Predictors of outcome in sciatica patients following an epidural steroid injection: the POiSE prospective observational cohort study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Sciatica can be very painful and, in most cases, is due to pressure on a spinal nerve root from a disc herniation with associated inflammation. For some patients, the pain persists, and one management option is a spinal epidural steroid injection (ESI). The aim of an ESI is to relieve leg pain, improve function and reduce the need for surgery. ESIs work well in some patients but not in others, but we cannot identify these patient subgroups currently. This study aims to identify factors, including patient characteristics, clinical examination and imaging findings, that help in predicting who does well and who does not after an ESI. The overall objective is to develop a prognostic model to support individualised patient and clinical decision-making regarding ESI. METHODS: POiSE is a prospective cohort study of 439 patients with sciatica referred by their clinician for an ESI. Participants will receive weekly text messages until 12 weeks following their ESIand then again at 24 weeks following their ESI to collect data on leg pain severity. Questionnaires will be sent to participants at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 weeks after their ESI to collect data on pain, disability, recovery and additional interventions. The prognosis for the cohort will be described. The primary outcome measure for the prognostic model is leg pain at 6 weeks. Prognostic models will also be developed for secondary outcomes of disability and recovery at 6 weeks and additional interventions at 24 weeks following ESI. Statistical analyses will include multivariable linear and logistic regression with mixed effects model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The POiSE study has received ethical approval (South Central Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee 21/SC/0257). Dissemination will be guided by our patient and public engagement group and will include scientific publications, conference presentations and social media.

Development and External Validation of Individualized Prediction Models for Pain Intensity Outcomes in Patients With Neck Pain, Low Back Pain, or Both in Primary Care Settings.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop and externally validate multivariable prediction models for future pain intensity outcomes to inform targeted interventions for patients with neck or low back pain in primary care settings. METHODS: Model development data were obtained from a group of 679 adults with neck or low back pain who consulted a participating United Kingdom general practice. Predictors included self-report items regarding pain severity and impact from the STarT MSK Tool. Pain intensity at 2 and 6 months was modeled separately for continuous and dichotomized outcomes using linear and logistic regression, respectively. External validation of all models was conducted in a separate group of 586 patients recruited from a similar population with patients' predictor information collected both at point of consultation and 2 to 4 weeks later using self-report questionnaires. Calibration and discrimination of the models were assessed separately using STarT MSK Tool data from both time points to assess differences in predictive performance. RESULTS: Pain intensity and patients reporting their condition would last a long time contributed most to predictions of future pain intensity conditional on other variables. On external validation, models were reasonably well calibrated on average when using tool measurements taken 2 to 4 weeks after consultation (calibration slope = 0.848 [95% CI = 0.767 to 0.928] for 2-month pain intensity score), but performance was poor using point-of-consultation tool data (calibration slope for 2-month pain intensity score of 0.650 [95% CI = 0.549 to 0.750]). CONCLUSION: Model predictive accuracy was good when predictors were measured 2 to 4 weeks after primary care consultation, but poor when measured at the point of consultation. Future research will explore whether additional, nonmodifiable predictors improve point-of-consultation predictive performance. IMPACT: External validation demonstrated that these individualized prediction models were not sufficiently accurate to recommend their use in clinical practice. Further research is required to improve performance through inclusion of additional nonmodifiable risk factors.

Prognostic factors associated with outcome following an epidural steroid injection for disc-related sciatica: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

PURPOSE: Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) as a treatment option for severe disc-related sciatica, but there is considerable uncertainty about its effectiveness. Currently, we know very little about factors that might be associated with good or poor outcomes from ESI. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise and appraise the evidence investigating prognostic factors associated with outcomes following ESI for patients with imaging confirmed disc-related sciatica. METHODS: The search strategy involved the electronic databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and reference lists of eligible studies. Selected papers were quality appraised independently by two reviewers using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Between-study heterogeneity precluded statistical pooling of results. RESULTS: 3094 citations were identified; 15 studies were eligible. Overall study quality was low with all judged to have moderate or high risk of bias. Forty-two prognostic factors were identified but were measured inconsistently. The most commonly assessed prognostic factors were related to pain and function (n = 10 studies), imaging features (n = 8 studies), patient socio-demographics (n = 7 studies), health and lifestyle (n = 6 studies), clinical assessment findings (n = 4 studies) and injection level (n = 4 studies). No prognostic factor was found to be consistently associated with outcomes following ESI. Most studies found no association or results that conflicted with other studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is little, and low quality, evidence to guide practice in terms of factors that predict outcomes in patients following ESI for disc-related sciatica. The results can help inform some of the decisions about potential prognostic factors that should be assessed in future well-designed prospective cohort studies.

