Management of low back pain and lumbosacral radicular syndrome: the Guideline of the Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF).

BACKGROUND: Significant progress and new insights have been gained since the Dutch Physical Therapy guideline on low back pain (LBP) in 2013 and the Cesar en Mensendieck guideline in 2009, necessitating an update of these guidelines. AIM: To update and develop an evidence-based guideline for the comprehensive management of LBP and lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS) without serious specific conditions (red flags) for Dutch physical therapists and Cesar and Mensendieck Therapists. DESIGN: Clinical practice guideline. SETTING: Inpatient and outpatient. POPULATION: Adults with LBP and/or LRS. METHODS: Clinically relevant questions were identified based on perceived barriers in current practice of physical therapy. All clinical questions were answered using published guidelines, systematic reviews, narrative reviews or systematic reviews performed by the project group. Recommendations were formulated based on evidence and additional considerations, as described in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework. Patients participated in every phase. RESULTS: The guideline describes a comprehensive assessment based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Set for LBP and LRS, including the identification of alarm symptoms and red flags. Patients are assigned to three treatment profiles (low, moderate and high risk of persistent symptoms) based on prognostic factors for persistent LBP. The guideline recommends offering simple and less intensive support to people who are likely to recover quickly (low-risk profile) and more complex and intensive support to people with a moderate or high risk of persistent complaints. Criteria for initiating and discontinuing physical therapy, and referral to a general practitioner are specified. Recommendations are formulated for information and advice, measurement instruments, active and passive interventions and behavior-oriented treatment. CONCLUSIONS: An evidence based physical therapy guideline for the management of patients with LBP and LRS without red flags for physical therapists and Cesar and Mensendieck therapists was developed. Cornerstones of physical therapy assessment and treatment are risk stratification, shared decision-making, information and advice, and exercises. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: This guideline provides guidance for clinicians and patients to optimize treatment outcomes in patients with LBP and LRS and offers transparency for other healthcare providers and stakeholders.

Clinical Practice Guideline for Physical Therapist Management of People With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: This guideline revises the 2008 Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy guideline for physical therapy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHOD: This revised guideline was developed according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool and the Guidelines International Network standards. A multidisciplinary guideline panel formulated clinical questions based on perceived barriers in current care. For every clinical question, a narrative or systematic literature review was undertaken, where appropriate. The guideline panel formulated recommendations based on the results of the literature reviews, the values and preferences of patients and clinicians, and the acceptability, feasibility, and costs, as described in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence-to-decision framework. RESULTS: The eventual guideline describes a comprehensive assessment based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Set for RA. It also includes a description of yellow and red flags to support direct access. Based on the assessment, 3 treatment profiles are distinguished: (1) education and exercise instructions with limited supervision, (2) education and short-term supervised exercise therapy, and (3) education and intensified supervised exercise therapy. Education includes RA-related information, advice, and self-management support. Exercises are based on recommendations concerning the desired frequency, intensity, type, and time-related characteristics of the exercises (FITT factors). Their interpretation is compliant with the individual patient's situation and with public health recommendations for health-enhancing physical activity. Recommended measurement instruments for monitoring and evaluation include the Patient-Specific Complaint instrument, Numeric Rating Scales for pain and fatigue, the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, and the 6-minute walk test. CONCLUSION: An evidence-based physical therapy guideline was delivered, providing ready-to-use recommendations on the assessment and treatment of patients with RA. An active implementation strategy to enhance its use in daily practice is advised. IMPACT: This evidence-based practice guideline guides the physical therapist in the treatment of patients with RA. The cornerstones of physical therapist treatment for patients with RA are active exercise therapy in combination with education. Passive interventions such as massage, electrotherapy, thermotherapy, low-level laser therapy, ultrasound, and medical taping play a subordinate role.

Predicting no return to sports after three months in patients with traumatic knee complaints in general practice by combining patient characteristics, trauma characteristics and knee complaints.

