Dataset Information

Diagnostic Validity of Patient-Reported History for Shoulder Pathology.

ABSTRACT: Objective The purpose of this article is to determine whether patient-reported history items are predictive of shoulder pathology and have the potential for use in triaging patients with shoulder pathology to orthopaedic outpatient clinics. Setting It is set at two tertiary orthopaedic clinics. Patients All new patients reporting pain and/or disability of the shoulder joint were prospectively recruited. A total of 193 patients were enrolled, 15 of whom withdrew, leaving 178 patients composing the study sample. Design Patients completed a questionnaire on the history of their pathology, then the surgeon took a thorough history indicating the most likely diagnosis. The clinician then performed appropriate physical examination. Arthroscopy was the reference standard for those undergoing surgery and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with arthrogram for all others. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) of history items alone and in combination. We used the LRs to generate a clinical decision algorithm. Main Outcome Measures Diagnosis was determined through arthroscopy or MRI arthrogram. Reporting was standardized to ensure review of all structures. Results The physical examination and history agreed in 75% of cases. Of those that did not agree, the physical examination misdirected the diagnosis in 47% of our cases. In particular, history items were strong predictors of anterior and posterior instability and subscapularis tears and were combined in a tool to be utilized for screening patients. Conclusion The patient-reported history items were effective for diagnosing shoulder pathology and should be considered for use in a triaging instrument.

SUBMITTER: Somerville LE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5553515 | biostudies-other | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Shoulder complaints are the third most common musculoskeletal problem in the general population. There are an abundance of physical examination maneuvers for diagnosing shoulder pathology. The validity of these maneuvers has not been adequately addressed. We propose a large Phase III study to investigate the accuracy of these tests in an orthopaedic setting. METHODS: We will recruit consecutive new shoulder patients who are referred to two tertiary orthopaedic clinics. We will select which physical examination tests to include using a modified Delphi process. The physician will take a thorough history from the patient and indicate their certainty about each possible diagnosis (certain the diagnosis is absent, present or requires further testing). The clinician will only perform the physical examination maneuvers for diagnoses where uncertainty remains. We will consider arthroscopy the reference standard for patients who undergo surgery within 8 months of physical examination and magnetic resonance imaging with arthrogram for patients who do not. We will calculate the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative likelihood ratios and investigate whether combinations of the top tests provide stronger predictions of the presence or absence of disease. DISCUSSION: There are several considerations when performing a diagnostic study to ensure that the results are applicable in a clinical setting. These include, 1) including a representative sample, 2) selecting an appropriate reference standard, 3) avoiding verification bias, 4) blinding the interpreters of the physical examination tests to the interpretation of the gold standard and, 5) blinding the interpreters of the gold standard to the interpretation of the physical examination tests. The results of this study will inform clinicians of which tests, or combination of tests, successfully reduce diagnostic uncertainty, which tests are misleading and how physical examination may affect the magnitude of the confidence the clinician feels about their diagnosis. The results of this study may reduce the number of costly and invasive imaging studies (MRI, CT or arthrography) that are requisitioned when uncertainty about diagnosis remains following history and physical exam. We also hope to reduce the variability between specialists in which maneuvers are used during physical examination and how they are used, all of which will assist in improving consistency of care between centres.

Project description:BackgroundClinical laxity tests are commonly used together to identify individuals with multidirectional instability (MDI). However, their biomechanical validity in distinguishing distinct biomechanical characteristics consistent with MDI has not been demonstrated.ObjectiveTo determine if differences in glenohumeral (GH) joint laxity exist between individuals diagnosed with multidirectional instability (MDI) and asymptomatic matched controls without MDI.MethodsEighteen participants (9 swimmers with MDI, 9 non-swimming asymptomatic matched controls without MDI) participated in this observational study. Participants were classified as having MDI with a composite laxity score from three laxity tests (anterior/posterior drawer and sulcus tests). Single plane dynamic fluoroscopy captured joint motion with 2D-3D joint registration to derive 3D joint kinematics. Average GH translations occurring during the laxity tests were compared between groups using an independent sample's t-test. The relationship of composite laxity scores to overall translations was examined with a simple linear regression. Differences of each laxity test translation between groups were analyzed with a two-way repeated measures ANOVA.ResultsMean composite translations for swimmers were 1.7 mm greater (p = 0.04, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.1, 3.3 mm) compared to controls. A moderate association occurred (r2 = 0.40, p = 0.005) between composite laxity scores and composite translation. Greater translations for the posterior drawer (-2.4 mm, p = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.1, -4.6) and sulcus tests (-2.7 mm, p = 0.03, 95% CI: -0.3, -5.0) existed in swimmers compared to controls.ConclusionSignificant differences in composite translation existed between symptomatic swimmers with MDI and asymptomatic control participants without MDI during GH joint laxity tests. The results provide initial biomechanically based construct validity for the clinical criteria used to identify individuals with MDI.

