Trends in quality of care and dying perceived by family caregivers of nursing home residents with dementia 2005-2019.

BACKGROUND: Dementia palliative care is increasingly subject of research and practice improvement initiatives. AIM: To assess any changes over time in the evaluation of quality of care and quality of dying with dementia by family caregivers. DESIGN: Combined analysis of eight studies with bereaved family caregivers' evaluations 2005-2019. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Family caregivers of nursing home residents with dementia in the Netherlands (n = 1189) completed the End-of-Life in Dementia Satisfaction With Care (EOLD-SWC; quality of care) and Comfort Assessment in Dying (EOLD-CAD, four subscales; quality of dying) instruments. Changes in scores over time were analysed using mixed models with random effects for season and facility and adjustment for demographics, prospective design and urbanised region. RESULTS: The mean total EOLD-SWC score was 33.40 (SD 5.08) and increased by 0.148 points per year (95% CI, 0.052-0.244; adjusted 0.170 points 95% CI, 0.055-0.258). The mean total EOLD-CAD score was 30.80 (SD 5.76) and, unadjusted, there was a trend of decreasing quality of dying over time of -0.175 points (95% CI, -0.291 to -0.058) per year increment. With adjustment, the trend was not significant (-0.070 EOLD-CAD total score points, 95% CI, -0.205 to 0.065) and only the EOLD-CAD subscale 'Well being' decreased. CONCLUSION: We identified divergent trends over 14 years of increased quality of care, while quality of dying did not increase and well-being in dying decreased. Further research is needed on what well-being in dying means to family. Quality improvement requires continued efforts to treat symptoms in dying with dementia.

Traction for low-back pain with or without sciatica.

BACKGROUND: Traction has been used to treat low-back pain (LBP), often in combination with other treatments. We included both manual and machine-delivered traction in this review. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1995, and previously updated in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of traction compared to placebo, sham traction, reference treatments and no treatment in people with LBP. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Back Review Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2012, Issue 8), MEDLINE (January 2006 to August 2012), EMBASE (January 2006 to August 2012), CINAHL (January 2006 to August 2012), and reference lists of articles and personal files. The review authors are not aware of any important new randomized controlled trial (RCTs) on this topic since the date of the last search. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs involving traction to treat acute (less than four weeks' duration), subacute (four to 12 weeks' duration) or chronic (more than 12 weeks' duration) non-specific LBP with or without sciatica. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. As there were insufficient data for statistical pooling, we performed a descriptive analysis. We did not find any case series that identified adverse effects, therefore we evaluated adverse effects that were reported in the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 RCTs involving 2762 participants in this review. We considered 16 trials, representing 57% of all participants, to have a low risk of bias based on the Cochrane Back Review Group's 'Risk of bias' tool.For people with mixed symptom patterns (acute, subacute and chronic LBP with and without sciatica), there was low- to moderate-quality evidence that traction may make little or no difference in pain intensity, functional status, global improvement or return to work when compared to placebo, sham traction or no treatment. Similarly, when comparing the combination of physiotherapy plus traction with physiotherapy alone or when comparing traction with other treatments, there was very-low- to moderate-quality evidence that traction may make little or no difference in pain intensity, functional status or global improvement.For people with LBP with sciatica and acute, subacute or chronic pain, there was low- to moderate-quality evidence that traction probably has no impact on pain intensity, functional status or global improvement. This was true when traction was compared with controls and other treatments, as well as when the combination of traction plus physiotherapy was compared with physiotherapy alone. No studies reported the effect of traction on return to work.For chronic LBP without sciatica, there was moderate-quality evidence that traction probably makes little or no difference in pain intensity when compared with sham treatment. No studies reported on the effect of traction on functional status, global improvement or return to work.Adverse effects were reported in seven of the 32 studies. These included increased pain, aggravation of neurological signs and subsequent surgery. Four studies reported that there were no adverse effects. The remaining studies did not mention adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that traction, either alone or in combination with other treatments, has little or no impact on pain intensity, functional status, global improvement and return to work among people with LBP. There is only limited-quality evidence from studies with small sample sizes and moderate to high risk of bias. The effects shown by these studies are small and are not clinically relevant. Implications for practice To date, the use of traction as treatment for non-specific LBP cannot be motivated by the best available evidence. These conclusions are applicable to both manual and mechanical traction. Implications for research Only new, large, high-quality studies may change the point estimate and its accuracy, but it should be noted that such change may not necessarily favour traction. Therefore, little priority should be given to new studies on the effect of traction treatment alone or as part of a package.