Patient satisfaction with the first contact physiotherapy service: Results from the national evaluation survey.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal (MSK) First Contact Physiotherapists (FCPs) are diagnostic clinicians able to assess and manage undifferentiated and undiagnosed MSK presentations. The FCP role in primary care has been introduced to allow patients with MSK pain to see a FCP directly rather than wait to see a General Practitioner (GP) first, which improves capacity within primary care. A national evaluation was undertaken of the FCP model. This article reports the thematic analysis of the free-text responses of patients who participated in the national evaluation. METHODS: An online platform collected patient-reported experience and outcomes following the FCP consultation and at 1, 2 and 3 months follow-up. Free-text responses to the Friends and Family test, reasons for consulting another health care professional (HCP) and general comments were thematically analysed and grouped according to their responses. RESULTS: Over 13 months, 680 of 2825 registered patients (24%) completed the initial questionnaire and 54% (n = 370) completed the 3-month follow-up. During the course of the evaluation, 785 participants provided free-text responses. Themes identified from free-text responses were: communication and knowledge, clinicians' characteristics, efficiency, treatment provided, assessment skills and service provided in comparison to GP care. Complaints represented 4% (n = 26 comments) of total feedback. The main reasons for consulting other HCPs after seeing a FCP were persistent pain, delays in referrals or already attending NHS physiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Thematic analysis of free-text responses in the national FCP evaluation provides context and detail to the positive outcomes reported by patients after consulting a FCP in primary care.

First Contact Practitioners' (FCPs) and General Practitioners' Perceptions Towards FCPs Delivering Vocational Advice to Patients with Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Qualitative Investigation of the Implementation Potential of the I-SWAP Initiative.

Purpose Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is a common cause of work absence. The recent SWAP (Study of Work And Pain) randomised controlled trial (RCT) found that a brief vocational advice service for primary care patients with MSK pain led to fewer days' work absence and provided good return-on-investment. The I-SWAP (Implementation of the Study of Work And Pain) initiative aimed to deliver an implementation test-bed of the SWAP vocational advice intervention with First Contact Practitioners (FCP). This entailed adapting the SWAP vocational advice training to fit the FCP role. This qualitative investigation explored the implementation potential of FCPs delivering vocational advice for patients with MSK pain. Methods Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with 10 FCPs and 5 GPs. Data were analysed thematically and findings explored using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). Results I-SWAP achieved a degree of 'coherence' (i.e. made sense), with both FCPs and GPs feeling FCPs were well-placed to discuss work issues with these patients. However, for many of the FCPs, addressing or modifying psychosocial and occupational barriers to return-to-work was not considered feasible within FCP consultations, and improving physical function was prioritised. Concerns were also raised that employers would not act on FCPs' recommendations regarding return-to-work. Conclusion FCPs appear well-placed to discuss work issues with MSK patients, and signpost/refer to other services; however, because they often only see patients once they are less suited to deliver other aspects of vocational advice. Future research is needed to explore how best to provide vocational advice in primary care settings.

Self-reported prognostic factors in adults reporting neck or low back pain: An umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Numerous systematic reviews have attempted to synthesize evidence on prognostic factors for predicting future outcomes such as pain, disability and return-to-work/work absence in neck and low back pain populations. DATABASES AND DATATREATMENT: An umbrella review of systematic reviews was conducted to summarize the magnitude and quality of the evidence for each prognostic factor investigated. Searches were limited to the last 10 years (2008-11th April 2018, updated 28th September 2020). A two-stage approach was undertaken: in stage one, data on prognostic factors was extracted from systematic reviews identified from the systematic search that met the inclusion criteria. Where a prognostic factor was investigated in ≥1 systematic review and where 50% or more of those reviews found an association between the prognostic factor and one of the outcomes of interest, it was taken forward to stage two. In stage two, additional information extracted included the strength of association found, consistency of effects and risk of bias. The GRADE approach was used to grade confidence in the evidence. RESULTS: Stage one identified 41 reviews (90 prognostic factors), with 35 reviews (25 prognostic factors) taken forward to stage two. Seven prognostic factors (disability/activity limitation, mental health; pain intensity; pain severity; coping; expectation of outcome/recovery and fear-avoidance) were judged as having moderate confidence for robust findings. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was conflicting evidence for the strength of association with outcome, these factors may be used for identifying vulnerable subgroups or people able to self-manage. Further research can investigate the impact of using such prognostic information on treatment/referral decisions and patient outcomes.