Project description:Background Validity is the ability of an instrument to measure what it claims to measure. It means the degree to which the empirical evidence supports the trustworthiness of interpretations based on the calculated scores. The hematological malignancy (HM) specific patient reported outcome measure (HM-PRO), is a newly developed instrument for use in daily clinical practice as well as in research. This study, provides the evidence for construct validity of the HM-PRO, specifically focusing on the convergent and divergent validity compared to the other established instruments used in hematology. Methods This validation study adopted a prospective cross-sectional design where a heterogeneous group of patients diagnosed with different HMs and different disease state were recruited. A total of 905 patients were recruited from seven secondary care hospitals in the UK and online through five patient organizations. Patients were asked to complete the HM-PRO and other cancer specific PRO’s, FACT-G and EORTC QLQ C-30. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS 23 statistical software. Results A total of 486 males (53.7%) and 419 females (46.3%), with a mean age of 64.3 (± 12.4) years and mean time since diagnosis of 4.6 ( ± 5.2) were recruited. The total score of Part A of the HM-PRO highly correlated with the five functional scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (Physical = ?0.71, Role = ?0.72, Emotional = ?0.64, Cognitive = ?0.58, Social = ?0.74—p < 0.001). With respect to correlation with FACT-G, the total score of Part A of the HM-PRO highly correlated with Physical (?0.74), Emotional (?0.57), Functional (?0.66) domains and overall score of FACT-G (?0.74). Similarly, the total score of Part B of the HM-PRO highly correlated with three symptoms scales of EORTC QLQ-C30 (Fatigue scale = ?0.74, Nausea and Vomiting = ?0.52, Pain = ?0.59—p < 0.001) and individual symptom items (Dyspnea = 0.51, Insomnia= 0.43, Appetite loss = 0.54—p < 0.001). Conclusion The construct validity evidence presented in this research is a testimony to the HM-PRO’s ability to measure HRQoL issues which it intends to measure. This is of utmost importance when a PRO is used in routine clinical practice so that the interpretation of the scores or response to an individual item is understood by the clinicians/nurses as intended by the patients.

Project description:ImportanceChemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a substantial adverse effect of anticancer treatments. As such, the assessment of CIPN remains critically important in both research and clinic settings.ObjectiveTo compare the validity of various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with neurophysiological and sensory functional measures as the optimal method of CIPN assessment.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study evaluated participants treated with neurotoxic chemotherapy across 2 cohorts using a dual-study design. Participants commencing treatment were assessed prospectively at beginning of neurotoxic treatment, midtreatment, and at the end of treatment. Participants who completed treatment up to 5 years prior were assessed cross-sectionally and completed a single assessment time point. Participants were recruited from oncology centers in Australia from August 2015 to November 2022. Data analysis occurred from February to November 2023.ExposuresNeurotoxic cancer treatment including taxanes, platinums, vinca-alkaloids, proteasome inhibitors, and thalidomide.Main outcomes and measuresCIPN was assessed via PROMs (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire [EORTC-CIPN20], Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecological Cancer Group Neurotoxicity Questionnaire (FACT/GOG-Ntx), and the patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [PRO-CTCAE]), neurological and neurophysiological assessment (Total Neuropathy Score and sural and tibial compound nerve amplitudes), and sensory measures (Grating orientation, Von Frey monofilament, and 2-point discrimination tasks). Core measurement properties of CIPN outcome measures were evaluated. Convergent and known-groups validity was assessed cross-sectionally following treatment completion, and responsiveness was evaluated prospectively during treatment. Neurological, neurophysiological, and sensory outcome measure scores were compared between those who reported high and low levels of CIPN symptoms using linear regressions.ResultsA total of 1033 participants (median [IQR] age, 61 [50-59] years; 676 female [65.4%]) were recruited to this study, incorporating 1623 assessments. PROMs demonstrated best ability to accurately assess CIPN (convergent validity), especially the PRO-CTCAE composite score (r = 0.85; P < .001) and EORTC-CIPN20 (r = 0.79; P < .001). PROMS also demonstrated the best ability to discriminate between CIPN severity (known-groups validity) and to detect changes at onset of CIPN development (responsiveness), especially for EORTC-CIPN20 (d = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.83), FACT/GOG-Ntx (d = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81) and the PRO-CTCAE (d = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.64-1.02). Other measures did not achieve threshold for convergent validity (α < 0.7). Neurophysiological and sensory measures did not demonstrate acceptable responsiveness. In regression models, neurological, neurophysiological, and sensory outcome measures were significantly impaired in participants who reported high levels of CIPN symptoms compared with those who reported low levels of CIPN symptoms.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of 1033 cancer patients, PROMs were the only measures to satisfy all 3 core measurement property criteria (convergent validity, known-groups validity, and responsiveness). These findings suggest that adoption of PROMs in clinical practice can equip clinicians with valuable information in assessing CIPN morbidity.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic Validity of Patient-Reported History for Shoulder Pathology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets