Dataset Information

Optimal case definitions of upper extremity disorder for use in the clinical treatment and referral of patients.

ABSTRACT: Experts disagree about the optimal classification of upper extremity disorders. To explore whether differential response to treatments offers a basis for choosing between case definitions, we analyzed previously published research.We screened 183 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments for upper extremity disorders identified from the bibliographies of 10 Cochrane reviews and 4 other systematic reviews, and a search in Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar to June 2010. From these, we selected RCTs that allowed estimates of benefit (expressed as relative risks [RRs]) for >1 case definition to be compared when other variables (treatment, comparison group, followup time, outcome measure) were effectively held constant. Comparisons of RRs for paired case definitions were summarized by their ratios, with the RR for the simpler and broader definition as the denominator.Two RCT reports allowed within-trial comparison of RRs and 13 others allowed between-trial comparisons. Together these provided 17 ratios of RRs (5 for shoulder treatments, 12 for elbow treatments, and none for wrist/hand treatments). The median ratio of RRs was 1.0 (range 0.3-1.7, interquartile range 0.6-1.3).Although the evidence base is limited, our findings suggest that for musculoskeletal disorders of the shoulder and elbow, clinicians in primary care will often do best to apply simpler and broader case definitions. Researchers should routinely publish secondary analyses for subgroups of patients by different diagnostic features at trial entry to expand the evidence base on optimal case definitions for patient management.

SUBMITTER: Palmer KT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3428871 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Optimal case definitions of upper extremity disorder for use in the clinical treatment and referral of patients.

Palmer Keith T KT Harris E Clare EC Linaker Cathy C Ntani Georgia G Cooper Cyrus C Coggon David D

Arthritis care & research 20120401 4

<h4>Objective</h4>Experts disagree about the optimal classification of upper extremity disorders. To explore whether differential response to treatments offers a basis for choosing between case definitions, we analyzed previously published research.<h4>Methods</h4>We screened 183 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments for upper extremity disorders identified from the bibliographies of 10 Cochrane reviews and 4 other systematic reviews, and a search in Medline, Embase, and Google Schol ...[more]