Evidence-based treatment recommendations for neck and low back pain across Europe: A systematic review of guidelines.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This systematic review synthesized evidence from European neck and low back pain (NLBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to identify recommended treatment options for use across Europe. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Comprehensive searches of thirteen databases were conducted, from 1st January 2013 to 4th May 2020 to identify up-to-date evidence-based European CPGs for primary care management of NLBP, issued by professional bodies/organizations. Data extracted included; aim and target population, methods for development and implementation and treatment recommendations. The AGREE II checklist was used to critically appraise guidelines. Criteria were devised to summarize and synthesize the direction and strength of recommendations across guidelines. RESULTS: Seventeen CPGs (11 low back; 5 neck; 1 both) from eight European countries were identified, of which seven were high quality. For neck pain, there were consistent weak or moderate strength recommendations for: reassurance, advice and education, manual therapy, referral for exercise therapy/programme, oral analgesics and topical medications, plus psychological therapies or multidisciplinary treatment for specific subgroups. Notable recommendation differences between back and neck pain included, i) analgesics for neck pain (not for back pain); ii) options for back pain-specific subgroups-work-based interventions, return to work advice/programmes and surgical interventions (but not for neck pain) and iii) a greater strength of recommendations (generally moderate or strong) for back pain than those for neck pain. CONCLUSIONS: This review of European CPGs identified a range of mainly non-pharmacological recommended treatment options for NLBP that have broad consensus for use across Europe. SIGNIFICANCE: Consensus regarding evidence-based treatment recommendations for patients with neck and low back pain (NLBP) from recent European clinical practice guidelines identifies a wide range of predominantly non-pharmacological treatment options. This includes options potentially applicable to all patients with NLBP and those applicable to only specific patient subgroups. Future work within our Back-UP research team will transfer these evidence-based treatment options to an accessible clinician decision support tool for first contact clinicians.

Self-efficacy as a prognostic factor and treatment moderator in chronic musculoskeletal pain patients attending pain management programmes: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence on the effectiveness of pain management programmes (PMPs) for chronic pain patients is mixed. Self-efficacy may be associated with outcome of PMPs. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the role of self-efficacy as a (i) prognostic factor and (ii) moderator of treatment, in chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) patients attending a PMP. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature and qualitative synthesis was carried out. Six electronic databases were searched (1989-2020). Studies that measured pain self-efficacy as a prognostic factor or treatment moderator in patients with CMP, who participated in a multidisciplinary PMP were included. Study quality was appraised using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. RESULTS: Six studies investigating self-efficacy as a prognostic factor were included with a total of 1881 participants. No studies were found assessing self-efficacy as a treatment moderator. Self-efficacy was a prognostic factor for physical functioning in two studies. There was weak evidence for self-efficacy as a prognostic factor for disability, health-related quality of life and pain outcomes and no evidence for psychological variables, disease severity and tender point index following PMPs. Quality of evidence was very low using the GRADE system for each outcome measure. CONCLUSION: Baseline self-efficacy may play a role in physical function outcomes in CMP patients attending a PMP. Higher quality evidence is needed to determine the influence of self-efficacy on outcomes in this setting.

New insight to the characteristics and clinical course of clusters of patients with imaging confirmed disc-related sciatica.

BACKGROUND: Referral to secondary care is common for a considerable proportion of patients with persistent sciatica symptoms. It is unclear if information from clinical assessment can further identify distinct subgroups of disc-related sciatica, with perhaps different clinical courses. AIMS: This study aims to identify and describe clusters of imaging confirmed disc-related sciatica patients using latent class analysis, and compare their clinical course. METHODS: The study population were 466 patients with disc-related sciatica. Variables from clinical assessment were included in the analysis. Characteristics of the identified clusters were described and their clinical course over 2 years was compared. RESULTS: A four-cluster solution was optimal. Cluster 1 (n = 110) had mild back and leg pain; cluster 2 (n = 59) had moderate back and leg pain; cluster 3 (n = 158) had mild back pain and severe leg pain; cluster 4 (n = 139) had severe back and leg pain. Patients in cluster 4 had the most severe profile in terms of disability, distress and comorbidity and the lowest reported global change and the smallest proportion of patients with a successful outcome at 2 years. Of the 135 patients who underwent surgery, 42% and 41% were in clusters 3 and 4, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using a strict diagnosis of sciatica, this work identified four clusters of patients primarily differentiated by back and leg pain severity. Patients with severe back and leg pain had the most severe profile at baseline and follow-up irrespective of intervention. This simple classification system may be useful when considering prognosis and management with sciatica patients. SIGNIFICANCE: Using data from a large observational prospective study, this work identifies four distinct clusters of patients with imaging confirmed disc-related sciatica. This classification could be used when considering prognosis and management with sciatica patients at their initial consultation.

Factors associated with physiotherapists' preference for MRI in primary care patients with low back and leg pain.

BACKGROUND: Criticisms about overuse of MRI in low back pain are well documented. Yet, with the exception of suspicion of serious pathology, little is known about factors that influence clinicians' preference for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at first consultation. OBJECTIVE: To explore factors associated with physiotherapists' preference for MRI for patients consulting with benign low back and leg pain (LBLP) including sciatica. DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort study. METHODS: Data were collected from 607 primary care LBLP patients participating in the ATLAS cohort study. Following clinical assessment, physiotherapists documented whether he/she wanted the patient to have an MRI. Factors potentially associated with physiotherapists' preference for imaging were selected a priori from patient characteristics and clinical assessment findings. A mixed-effects logistic regression model examined the associations between these factors and physiotherapists' preference for MRI. RESULTS: Physiotherapists expressed a preference for MRI in 32% (196/607) of patients, of whom 22 did not have a clinical diagnosis of sciatica (radiculopathy). Factors associated with preference for MRI included; clinical diagnosis of sciatica (OR 4.23: 95% CI 2.29, 7.81), greater than 3 months pain duration (2.61: 1.58, 4.30), high pain intensity (1.24: 1.11, 1.37), patient's low expectation of improvement (2.40: 1.50, 3.83), physiotherapist's confidence in their diagnosis (1.19: 1.07, 1.33), with greater confidence associated with higher probability for MRI preference. CONCLUSION: A clinical diagnosis of sciatica and longer symptom duration were most strongly associated with physiotherapists' preference for MRI. Given current best practice guidelines, these appear to be justifiable reasons for MRI preference at first consultation.

Clinical diagnostic model for sciatica developed in primary care patients with low back-related leg pain.

BACKGROUND: Identification of sciatica may assist timely management but can be challenging in clinical practice. Diagnostic models to identify sciatica have mainly been developed in secondary care settings with conflicting reference standard selection. This study explores the challenges of reference standard selection and aims to ascertain which combination of clinical assessment items best identify sciatica in people seeking primary healthcare. METHODS: Data on 394 low back-related leg pain consulters were analysed. Potential sciatica indicators were seven clinical assessment items. Two reference standards were used: (i) high confidence sciatica clinical diagnosis; (ii) high confidence sciatica clinical diagnosis with confirmatory magnetic resonance imaging findings. Multivariable logistic regression models were produced for both reference standards. A tool predicting sciatica diagnosis in low back-related leg pain was derived. Latent class modelling explored the validity of the reference standard. RESULTS: Model (i) retained five items; model (ii) retained six items. Four items remained in both models: below knee pain, leg pain worse than back pain, positive neural tension tests and neurological deficit. Model (i) was well calibrated (p = 0.18), discrimination was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.95 (95% CI 0.93, 0.98). Model (ii) showed good discrimination (AUC 0.82; 0.78, 0.86) but poor calibration (p = 0.004). Bootstrapping revealed minimal overfitting in both models. Agreement between the two latent classes and clinical diagnosis groups defined by model (i) was substantial, and fair for model (ii). CONCLUSION: Four clinical assessment items were common in both reference standard definitions of sciatica. A simple scoring tool for identifying sciatica was developed. These criteria could be used clinically and in research to improve accuracy of identification of this subgroup of back pain patients.

Determining One-Year Trajectories of Low-Back-Related Leg Pain in Primary Care Patients: Growth Mixture Modeling of a Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical presentation and outcome of patients with back and leg pain in primary care are heterogeneous and may be better understood by identification of homogeneous and clinically meaningful subgroups. Subgroups of patients with different back pain trajectories have been identified, but little is known about the trajectories for patients with back-related leg pain. This study sought to identify distinct leg pain trajectories, and baseline characteristics associated with membership of each group, in primary care patients. METHODS: Monthly data on leg pain intensity were collected over 12 months for 609 patients participating in a prospective cohort study of adult patients seeking health care for low-back and leg pain, including sciatica, of any duration and severity, from their general practitioner. Growth mixture modeling was used to identify clusters of patients with distinct leg pain trajectories. Trajectories were characterized using baseline demographic and clinical examination data. Multinomial logistic regression was used to predict latent class membership, with a range of covariates. RESULTS: Four patient clusters were identified: improving mild pain (58%), persistent moderate pain (26%), persistent severe pain (13%), and improving severe pain (3%). Clusters showed statistically significant differences in a number of baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION: Four trajectories of leg pain were identified. Clusters 1, 2, and 3 were generally comparable to back pain trajectories, while cluster 4, with major improvement in pain, is infrequently identified. Awareness of such distinct patient groups improves understanding of the course of leg pain and may provide a basis of classification for intervention.

Novel approach to characterising individuals with low back-related leg pain: cluster identification with latent class analysis and 12-month follow-up.

Traditionally, low back-related leg pain (LBLP) is diagnosed clinically as referred leg pain or sciatica (nerve root involvement). However, within the spectrum of LBLP, we hypothesised that there may be other unrecognised patient subgroups. This study aimed to identify clusters of patients with LBLP using latent class analysis and describe their clinical course. The study population was 609 LBLP primary care consulters. Variables from clinical assessment were included in the latent class analysis. Characteristics of the statistically identified clusters were compared, and their clinical course over 1 year was described. A 5 cluster solution was optimal. Cluster 1 (n = 104) had mild leg pain severity and was considered to represent a referred leg pain group with no clinical signs, suggesting nerve root involvement (sciatica). Cluster 2 (n = 122), cluster 3 (n = 188), and cluster 4 (n = 69) had mild, moderate, and severe pain and disability, respectively, and response to clinical assessment items suggested categories of mild, moderate, and severe sciatica. Cluster 5 (n = 126) had high pain and disability, longer pain duration, and more comorbidities and was difficult to map to a clinical diagnosis. Most improvement for pain and disability was seen in the first 4 months for all clusters. At 12 months, the proportion of patients reporting recovery ranged from 27% for cluster 5 to 45% for cluster 2 (mild sciatica). This is the first study that empirically shows the variability in profile and clinical course of patients with LBLP including sciatica. More homogenous groups were identified, which could be considered in future clinical and research settings.

Neuropathic Pain in Low Back-Related Leg Pain Patients: What Is the Evidence of Prevalence, Characteristics, and Prognosis in Primary Care? A Systematic Review of the Literature.

This systematic review synthesizes literature describing prevalence, characteristics, and prognosis of low back-related leg pain (LBLP) patients with neuropathic pain in primary care and/or similar settings. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed and used by independent reviewers to screen citations for eligibility. The initial search yielded 24,948 citations; after screening 12 studies were included. Neuropathic pain was identified using case ascertainment tools (n = 5), clinical history with examination (n = 4), and using LBLP samples assumed neuropathic (n = 3). Neuropathic pain prevalence varied from 19% to 80%. There was consistent evidence for higher back-related disability (n = 3), poorer health-related quality of life (n = 2), and some evidence for more severe depression (n = 2), anxiety (n = 3), and pain intensity (n = 4) in patients with neuropathic pain. Results were less consistent when cases were identified through clinical history with examination than those identified using case ascertainment tools. Prognosis (n = 1) of LBLP patients with neuropathic pain was worse compared with those without, in all outcomes (leg pain intensity, leg and back-related disability, self-reported general health) except back pain intensity. No studies described prognostic factors. This systematic review highlights the evidence gap in neuropathic pain in LBLP in primary care, especially with respect to prognosis. PERSPECTIVE: Patients with LBLP may have neuropathic pain. This systematic review emphasizes the paucity of evidence describing the characteristics and prognosis of neuropathic pain in this patient population. Future research investigating prognosis of these patients with neuropathic pain is likely to contribute to better understanding and management.

