Physical functioning outcome measures in the lumbar spinal surgery population and measurement properties of the physical outcome measures: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain can lead to substantial decline in physical functioning. For disabling pain not responsive to conservative management, surgical intervention can enhance physical functioning. Measurements of physical functioning include patient-reported outcome measures and physical outcome measures using evaluations of impairments, performance on a standardised task or activity in a natural environment. Selecting outcome measures with adequate measurement properties is fundamental to evaluating effectiveness of interventions. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify outcome measures (patient reported and physical) used to evaluate physical functioning (stage 1) and assess the measurement properties of physical outcome measures of physical functioning (stage 2) in the lumbar spinal surgery population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol aligns with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Using a two-staged approach, searches will be performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PEDro and the grey literature from inception until 15 December 2021. Stage 1 will identify studies evaluating physical functioning with patient-reported or physical outcome measures in the lumbar spinal surgery population. Stage 2 will search for studies evaluating measurement properties (validity, reliability, responsiveness) of the physical outcome measures identified in stage 1 in the lumbar spinal surgery population. Two independent reviewers will evaluate studies for inclusion, extract data, assess risk of bias (COSMIN risk of bias tool and checklist) and quality of evidence (modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach). Results for each measurement property per physical outcome measure will be quantitatively pooled if there is adequate clinical and methodological homogeneity or qualitatively synthesised if there is high heterogeneity in studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publication and conference presentation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021293880.

A qualitative dominant mixed methods exploration of novel educational material for patients considering total knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: To optimize non-operative management and decision making surrounding TKR we created educational whiteboard videos for patients with knee OA. The purpose of this study was to pilot our educational videos with end-users (patients) to determine patients' experiences and perspectives regarding the content and clarity of videos and to better understand their potential impact on patient's health behaviour. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a mixed methods evaluation, using a qualitative descriptive approach, of patients attending their first consultation with an arthroplasty surgeon for TKR. We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with patients. Three members of the research team coded data independently, implementing a thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen participants were included. Participants indicated that the videos enhanced their confidence and clarity surrounding their decision to undergo TKR. The videos also addressed several knowledge gaps in their understanding of OA management. Barriers to uptake of the education were identified including limited access to PTs and the challenge of weight loss. Conclusions: The current educational intervention was valued by patients with knee OA. Implementation of these videos may have important implications for patients, providers, and our health care system.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONPatients with knee OA referred by primary care physicians to arthroplasty surgeons have knowledge gaps that may influence their self-management and decision making surrounding their condition.Educational materials can address these gaps and support patients in their understanding and management of their condition, which may have important downstream implications.Barriers to accessing non-operative care including physiotherapy must be pre-emptively addressed to ensure that enhanced knowledge is met with improved access for patients.

Inconsistencies in the Methodological Framework Throughout Published Studies in High-Impact Orthopaedic Journals: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Both the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines recommend that clinical trials follow a study framework that aligns with their objective to test the relative efficacy or safety (equality) or effectiveness (superiority, noninferiority, or equivalence) between interventions. We conducted a systematic review to assess the proportion of studies that demonstrated inconsistency between the framing of their research question, sample size calculation, and conclusion and those that should have framed their research question differently based on the compared interventions. METHODS: We included studies from 5 high-impact-factor orthopaedic journals published in 2017 and 2019 that compared at least 2 interventions using patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: We included 228 studies. The sample size calculation was reported in 60.5% (n = 138) of studies. Of these, 52.2% (n = 72) were inconsistent between the framing of their research question, sample size calculation, and conclusion. The majority (n = 137) of sample size calculations were for equality, but 43.8% of these studies concluded superiority, noninferiority, or equivalence. Studies that framed their research question as equality (n = 186) should have been framed as superiority (n = 129), equivalence (n = 52), or noninferiority (n = 3). Only 2 studies correctly framed their research question as equality. CONCLUSIONS: Studies published in high-impact journals were inconsistent between the framing of their research question, sample size calculation, and conclusion. Authors may be misinterpreting research findings and making clinical recommendations solely based on p values. Researchers are encouraged to state and justify their methodological framework and choice of margin(s) in a publicly published protocol as they have implications for sample size and the applicability of conclusions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of clinical research must be interpreted using confidence intervals, with careful consideration as to how the confidence intervals relate to clinically meaningful differences in outcomes between treatments. The more typical practice of relying on p values leaves the clinician at high risk of erroneous interpretation, recommendation, and/or action.