Background: It remains unclear to what extent patients with traumatic knee complaints aged 18-45 years seen in general practice experience difficulties with return to sports.Objectives: This study aims to determine the proportion of patients with a knee trauma that return to sports at six weeks and three months follow-up. Also examined were associations between no return to sports and baseline patient/trauma characteristics, knee complaints and MR (magnetic resonance) findings, as well as the additive value of MR findings.Methods: Included were patients with traumatic knee complaints participating in a randomized controlled trial assessing the cost-effectiveness of an MR scan in general practice. Patients were classified as 'no return to sports' or 'return to sports' (sports on pre-injury or adapted level). Potential baseline predictors for no return to sports were assessed using logistic regression analyses. The area under the curves (AUC) was compared.Results: At six weeks and three months follow-up, 147 (59%) and 175 (74%) patients, respectively, reported return to sports. Combining patient characteristics, trauma characteristics and knee complaints predicted no return to sports with an AUC of 0.86 (95%CI: 0.81-0.90) at six weeks and of 0.82 (95%CI: 0.76-0.88) at three months follow-up. After adding MR findings, the AUC was 0.79 (95%CI: 0.71-0.87) at six weeks and 0.79 (95%CI: 0.70-0.88) at three months follow-up.Conclusion: Three out of four patients with a knee trauma in general practice reported return to sports at three months follow-up. A combination of patient/trauma characteristics and knee complaints predicted no return to sports, whereas MR findings had no additive value. Trial registration: Dutch trial registration: registration number: NTR3689. registration date: 7 November 2012.

Does MRI add value in general practice for patients with traumatic knee complaints? A 1-year randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether referral to MRI by the general practitioner (GP) is non-inferior to usual care (no access to MRI by GPs) in patients with traumatic knee complaints regarding knee-related daily function. METHODS: This was a multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. GPs invited eligible patients during or after their consultation. Eligible patients (18-45 years) consulted a GP with knee complaints due to a trauma during the previous 6 months. Patients allocated to the MRI group received an MRI at (median) 7 (IQR 1-33) days after the baseline questionnaire. Patients in the usual care group received information on the course of knee complaints, and a referral to a physiotherapist or orthopaedic surgeon when indicated. The primary outcome measure was knee-related daily function measured with the Lysholm scale (0 to 100; 100=excellent function) over 1 year, with a non-inferiority margin of 6 points. RESULTS: A total of 356 patients were included and randomised to MRI (n=179) or usual care (n=177) from November 2012 to December 2015. MRI was non-inferior to usual care concerning knee-related daily function during 1-year follow-up, for the intention-to-treat (overall adjusted estimate: 0.33; 95% CI -1.73 to 2.39) and per-protocol (overall adjusted estimate: 0.06; 95% CI -2.08 to 2.19) analysis. There were no differences between both groups in the amount of patients visiting other healthcare providers. CONCLUSION: MRI in general practice in patients with traumatic knee complaints was non-inferior to usual care regarding knee-related daily function during 1-year follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR3689.

General Practitioners Referring Adults to MR Imaging for Knee Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess Cost-effectiveness.

Purpose To determine the cost-effectiveness of early referral by the general practitioner for magnetic resonance (MR) imaging compared with usual care alone in patients aged 18-45 years with traumatic knee symptoms. Materials and Methods Cost-utility analysis was performed parallel to a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial in Dutch general practice. A total of 356 patients with traumatic knee symptoms were included from November 2012 to December 2015 (mean age, 33 years ± 8 [standard deviation]; 222 men [62%]). Patients were randomly assigned to usual care (n = 177; MR imaging was not performed, but patients were referred to an orthopedic surgeon when conservative treatment was unsatisfactory) or MR imaging (n = 179) within 2 weeks after injury. Main outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs from a healthcare and societal perspective. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. The Student t test was used to assess differences in mean QALYs, costs, and net benefits. Results Mean QALYs were 0.888 in the MR imaging group and 0.899 in the usual care group (P = .255). Healthcare costs per patient were higher in the MR imaging group (€1109) than in the usual care group (€837) (P = .050), mainly due to higher costs for MR imaging, with no reduction in the number of referrals to an orthopedic surgeon in the MR imaging group. Conclusion MR imaging referral by the general practitioner was not cost-effective in patients with traumatic knee symptoms; in fact, MR imaging led to more healthcare costs, without an improvement in health outcomes.