Classification of patients with low back-related leg pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The identification of clinically relevant subgroups of low back pain (LBP) is considered the number one LBP research priority in primary care. One subgroup of LBP patients are those with back related leg pain. Leg pain frequently accompanies LBP and is associated with increased levels of disability and higher health costs than simple low back pain. Distinguishing between different types of low back-related leg pain (LBLP) is important for clinical management and research applications, but there is currently no clear agreement on how to define and identify LBLP due to nerve root involvement. The aim of this systematic review was to identify, describe and appraise papers that classify or subgroup populations with LBLP, and summarise how leg pain due to nerve root involvement is described and diagnosed in the various systems. METHODS: The search strategy involved nine electronic databases including Medline and Embase, reference lists of eligible studies and relevant reviews. Selected papers were appraised independently by two reviewers using a standardised scoring tool. RESULTS: Of 13,358 initial potential eligible citations, 50 relevant papers were identified that reported on 22 classification systems. Papers were grouped according to purpose and criteria of the classification systems. Five themes emerged: (i) clinical features (ii) pathoanatomy (iii) treatment-based approach (iv) screening tools and prediction rules and (v) pain mechanisms. Three of the twenty two systems focused specifically on LBLP populations. Systems that scored highest following quality appraisal were ones where authors generally included statistical methods to develop their classifications, and supporting work had been published on the systems' validity, reliability and generalisability. There was lack of consistency in how LBLP due to nerve root involvement was described and diagnosed within the systems. CONCLUSION: Numerous classification systems exist that include patients with leg pain, a minority of them focus specifically on distinguishing between different presentations of leg pain. Further work is needed to identify clinically meaningful subgroups of LBLP patients, ideally based on large primary care cohort populations and using recommended methods for classification system development.

Impairment-targeted exercises for older adults with knee pain: a proof-of-principle study (TargET-Knee-Pain).

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic exercise is an effective intervention for knee pain and osteoarthritis (OA) and should be individualised. In a preliminary, proof-of-principle study we sought to develop a home exercise programme targeted at specific physical impairments of weak quadriceps, reduced knee flexion range of motion (ROM) and poor balance, and evaluate whether receipt of this was associated with improvements in those impairments and in patient-reported outcomes among older adults with knee pain. METHODS: This community-based study used a single group, before-after study design with 12-week follow-up. Participants were 58 adults aged over 56 years with knee pain and evidence of quadriceps weakness, loss of flexion ROM, or poor balance, recruited from an existing population-based, observational cohort. Participants received a 12-week home exercise programme, tailored to their physical impairments. The programme was led, monitored and progressed by a physiotherapist over six home visits, alternating with six telephone calls. Primary outcome measures were maximal isometric quadriceps strength, knee flexion ROM and timed single-leg standing balance, measured at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks by a research nurse blinded to the nature and content of participants' exercise programmes. Secondary outcome measures included the WOMAC. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, participants receiving strengthening exercises demonstrated a statistically significant change in quadriceps isometric strength compared to participants not receiving strengthening exercises: 3.9 KgF (95 % CI 0.1, 7.8). Changes in knee flexion ROM (2.1° (-2.3, 6.5)) and single-leg balance time (-2.4 s (-4.5, 6.7)) after stretching and balance retraining exercises respectively, were not found to be statistically significant. There were significant improvements in mean WOMAC Pain and Physical Function scores: -2.2 (-3.1, -1.2) and -5.1 (-7.8, -2.5). CONCLUSIONS: A 12-week impairment-targeted, home-based exercise programme for symptomatic knee OA appeared to be associated with modest improvements in self-reported pain and function but no strong evidence of greater improvement in the specific impairments targeted by each exercise package, with the possible exception of quadriceps strengthening. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN 61638364 Date of registration: 24 June 2010.

