Diagnostic accuracy of upper limb neurodynamic tests for the assessment of peripheral neuropathic pain: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Upper limb neurodynamic tests (ULNTs) are used to identify a neuropathic pain component in patients' presenting with arm and/or neck pain. Clinical tests with established diagnostic accuracy are required to not only to inform clinical management but also minimise costs associated with expensive medical investigations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of ULNTs in assessment of peripheral neuropathic pain and to inform their value in clinical practice when assessing patients with arm and/or neck symptoms. DESIGN: Systematic review was undertaken according to published guidelines, and reported in line with PRISMA-DTA. METHOD: Key databases were searched up to 21/11/2017. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Patient population experiencing arm and/or neck symptoms with suspected peripheral neuropathic involvement, studies that compared ULNT to a reference standard, any study design using primary diagnostic accuracy data. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias (ROB) using QUADAS-2. The overall quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. RESULTS: Of eight included studies (n = 579), four were assessed as low ROB, although all had concerns regarding applicability. For carpal tunnel syndrome, ULNT1 sensitivity values ranged 0.4-0.93, specificity 0.13-0.93, positive likelihood ratio 0.86-3.67 and negative likelihood ratio 0.5-1.9. For cervical radiculopathy ULNT1 and the combined use of four ULNTs had sensitivity of 0.97 (95%CI 0.85-1.00) whereas the ULNT3 was the most specific (0.87, 95%CI 0.62-0.98). Positive likelihood ratio ranged 0.58-5.68 and negative likelihood ratio 0.12-1.62. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence ULNTs cannot be utilised as a stand-alone test for the diagnosis of CTS. Limited evidence suggests that ULNTs may be clinically relevant for the diagnosis of CR, but only as a "ruling out" strategy. However, the overall quality of the body of evidence after applying the GRADE approach was low to very low across studies. Further higher quality research is needed to establish firm conclusions.

Patient journey following lumbar spinal fusion surgery (LSFS): protocol for a multicentre qualitative analysis of the patient rehabilitation experience (FuJourn).

INTRODUCTION: There has been a 65% increase in lumbar spinal fusion surgery (LSFS) worldwide over the last 13 years, with costs of £26 million to the UK National Health Service annually. Patient dissatisfaction with outcome and persistent pain and disability incurs further costs. Three trials provide low-quality evidence for the role of physiotherapy. Our UK surveys investigating physiotherapy/surgeon practice concluded rehabilitation should be tailored to the individual patient owing to considerable clinical heterogeneity. This study will explore the perceptions of patients who undergo LSFS to inform precision rehabilitation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A qualitative study, using interpretive phenomenological analysis, will recruit a purposive sample (n=40) to ensure patterns of similarity and difference in their journeys can be explored. In-depth semistructured interviews will be undertaken following discharge from hospital and at 12 months postsurgery. Patients' preoperative and postoperative experiences, underlying attitudes and beliefs towards the surgical intervention, facilitators and barriers to recovery, adherence to advice and physiotherapy, experiences of rehabilitation and return to normal function/activity/work will be explored. A 12-month patient diary will provide real time access to patient data, capturing a weekly record of life as lived, including symptoms, medication, experiences of stages of recovery, rehabilitation adherence, healthcare professional appointments, attitudes, their feelings and experiences throughout their journey. Data will be analysed in a number of stages in accordance with interpretive phenomenological analysis, supported using NVivo software. Analysis of the first interviews and patient diaries will afford a rich density of data to build an overall understanding of the patients' lived experiences, informing the 12-month interview. Strategies (eg, reflexivity) will ensure trustworthiness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has ethical approval (IRAS 223283). Findings will ensure that patient-driven data inform precision rehabilitation by understanding the patient journey. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