Interpreting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement recommends that studies report results beyond p values and include treatment effect(s) and measures of precision (e.g., confidence intervals [CIs]) to facilitate the interpretation of results. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the reporting and interpretation of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) results in clinical studies from high-impact orthopaedic journals, to determine the proportion of studies that (1) only reported a p value; (2) reported a treatment effect, CI, or minimal clinically important difference (MCID); and (3) offered an interpretation of the results beyond interpreting a p value. METHODS: We included studies from 5 high-impact-factor orthopaedic journals published in 2017 and 2019 that compared at least 2 intervention groups using PROMs. RESULTS: A total of 228 studies were analyzed, including 126 randomized controlled trials, 35 prospective cohort studies, 61 retrospective cohort studies, 1 mixed cohort study, and 5 case-control studies. Seventy-six percent of studies (174) reported p values exclusively to express and interpret between-group differences, and only 22.4% (51) reported a treatment effect (mean difference, mean change, or odds ratio) with 95% CI. Of the 54 studies reporting a treatment effect, 31 interpreted the results using an important threshold (MCID, margin, or Cohen d), but only 3 interpreted the CIs. We found an absolute improvement of 35.5% (95% CI, 20.8% to 48.4%) in the reporting of the MCID between 2017 and 2019. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of interventional studies reporting PROMs do not report CIs around between-group differences in outcome and do not define a clinically meaningful difference. A p value cannot effectively communicate the readiness for implementation in a clinical setting and may be misleading. Thus, reporting requirements should be expanded to require authors to define and provide a rationale for between-group clinically important difference thresholds, and study findings should be communicated by comparing CIs with these thresholds.

Are we missing the target? Are we aiming too low? What are the aerobic exercise prescriptions and their effects on markers of cardiovascular health and systemic inflammation in patients with knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We systemically reviewed published studies that evaluated aerobic exercise interventions in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) to: (1) report the frequency, intensity, type and time (FITT) of exercise prescriptions and (2) quantify the changes in markers of cardiovascular health and systemic inflammation. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus; inception to January 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials (RCT), cohort studies, case series. DESIGN: We summarised exercise prescriptions for all studies and calculated effect sizes with 95% CIs for between-group (RCTs that compared exercise and control groups) and within-group (pre-post exercise) differences in aerobic capacity (VO2), heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and inflammatory markers (interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumour necrosis factor-alpha). We pooled results where possible using random effects models. RESULTS: Interventions from 49 studies were summarised; 8% (4/49) met all FITT guidelines; 16% (8/49) met all or most FITT guidelines. Fourteen studies (10 RCTs) reported at least one marker of cardiovascular health or systemic inflammation. Mean differences (95% CI) indicated a small to moderate increase in VO2 (0.84 mL/min/kg; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.31), decrease in HR (-3.56 beats per minute; 95% CI -5.60 to -1.52) and DBP (-4.10 mm Hg; 95% CI -4.82 to -3.38) and no change in SBP (-0.36 mm Hg; 95% CI -3.88 to 3.16) and IL-6 (0.37 pg/mL; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.85). Within-group differences were also small to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: In studies of aerobic exercise in patients with knee OA, very few interventions met guideline-recommended dose; there were small to moderate changes in markers of cardiovascular health and no decrease in markers of systemic inflammation. These findings question whether aerobic exercise is being used to its full potential in patients with knee OA. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018087859.

Use of a hand-portable gas chromatograph-toroidal ion trap mass spectrometer for self-chemical ionization identification of degradation products related to O-ethyl S-(2-diisopropylaminoethyl) methyl phosphonothiolate (VX).

The chemical warfare agent O-ethyl S-(2-diisopropylaminoethyl) methyl phosphonothiolate (VX) and many related degradation products produce poorly diagnostic electron ionization (EI) mass spectra by transmission quadrupole mass spectrometry. Thus, chemical ionization (CI) is often used for these analytes. In this work, pseudomolecular ([M+H](+)) ion formation from self-chemical ionization (self-CI) was examined for four VX degradation products containing the diisopropylamine functional group. A person-portable toroidal ion trap mass spectrometer with a gas chromatographic inlet was used with EI, and both fixed-duration and feedback-controlled ionization time. With feedback-controlled ionization, ion cooling (reaction) times and ion formation target values were varied. Evidence for protonation of analytes was observed under all conditions, except for the largest analyte, bis(diisopropylaminoethyl)disulfide which yielded [M+H](+) ions only with increased fixed ionization or ion cooling times. Analysis of triethylamine-d(15) provided evidence that [M+H](+) production was likely due to self-CI. Analysis of a degraded VX sample where lengthened ion storage and feedback-controlled ionization time were used resulted in detection of [M+H](+) ions for VX and several relevant degradation products. Dimer ions were also observed for two phosphonate compounds detected in this sample.