Reliability among clinicians diagnosing low back-related leg pain.

PURPOSE: To investigate agreement and reliability among clinicians when diagnosing low back-related leg pain (LBLP) in primary care consulters. METHODS: Thirty-six patients were assessed by one of six physiotherapists and diagnosed as having either leg pain due to nerve root involvement (sciatica) or referred leg pain. Assessments were video recorded. In part one, the physiotherapists each viewed videos of six patients they had not assessed. In part two, videos were viewed by another six health professionals. All clinicians made an independent differential diagnosis and rated their confidence with diagnosis (range 50-100 %). RESULTS: In part one agreement was 72 % with fair inter-rater reliability (K = 0.35, 95 % CI 0.07, 0.63). Results for part two were almost identical (K = 0.34, 95 % CI 0.02, 0.69). Agreement and reliability indices improved as diagnostic confidence increased. CONCLUSION: Reliability was fair among clinicians from different backgrounds when diagnosing LBLP but improved substantially with high confidence in clinical diagnosis.

Conservative interventions for treating work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder in adults.

BACKGROUND: Work-related upper limb disorder (WRULD), repetitive strain injury (RSI), occupational overuse syndrome (OOS) and work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder (CANS) are the most frequently used umbrella terms for disorders that develop as a result of repetitive movements, awkward postures and impact of external forces such as those associated with operating vibrating tools. Work-related CANS, which is the term we use in this review, severely hampers the working population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of conservative interventions for work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder (CANS) in adults on pain, function and work-related outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 31 May 2013), MEDLINE (1950 to 31 May 2013), EMBASE (1988 to 31 May 2013), CINAHL (1982 to 31 May 2013), AMED (1985 to 31 May 2013), PsycINFO (1806 to 31 May 2013), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; inception to 31 May 2013) and the Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence Database (OTseeker; inception to 31 May 2013). We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating conservative interventions for work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder in adults. We excluded trials undertaken to test injections and surgery. We included studies that evaluated effects on pain, functional status or work ability. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. When studies were sufficiently similar, we performed statistical pooling of reported results. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 studies (62 publications) with 6,580 participants that evaluated 25 different interventions. We categorised these interventions according to their working mechanisms into exercises, ergonomics, behavioural and other interventions.Overall, we judged 35 studies as having a high risk of bias mainly because of an unknown randomisation procedure, lack of a concealed allocation procedure, unblinded trial participants or lack of an intention-to-treat analysis.We found very low-quality evidence showing that exercises did not improve pain in comparison with no treatment (five studies, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to 0.03), or minor intervention controls (three studies, SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.37) or when provided as additional treatment (two studies, inconsistent results) at short-term follow-up or at long-term follow-up. Results were similar for recovery, disability and sick leave. Specific exercises led to increased pain at short-term follow-up when compared with general exercises (four studies, SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.75)We found very low-quality evidence indicating that ergonomic interventions did not lead to a decrease in pain when compared with no intervention at short-term follow-up (three studies, SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.22) but did decrease pain at long-term follow-up (four studies, SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.16). There was no effect on disability but sick leave decreased in two studies (risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.76). None of the ergonomic interventions was more beneficial for any outcome measures when compared with another treatment or with no treatment or with placebo.Behavioural interventions had inconsistent effects on pain and disability, with some subgroups showing benefit and others showing no significant improvement when compared with no treatment, minor intervention controls or other behavioural interventions.In the eight studies that evaluated various other interventions, there was no evidence of a clear beneficial effect of any of the interventions provided. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low-quality evidence indicating that pain, recovery, disability and sick leave are similar after exercises when compared with no treatment, with minor intervention controls or with exercises provided as additional treatment to people with work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder. Low-quality evidence also showed that ergonomic interventions did not decrease pain at short-term follow-up but did decrease pain at long-term follow-up. There was no evidence of an effect on other outcomes. For behavioural and other interventions, there was no evidence of a consistent effect on any of the outcomes.Studies are needed that include more participants, that are clear about the diagnosis of work-relatedness and that report findings according to current guidelines.