Barriers and enablers of physical activity engagement for patients with COPD in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Given that physical activity (PA) has a positive impact on COPD symptoms and prognosis, this study examined the factors that both encourage and limit participation in PA for individuals with COPD in a primary care setting from the perspective of social cognitive theory. METHODS: A purposive sample of 26 individuals with a range of COPD severity (age range: 50-89 years; males =15) were recruited from primary care to participate in one of four focus groups. Thematic analysis was undertaken to identify key concepts related to their self-efficacy beliefs. RESULTS: Several barriers and enablers closely related to self-efficacy beliefs and symptom severity were identified. The main barriers were health related (fatigue, mobility problems, breathing issues caused by the weather), psychological (embarrassment, fear, frustration/disappointment), attitudinal (feeling in control of their condition, PA perception, older age perception), and motivational. The main enabling factors were related to motivation (autonomous or controlled), attitudes, self-regulation, and performance accomplishments. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: When designing interventions for individuals with COPD, it is important to understand the patient-specific social cognitive influences on PA participation. This information can then inform individually tailored management planning.

Supported self-management for patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): an evidence synthesis and economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Self-management (SM) support for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is variable in its coverage, content, method and timing of delivery. There is insufficient evidence for which SM interventions are the most effective and cost-effective. OBJECTIVES: To undertake (1) a systematic review of the evidence for the effectiveness of SM interventions commencing within 6 weeks of hospital discharge for an exacerbation for COPD (review 1); (2) a systematic review of the qualitative evidence about patient satisfaction, acceptance and barriers to SM interventions (review 2); (3) a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of SM support interventions within 6 weeks of hospital discharge for an exacerbation of COPD (review 3); (4) a cost-effectiveness analysis and economic model of post-exacerbation SM support compared with usual care (UC) (economic model); and (5) a wider systematic review of the evidence of the effectiveness of SM support, including interventions (such as pulmonary rehabilitation) in which there are significant components of SM, to identify which components are the most important in reducing exacerbations, hospital admissions/readmissions and improving quality of life (review 4). METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2012: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Science Citation Index [Institute of Scientific Information (ISI)]. Subject-specific databases were also searched: PEDro physiotherapy evidence database, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials. Ongoing studies were sourced through the metaRegister of Current Controlled Trials, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number database, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. Specialist abstract and conference proceedings were sourced through ISI's Conference Proceedings Citation Index and British Library's Electronic Table of Contents (Zetoc). Hand-searching through European Respiratory Society, the American Thoracic Society and British Thoracic Society conference proceedings from 2010 to 2012 was also undertaken, and selected websites were also examined. Title, abstracts and full texts of potentially relevant studies were scanned by two independent reviewers. Primary studies were included if ≈90% of the population had COPD, the majority were of at least moderate severity and reported on any intervention that included a SM component or package. Accepted study designs and outcomes differed between the reviews. Risk of bias for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to combine studies where appropriate. A Markov model, taking a 30-year time horizon, compared a SM intervention immediately following a hospital admission for an acute exacerbation with UC. Incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years were calculated, with sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: From 13,355 abstracts, 10 RCTs were included for review 1, one study each for reviews 2 and 3, and 174 RCTs for review 4. Available studies were heterogeneous and many were of poor quality. Meta-analysis identified no evidence of benefit of post-discharge SM support on admissions [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 1.17], mortality (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.54) and most other health outcomes. A modest improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was identified but this was possibly biased due to high loss to follow-up. The economic model was speculative due to uncertainty in impact on readmissions. Compared with UC, post-discharge SM support (delivered within 6 weeks of discharge) was more costly and resulted in better outcomes (£683 cost difference and 0.0831 QALY gain). Studies assessing the effect of individual components were few but only exercise significantly improved HRQoL (3-month St George's Respiratory Questionnaire 4.87, 95% CI 3.96 to 5.79). Multicomponent interventions produced an improved HRQoL compared with UC (mean difference 6.50, 95% CI 3.62 to 9.39, at 3 months). Results were consistent with a potential reduction in admissions. Interventions with more enhanced care from health-care professionals improved HRQoL and reduced admissions at 1-year follow-up. Interventions that included supervised or unsupervised structured exercise resulted in significant and clinically important improvements in HRQoL up to 6 months. LIMITATIONS: This review was based on a comprehensive search strategy that should have identified most of the relevant studies. The main limitations result from the heterogeneity of studies available and widespread problems with their design and reporting. CONCLUSIONS: There was little evidence of benefit of providing SM support to patients shortly after discharge from hospital, although effects observed were consistent with possible improvement in HRQoL and reduction in hospital admissions. It was not easy to tease out the most effective components of SM support packages, although interventions containing exercise seemed the most effective. Future work should include qualitative studies to explore barriers and facilitators to SM post exacerbation and novel approaches to affect behaviour change, tailored to the individual and their circumstances. Any new trials should be properly designed and conducted, with special attention to reducing loss to follow-up. Individual participant data meta-analysis may help to identify the most effective components of SM interventions. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001588. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Supported self-management for patients with COPD who have recently been discharged from hospital: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Although many hospitals promote self-management to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients post discharge from hospital, the clinical effectiveness of this is unknown. We undertook a systematic review of the evidence as part of a Health Technology Assessment review. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy with no language restrictions was conducted across relevant databases from inception to May 2012. Randomized controlled trials of patients with COPD, recently discharged from hospital after an acute exacerbation and comparing a self-management intervention with control, usual care or other intervention were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by two reviewers independently. RESULTS: Of 13,559 citations, 836 full texts were reviewed with nine randomized controlled trials finally included in quantitative syntheses. Interventions were heterogeneous. Five trials assessed highly supported multi-component interventions and four trials were less supported with fewer contacts with health care professionals and mainly home-based interventions. Total sample size was 1,466 (range 33-464 per trial) with length of follow-up 2-12 months. Trials varied in quality; poor patient follow-up and poor reporting was common. No evidence of effect in favor of self-management support was observed for all-cause mortality (pooled hazard ratio =1.07; 95% confidence interval [0.74 to 1.55]; I (2)=0.0%, [n=5 trials]). No clear evidence of effect on all-cause hospital admissions was observed (hazard ratio 0.88 [0.61, 1.27] I (2)=66.0%). Improvements in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score were seen in favor of self-management interventions (mean difference =3.84 [1.29 to 6.40]; I (2)=14.6%), although patient follow-up rates were low. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to support self-management interventions post-discharge. There is a need for good quality primary research to identify effective approaches.