Predictors for persistent neuropathic pain--a Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: Chronic neuropathic pain has a major effect on quality of life. In order to prevent neuropathic pain from becoming chronic and improve neuropathic pain care, it is important to identify predictors associated with the persistence of neuropathic pain. OBJECTIVE: To identify potential predictors associated with the persistence of neuropathic pain. STUDY DESIGN: A 2-round Delphi study. SETTING: University Medical Center and Pain Management Research Center. METHODS: A 2-round Delphi study was conducted among 17 experts in the field of neuropathic pain. Selection of the panel was based on the citation index ranking for neuropathic pain-related research and/or membership in the neuropathic pain special interest group of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), complemented with experts with demonstrated field knowledge.Potential predictors were categorized according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health model. Participants were asked to identify important predictors, suggest new predictors, and grade the importance on a 0-10 scale. For the second round, predictors were considered important if the median score was ≥ 7 and the interquartile range (IQR) ≤ 3. RESULTS: In the first round, 20 predictors were selected and 58 were added by the experts (patient characteristics [15], environmental factors [25], functions & structure [4], participation & health related quality of life [14]). In the second round, 12 predictors were considered important (patient characteristics [4; e.g., depression, pain catastrophizing], environmental factors [surgery as treatment for neuropathic pain], functions & structure [6; e.g., allodynia, duration of the complaints], participation & trait anxiety/depression as a part of health related quality of life). Presence of depression and pain catastrophizing were considered the most important predictors for chronic neuropathic pain (median ≥ 8; IQR ≤ 2). LIMITATIONS: The study design did not include plenary discussion among the experts. The meaning of the individual topics used in this study could have been subject to interpretation bias. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, psychological factors and factors related to sensory disturbances were considered important predictors for persistence of neuropathic pain. Activity related factors and previously received paramedical and alternative treatment were considered to be less important. The list of possible predictors obtained by this study may serve as a basis for development of a clinical prediction rule for chronic neuropathic pain.

Physical examination for lumbar radiculopathy due to disc herniation in patients with low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low-back pain with leg pain (sciatica) may be caused by a herniated intervertebral disc exerting pressure on the nerve root. Most patients will respond to conservative treatment, but in carefully selected patients, surgical discectomy may provide faster relief of symptoms. Primary care clinicians use patient history and physical examination to evaluate the likelihood of disc herniation and select patients for further imaging and possible surgery. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the performance of tests performed during physical examination (alone or in combination) to identify radiculopathy due to lower lumbar disc herniation in patients with low-back pain and sciatica;(2) To assess the influence of sources of heterogeneity on diagnostic performance. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched electronic databases for primary studies: PubMed (includes MEDLINE), EMBASE, and CINAHL, and (systematic) reviews: PubMed and Medion (all from earliest until 30 April 2008), and checked references of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered studies if they compared the results of tests performed during physical examination on patients with back pain with those of diagnostic imaging (MRI, CT, myelography) or findings at surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed the quality of each publication with the QUADAS tool, and extracted details on patient and study design characteristics, index tests and reference standard, and the diagnostic two-by-two table. We presented information on sensitivities and specificities with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for all aspects of physical examination. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were computed for subsets of studies showing sufficient clinical and statistical homogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 cohort studies (median N = 126, range 71 to 2504) and three case control studies (38 to100 cases). Only one study was carried out in a primary care population. When used in isolation, diagnostic performance of most physical tests (scoliosis, paresis or muscle weakness, muscle wasting, impaired reflexes, sensory deficits) was poor. Some tests (forward flexion, hyper-extension test, and slump test) performed slightly better, but the number of studies was small. In the one primary care study, most tests showed higher specificity and lower sensitivity compared to other settings.Most studies assessed the Straight Leg Raising (SLR) test. In surgical populations, characterized by a high prevalence of disc herniation (58% to 98%), the SLR showed high sensitivity (pooled estimate 0.92, 95% CI: 0.87 to 0.95) with widely varying specificity (0.10 to 1.00, pooled estimate 0.28, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.40). Results of studies using imaging showed more heterogeneity and poorer sensitivity. The crossed SLR showed high specificity (pooled estimate 0.90, 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.94) with consistently low sensitivity (pooled estimate 0.28, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.35).Combining positive test results increased the specificity of physical tests, but few studies presented data on test combinations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When used in isolation, current evidence indicates poor diagnostic performance of most physical tests used to identify lumbar disc herniation. However, most findings arise from surgical populations and may not apply to primary care or non-selected populations. Better performance may be obtained when tests are combined.