PMID: 22213545

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative and Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative call for the indiscriminate creation of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) over arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) without providing patient-specific criteria for vascular access selection. Although the U.S. AVF rate has increased dramatically, several reports have found that this singular focus on increasing AVFs has resulted in increased AVF nonmaturation/early failure and a high prevalence of catheter dependence. The objective of this study was to determine the appropriateness of vascular access procedures in clinical scenarios constructed with combinations of relevant factors potentially influencing outcomes.The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used. Accordingly, a comprehensive literature search was performed and a synthesis of results compiled. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to 2088 AVF and 1728 AVG clinical scenarios with varying patient characteristics. Eleven international vascular access experts rated the appropriateness of each scenario in two rounds. On the basis of the distribution of the panelists' scores, each scenario was determined to be appropriate, inappropriate, or indeterminate.Panelists achieved agreement in 2964 (77.7%) scenarios; 860 (41%) AVF and 588 (34%) AVG scenarios were scored appropriate, 686 (33%) AVF and 480 (28%) AVG scenarios were scored inappropriate, and 542 (26%) AVF and 660 (38%) AVG scenarios were indeterminate. Younger age, larger outflow vein diameter, normal or obese body mass index (vs morbidly obese), larger inflow artery diameter, and higher patient functional status were associated with appropriateness of AVF creation. Older age, dialysis dependence, and smaller vein size were associated with appropriateness of AVG creation. Gender, diabetes, and coronary artery disease were not associated with AVF or AVG appropriateness. Dialysis status was not associated with AVF appropriateness. Body mass index and functional status were not associated with AVG appropriateness. To simulate the surgeon's decision-making, scenarios were combined to create situations with the same patient characteristics and both AVF and AVG options for access. Of these 864 clinical situations, 311 (36%) were rated appropriate for AVG but inappropriate or indeterminate for AVF.The results of this study indicate that patient-specific situations exist wherein AVG is as appropriate as or more appropriate than AVF. These results provide patient-specific recommendations for clinicians to optimize vascular access selection criteria, to standardize care, and to inform payers and policy. Indeterminate scenarios will guide future research.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity represents a frequent complication of intravenous catheters inserted into the peripheral veins of the forearm or hand, no consensus exists on the optimal management of this condition in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES:To summarise the evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy and safety of (topical, oral or parenteral) medical therapy of superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity. SEARCH METHODS:The Cochrane Vascular Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched April 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (2015, Issue 3). Clinical trials registries were searched up to April 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA:RCTs comparing any (topical, oral or parenteral) medical treatment to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different medical interventions (e.g. a different variant scheme or regimen of the same intervention or a different pharmacological type of treatment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We extracted data on methodological quality, patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes, including improvement of signs and symptoms as the primary effectiveness outcome, and number of participants experiencing side effects of the study treatments as the primary safety outcome. MAIN RESULTS:We identified 13 studies (917 participants). The evaluated treatment modalities consisted of a topical treatment (11 studies), an oral treatment (2 studies) and a parenteral treatment (2 studies). Seven studies used a placebo or no intervention control group, whereas all others also or solely compared active treatment groups. No study evaluated the effects of ice or the application of cold or hot bandages. Overall, the risk of bias in individual trials was moderate to high, although poor reporting hampered a full appreciation of the risk in most studies. The overall quality of the evidence for each of the outcomes varied from low to moderate mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision, with only single trials contributing to most comparisons. Data on primary outcomes improvement of signs and symptoms and side effects attributed to the study treatment could not be statistically pooled because of the between-study differences in comparisons, outcomes and type of instruments to measure outcomes.An array of topical treatments, such as heparinoid or diclofenac gels, improved pain compared to placebo or no intervention. Compared to placebo, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduced signs and symptoms intensity. Safety issues were reported sparsely and were not available for some interventions, such as notoginseny creams, parenteral low-molecular-weight heparin or defibrotide. Although several trials reported on adverse events with topical heparinoid creams, Essaven gel or phlebolan versus control, the trials were underpowered to adequately measure any differences between treatment modalities. Where reported, adverse events with topical treatments consisted mainly of local allergic reactions. Only one study of 15 participants assessed thrombus extension and symptomatic venous thromboembolism with either oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or low-molecular-weight heparin, and it reported no cases of either. No study reported on the development of suppurative phlebitis, catheter-related bloodstream infections or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:The evidence about the treatment of acute infusion superficial thrombophlebitis is limited and of low quality. Data appear too preliminary to assess the effectiveness and safety of topical treatments, systemic anticoagulation or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the extent to which estimates of sample and effect size in stroke rehabilitation trials can be affected by simple summation of ordinal Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFM) items compared with a Rasch-rescaled UEFM.DesignRasch analysis of Interdisciplinary Comprehensive Arm Rehabilitation Evaluation (ICARE) phase III trial data, comparing 3 upper extremity (UE) motor treatments in stroke survivors enrolled 45.8±22.4 days poststroke. Participants underwent a structured UE motor training known as the Accelerated Skill Acquisition Program, usual and customary care, or dose-equivalent care. UEFM data from baseline, postintervention, and 6 and 12 months later were included for analysis.SettingOutpatient stroke rehabilitation.ParticipantsICARE participants (N=361).InterventionsNot applicable.Main outcome measuresItem difficulties, person abilities, and sample size.ResultsBecause of their ordinality, summed raw UEFM scores measured motor impairment inconsistently across different ranges of stroke severity relative to the rescaled UEFM. In the full ICARE sample, raw UEFM understated scores relative to the rescaled UEFM by 7.4 points for the most severely impaired, but overstated scores by up to 8.4 points toward the ceiling. As a result, 50.9% of all UEFM observations showed a residual error greater than 10% of the total UEFM score. Relative to the raw scores, the rescaled UEFM improved the effect size of change in motor impairment between baseline and 1 year (d=0.35). For a hypothetical 3-arm trial resembling ICARE, UEFM rescaling reduced the required sample size by 32% (n=108) compared with raw UEFM (n=159).ConclusionsIn UE rehabilitation trials, a rescaled UEFM potentially decreases sample size by one-third, decreasing costs, duration, and the number of subjects exposed to experimental risks. This benefit is obtained through increased measurement efficiency. Reductions in ceiling effects are also possible. These findings apply to ICARE-like trials. Confirmatory validation in another phase III trial is needed.

Project description:Hand movements are particularly impaired in patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD), contributing to functional disability and difficulties in activities of daily living. Growing evidence has shown that robot-assisted therapy may be considered an effective and reliable method for the delivery of the highly repetitive training that is needed to trigger neuroplasticity, as intensive, repetitive and task-oriented training could be an ideal strategy to facilitate the relearning of motor function and to minimize motor deficit. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the improvement of hand function with semi-autonomous exercises using an upper extremity exoskeleton in patients with PD. A multicenter, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial was then carried out at the IRCCS Centro Neurolesi Bonino-Pulejo (Messina, Italy). Thirty subjects with a diagnosis of PD and a Hoehn-Yahr score between 2 and 3 were enrolled in the study. Patients were 1:1 randomized into either the experimental group (ERT), receiving 45 min training daily, 6 days weekly, for 8 weeks with Armeo®Spring (Volketswil, Switzerland) (a gravity-supporting device), or the control group (CPT), which was subjected to the same amount of conventional physical therapy. Motor abilities were assessed before and after the end of the training. The main outcomes measures were the Nine-hole peg test and the motor section of the UPDRS. All patients belonging to ERT and 9 out of 15 patients belonging to the CPT completed the trial. ERT showed a greater improvement in the primary outcome measure (nine-hole peg test) than CPT. Moreover, a statistically significant improvement was found in ERT concerning upper limb mobility, and disease burden as compared to CPT. Using an upper extremity exoskeleton (i.e., the Armeo®Spring) for semi-autonomous training in an inpatient setting is a new perspective to train patients with PD to improve their dexterity, executive function and, potentially, quality of life.

Dataset Information

Optimal case definitions of upper extremity disorder for use in the clinical treatment and referral of patients.

Publications

Optimal case definitions of upper extremity disorder for use in the clinical treatment and referral of patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets