control in a sport-specific context for both younger children and adolescents after both operative and non-operative treatment.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Sarcoma: A scoping review

2021 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 101897
Author(s):  
Ana Almeida ◽  
Teresa Martins ◽  
Lígia Lima
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported

scholarly journals Are the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index interchangeable in patients after lumbar spinal fusion?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
R.F.M.R. Kersten ◽  
J. Fikkers ◽  
N. Wolterbeek ◽  
F.C. Öner ◽  
S.M. van Gaalen
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Oswestry Disability Index ◽  
Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Fusion ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Disability Questionnaire ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common health problem for which there are several treatment options. For optimizing clinical decision making, evaluation of treatments and research purposes it is important that health care professionals are able to evaluate the functional status of patients. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely accepted and recommended. The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) are the two mainly used condition-specific patient reported outcomes. Concerns regarding the content and structural validity and also the different scoring systems of these outcome measures makes comparison of treatment results difficult. OBJECTIVE: Aim of this study was to determine if the RMDQ and ODI could be used exchangeable by assessing the correlation and comparing different measurement properties between the questionnaires. METHODS: Clinical data from patients who participated in a multicenter RCT with 2 year follow-up after lumbar spinal fusion were used. Outcome measures were the RMDQ, ODI, Short Form 36 – Health Survey (SF-36), leg pain and back pain measured on a 0–100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, Spearman correlation coefficients, multiple regression analysis and Bland-Altman plots were calculated. RESULTS: three hundred and seventy-six completed questionnaires filled out by 87 patients were used. The ODI and RMDQ had both a good level of internal consistency. There was a very strong correlation between the RMDQ and the ODI (r= 0.87; p< 0.001), and between the VAS and both the ODI and RMDQ. However, the Bland-Altman plot indicated bad agreement between the ODI and RMDQ. CONCLUSIONS: The RMDQ and ODI cannot be used interchangeably, nor is there a possibility of converting the score from one questionnaire to the other. However, leg pain and back pain seemed to be predictors for both the ODI and the RMDQ.

scholarly journals A scoping review of registry captured indicators for evaluating quality of critical care in ICU

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Issrah Jawad ◽  
Sumayyah Rashan ◽  
Chathurani Sigera ◽  
Jorge Salluh ◽  
Arjen M. Dondorp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Health Care Quality ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background Excess morbidity and mortality following critical illness is increasingly attributed to potentially avoidable complications occurring as a result of complex ICU management (Berenholtz et al., J Crit Care 17:1-2, 2002; De Vos et al., J Crit Care 22:267-74, 2007; Zimmerman J Crit Care 1:12-5, 2002). Routine measurement of quality indicators (QIs) through an Electronic Health Record (EHR) or registries are increasingly used to benchmark care and evaluate improvement interventions. However, existing indicators of quality for intensive care are derived almost exclusively from relatively narrow subsets of ICU patients from high-income healthcare systems. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically review the literature on QIs for evaluating critical care, identify QIs, map their definitions, evidence base, and describe the variances in measurement, and both the reported advantages and challenges of implementation. Method We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane libraries from the earliest available date through to January 2019. To increase the sensitivity of the search, grey literature and reference lists were reviewed. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of one or more QIs designed to evaluate care for patients in ICU captured through a registry platform or EHR adapted for quality of care surveillance. Results The search identified 4780 citations. Review of abstracts led to retrieval of 276 full-text articles, of which 123 articles were accepted. Fifty-one unique QIs in ICU were classified using the three components of health care quality proposed by the High Quality Health Systems (HQSS) framework. Adverse events including hospital acquired infections (13.7%), hospital processes (54.9%), and outcomes (31.4%) were the most common QIs identified. Patient reported outcome QIs accounted for less than 6%. Barriers to the implementation of QIs were described in 35.7% of articles and divided into operational barriers (51%) and acceptability barriers (49%). Conclusions Despite the complexity and risk associated with ICU care, there are only a small number of operational indicators used. Future selection of QIs would benefit from a stakeholder-driven approach, whereby the values of patients and communities and the priorities for actionable improvement as perceived by healthcare providers are prioritized and include greater focus on measuring discriminable processes of care.

scholarly journals Use of mHealth Technology for Patient-Reported Outcomes in Community-Dwelling Adults with Acquired Brain Injuries: A Scoping Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 2173
Author(s):  
Shannon B. Juengst ◽  
Lauren Terhorst ◽  
Andrew Nabasny ◽  
Tracey Wallace ◽  
Jennifer A. Weaver ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brain Injury ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Brain Injuries ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Affective Symptoms ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Mhealth Technology ◽  
Ecological Momentary