Post-traumatic knee MRI findings and associations with patient, trauma, and clinical characteristics: a subgroup analysis in primary care in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The added value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in primary care is still being debated. A high diagnostic yield can be expected in young and active patients with post-traumatic knee complaints. AIM: To determine the frequency of MRI abnormalities in young and active patients (aged 18-45 years) and the associations with patient, trauma, and clinical characteristics. DESIGN AND SETTING: A subgroup analysis of 174 patients, aged 18-45 years with knee trauma of <6 months, allocated to MRI in a randomised controlled trial on the yield of MRI in primary care. Patients were recruited by 150 GPs in the Netherlands from October 2012 to November 2015. METHOD: Associations were expressed using mean differences, odds ratio (OR) and predictive values. RESULTS: Sixty-seven out of 174 patients (39%) had a positive MRI finding, predominantly anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures (22%) and/or traumatic meniscal tears (15%). Patients with a pre-existing musculoskeletal comorbidity had a two-fold lower prevalence of positive MRI findings (21%), OR 3.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.3 to 7.0). A 'sports related trauma' showed the highest OR of 4.6 (95% CI = 2.2 to 9.3) for a positive MRI finding. Clinical scores were statistically, significantly worse in patients with positive MRI findings, with mean differences ranging from 10 to 20%. Furthermore, increasing duration of complaints was correlated with decreasing prevalence rates of positive MRI findings. Overall, a popping sound and direct swelling showed the highest positive predictive value of 65% for the presence of positive MRI findings. CONCLUSION: The results from this study enable a preselection of patients to increase the diagnostic yield of MRI in primary care.

Efficacy of MRI in primary care for patients with knee complaints due to trauma: protocol of a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (TACKLE trial).

BACKGROUND: Patients with traumatic knee complaints regularly consult their general practitioner (GP). MRI might be a valuable diagnostic tool to assist GPs in making appropriate treatment decisions and reducing costs. Therefore, this study will assess the cost-effectiveness of referral to MRI by GPs compared with usual care, in patients with persistent traumatic knee complaints. DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a multi-centre, open-labelled randomised controlled non-inferiority trial in combination with a concurrent observational cohort study. Eligible patients (aged 18-45 years) have knee complaints due to trauma (or sudden onset) occurring in the preceding 6 months and consulting their GP. Participants are randomised to: 1) an MRI group, i.e. GP referral to MRI, or 2) a usual care group, i.e. no MRI. Primary outcomes are knee-related daily function, medical costs (healthcare use and productivity loss), and quality of life. Secondary outcomes are disability due to knee complaints, severity of knee pain, and patients' perceived recovery and satisfaction. Outcomes are measured at baseline and at 1.5, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up. Also collected are data on patient demographics, GPs' initial working diagnosis, GPs' preferred management at baseline, and MRI findings. DISCUSSION: In the Netherlands, the additional diagnostic value and cost-effectiveness of direct access to knee MRI for patients presenting with traumatic knee complaints in general practice is unknown. Although GPs increasingly refer patients to MRI, the Dutch clinical guideline 'Traumatic knee complaints' for GPs does not recommend referral to MRI, mainly because the cost-effectiveness is still unknown. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registration: NTR3689.

The additional effect of orthotic devices on exercise therapy for patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome: a systematic review.

The aim of the study is to determine "the additional effect of... function" for patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS). The additional effect of orthotic devices over exercise therapy on pain and function. A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane and PEDro. Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of patients diagnosed with PFPS evaluating a clinically relevant outcome were included. Treatment had to include exercise therapy combined with orthotics, compared with an identical exercise programme with or without sham orthotics. Data were summarised using a best evidence synthesis. Eight trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which three had a low risk of bias. There is moderate evidence for no additive effectiveness of knee braces to exercise therapy on pain (effect sizes (ES) varied from -0.14 to 0.04) and conflicting evidence on function (ES -0.33). There is moderate evidence for no difference between knee braces and exercise therapy versus placebo knee braces and exercise therapy on pain and function (ES -0.1-0.10). More studies of high methodological quality are needed to draw definitive conclusions.