Inter-examiner reliability of active combined movements assessment of subjects with a history of mechanical neck problems.

Combined movement examination (CME) is used in clinical management of spinal dysfunction. Whilst reliability of lumbar spine CME has been investigated, reliability of cervical spine CME is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the inter-rater reliability of a CME protocol in subjects who have previously experienced a neck problem. Subjects were evaluated to identify their "side of discomfort", "dysfunctional active prime movement (PrM)", "prime combination of movements (PrC)" and "stretch pattern". A secondary aim included the evaluation of a movement order effect. Inter-rater reliability of CME was evaluated in subjects (n = 25) with a history of mechanical neck problems. Through questioning and visual observation of the "functional demonstration", raters (n = 3) had to classify subjects in anterior or posterior stretch patterns and determine movement combinations. Descriptive data for "PrC" showed moderate (67%) percentage agreement for anterior pattern and excellent (92%) for posterior pattern. AC1 values (95% Confidence Interval) were calculated for "Side" (AC1 = 0.96, CI: 0.89-1) and "Pattern" (AC1 = 0.96, CI: 0.89-1) demonstrating excellent inter-examiner reliability. "PrM" demonstrated total (100%) agreement. Establishing an order effect was unreliable (anterior pattern: 33%; posterior pattern: 38%). Results showed that a CME based protocol is a reliable assessment tool. Further research using larger samples and other clinical presentations is warranted.