The purpose of our scoping review was to describe the current use of mHealth technology for long-term assessment of patient-reported outcomes in community-dwelling individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI). Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a scoping review of literature meeting these criteria: (1) civilians or military veterans, all ages; (2) self-reported or caregiver-reported outcomes assessed via mobile device in the community (not exclusively clinic/hospital); (3) published in English; (4) published in 2015–2019. We searched Ovid MEDLINE(R) < 1946 to 16 August 2019, MEDLINE InProcess, EPub, Embase, and PsycINFO databases for articles. Thirteen manuscripts representing 12 distinct studies were organized by type of ABI [traumatic brain injury (TBI) and stroke] to extract outcomes, mHealth technology used, design, and inclusion of ecological momentary assessment (EMA). Outcomes included post-concussive, depressive, and affective symptoms, fatigue, daily activities, stroke risk factors, and cognitive exertion. Overall, collecting patient-reported outcomes via mHealth was feasible and acceptable in the chronic ABI population. Studies consistently showed advantage for using EMA despite variability in EMA timing/schedules. To ensure best clinical measurement, research on post-ABI outcomes should consider EMA designs (versus single time-point assessments) that provide the best timing schedules for their respective aims and outcomes and that leverage mHealth for data collection.

scholarly journals A systematic review of the measurement properties of patient reported outcome measures used for adults with an ankle fracture

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca McKeown ◽  
David R. Ellard ◽  
Abdul-Rasheed Rabiu ◽  
Eleni Karasouli ◽  
Rebecca S. Kearney
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Ankle Fracture ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background Ankle fractures are painful and debilitating injuries that pose a significant burden to society and healthcare systems. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used outcome measures in clinical trials of interventions for ankle fracture but there is little evidence on their validity and reliability. This systematic review aims to identify and appraise evidence for the measurement properties of ankle specific PROMs used in adults with an ankle fracture using Consensus Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instrument (COSMIN) methodology. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL online databases for evidence of measurement properties of ankle specific PROMs. Articles were included if they assessed or described the development of the PROM in adults with ankle fracture. Articles were ineligible if they used the PROM to assess the measurement properties of another instrument. Abstracts without full articles and conference proceedings were ineligible, as were articles that adapted the PROM under evaluation without any formal justification of the changes as part of a cross-cultural validation or translation process. Two reviewers completed the screening. To assess methodological quality we used COSMIN risk of bias checklist and summarised evidence using COSMIN quality criteria and a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality and extracted the data for a sample of articles. Results The searches returned a total of 377 articles. From these, six articles were included after application of eligibility criteria. These articles evaluated three PROMs: A-FORM, OMAS and AAOS. The A-FORM had evidence of a robust development process within the patient population, however lacks post-formulation testing. The OMAS showed sufficient levels of reliability, internal consistency and construct validity. The AAOS showed low quality evidence of sufficient construct validity. Conclusions There is insufficient evidence to support the recommendation of a particular PROM for use in adult ankle fracture research based on COSMIN methodology. Further validation of these outcome measures is required in order to ensure PROMs used in this area are sufficiently valid and reliable to assess treatment effects. This would enable high quality, evidenced-based management of adults with ankle fracture.

scholarly journals Reoperations Following Lumbar Discectomy Are Associated With Worse Clinical Outcomes and Greater Socioeconomic Burden 3 Years After the Primary Procedure

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudius Thomé ◽  
Ali Araghi ◽  
Jason Inzana ◽  
Jonathan Stieber ◽  
Joshua M Ammerman
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Lumbar Discectomy ◽  
Control Treatment ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Closure Device ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Socioeconomic Burden ◽  
Index Level

Abstract INTRODUCTION Lumbar discectomy patients with large annular defects are at significantly greater risk for symptom recurrence and revision. Previous studies suggest that outcomes following revision surgery are less positive than outcomes from primary discectomy. This analysis aimed to assess the clinical and socioeconomic outcomes associated with postdiscectomy reoperations and the utility of a bone-anchored annular closure device (ACD) for avoiding reoperations. METHODS This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT). Lumbar discectomy patients with large (>6 mm) annular defects were treated with discectomy alone (Control; n = 278) or discectomy with an ACD (n = 272). Patient-reported outcomes included visual analog scale (VAS) for ipsilateral leg or back pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). At 3 yr, clinical outcomes were available for 75% of the patients. Comparisons of outcomes were made between reoperated (n = 64) and nonreoperated (n = 351) patients, regardless of ACD or Control treatment, at 3 yr following the primary surgery. RESULTS Reoperated patients had significantly worse scores for ODI (24 ± 19 vs 11 ± 13; P < .0001), VAS leg pain (28 ± 30 vs 12 ± 19; P < .0001), and VAS back pain (36 ± 31 vs 17 ± 21; P < .0001). Significantly more nonreoperated patients were working at 3 yr (97% vs 84%; P < .001). Based on Kaplan-Meier analysis, the proportion of subjects experiencing at least 1 index-level reoperation in 3 yr was 11% in the ACD group and 19% in the Control group (P = .007). CONCLUSION Index-level reoperations following lumbar discectomy are associated with worse outcomes and greater socioeconomic burden in patients with large annular defects (>6 mm). These findings are consistent with reports from large registry analyses, including the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) and the Swedish National Spine Registry (Swespine). The ACD reduced the number of patients experiencing index-level reoperation by 43%.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document