Prognostic factors for progression of osteoarthritis of the hip: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Predicting which patients with hip osteoarthritis are more likely to show disease progression is important for healthcare professionals. Therefore, the aim of this review was to assess which factors are predictive of progression in patients with hip osteoarthritis. METHODS: A literature search was made up until 14 March 2019. Included were cohort and case-control studies evaluating the association between factors and progression (either clinical, radiological, or THR). Excluded were studies with a follow-up < 1 year or specific underlying pathologies of osteoarthritis. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUIPS tool. A best-evidence synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: We included 57 articles describing 154 different factors. Of these, a best-evidence synthesis was possible for 103 factors, separately for clinical and radiological progression, and progression to total hip replacement. We found strong evidence for more clinical progression in patients with comorbidity and more progression to total hip replacement for a higher Kellgren and Lawrence grade, superior or (supero) lateral femoral head migration, and subchondral sclerosis. Strong evidence for no association was found regarding clinical progression for gender, social support, pain medication, quality of life, and limited range of motion of internal rotation or external rotation. Also, strong evidence for no association was found regarding radiological progression for the markers CTX-I, COMP, NTX-I, PINP, and PIIINP and regarding progression to total hip replacement for body mass index. CONCLUSION: Strong evidence suggested that 4 factors were predictive of progression of hip osteoarthritis, whereas 12 factors were not predictive of progression. Evidence for most of the reported factors was either limited or conflicting. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42015010757.

The association between pro-inflammatory biomarkers and nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: About 85% of the patients with low back pain seeking medical care have nonspecific low back pain (NsLBP), implying that no definitive cause can be identified. Nonspecific low back pain is defined as low back pain and disability which cannot be linked to an underlying pathology, such as cancer, spinal osteomyelitis, fracture, spinal stenosis, cauda equine, ankylosing spondylitis, and visceral-referred pain. Many pain conditions are linked with elevated serum levels of pro-inflammatory biomarkers. Outcomes of interest are NsLBP and the level of pro-inflammatory biomarkers. PURPOSE: To unravel the etiology and get better insight in the prognosis of NsLBP, the aim of this study was to assess the association between pro-inflammatory biomarkers and the presence and severity of NsLBP. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic literature search was made in Embase, Medline, Cinahl, Webof-science, and Google scholar up to January 19th 2017. METHODS: Included were cross-sectional and cohort studies reporting on patients aged over 18 years with NsLBP, in which one or more pro-inflammatory biomarkers were measured in blood plasma. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. A best-evidence synthesis was used to summarize the results from the individual studies, meaning that the included studies were ranked according to the consistency of the findings and according to their methodological quality score using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Included were 10 studies which assessed four different pro-inflammatory biomarkers. For the association between the presence of NsLBP and C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin 6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α limited, conflicting and moderate evidence, respectively, was found. For the association between the severity of NsLBP and CRP and IL-6, moderate evidence was found. For the association between the severity of NsLBP and TNF-α and RANTES Regulated on Activation, Normal T Cell Expressed and Secreted conflicting and limited evidence, respectively, was found. CONCLUSIONS: This study found moderate evidence for (i) a positive association between the pro-inflammatory biomarkers CRP and IL-6 and the severity of NsLBP, and (ii) a positive association between TNF-α and the presence of NsLBP. Conflicting and limited evidence was found for the association between TNF-α and Regulated on Activation, Normal T Cell Expressed and Secreted and severity of NsLBP, respectively.

Discontinuation of the PACE Plus trial: problems in patient recruitment in general practice.

BACKGROUND: The PACE Plus trial was a multi-center, double-blinded, superiority randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in patients from Dutch general practice to investigate the efficacy of paracetamol and NSAIDs in acute non-specific low back pain (LBP). Because insufficient numbers of patients could be recruited (only four out of the required 800 patients could be recruited over a period of 6 months), the trial was prematurely terminated in February 2017, 6 months after the start of recruitment. This article aims to transparently communicate the discontinuation of PACE Plus and to make recommendations for future studies. METHODS: General Practitioners (GPs) from 36 participating practices received a one-question survey in which they were asked to give the three most important factors that in their opinion contributed to failure of patient recruitment. RESULTS: GPs of 33 out of 36 (92%) participating practices sent a response. A total of 81 factors were reported. These have been categorized into patient factors (26 out of 81 comments, 32%), GP factors (39 out of 81 comments, 48%) and research factors (16 out of 81 comments, 20%). DISCUSSION: Patient recruitment in the PACE Plus trial may have failed due to inefficient medication distribution, recruitment of incident rather than prevalent cases, a design that was too complicated, adequate self-management of LBP, patient expectations different from the trial's scope and lack of time of participating GPs. Substantial differences in design may explain why the preceding PACE trial did manage to successfully complete patient recruitment. CONCLUSION: Although the PACE Plus trial was terminated as a result of insufficient patient inclusion, the research questions addressed in this trial remain relevant but unanswered. We hope that lessons learned from the discontinuation of PACE Plus and corresponding recommendations may be helpful in the design of upcoming research projects in LBP in general practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registration NTR6089, registered September 14th 2016.

Efficacy of paracetamol, diclofenac and advice for acute low back pain in general practice: design of a randomized controlled trial (PACE Plus).

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is common and associated with a considerable burden to patients and society. There is uncertainty regarding the relative benefit of paracetamol and diclofenac and regarding the additional effect of pain medication compared with advice only in patients with acute low back pain. This trial will assess the effectiveness of paracetamol, diclofenac and placebo for acute low back pain over a period of 4 weeks. Furthermore, this trial will assess the additional effectiveness of paracetamol, diclofenac and placebo compared with advice only for acute low back pain over a period of 4 weeks. METHODS: The PACE Plus trial is a multi-center, placebo-blinded, superiority randomized controlled trial in primary care, with a follow-up of 12 weeks. Patients with acute low back pain aged 18-60 years presenting in general practice will be included. Patients are randomized into four groups: 1) Advice only (usual care conforming with the clinical guideline of the Dutch College of General Practitioners); 2) Advice and paracetamol; 3) Advice and diclofenac; 4) Advice and placebo. The primary outcome is low back pain intensity measured with a numerical rating scale (0-10). Secondary outcomes include compliance to treatment, disability, perceived recovery, costs, adverse reactions, satisfaction, sleep quality, co-interventions and adequacy of blinding. Between group differences for low back pain intensity will be evaluated using a repeated measurements analysis with linear effects models. An economic evaluation will be performed using a cost-effectiveness analysis with low back pain intensity and a cost-utility analysis with quality of life. Explorative analyses will be performed to assess effect modification by predefined variables. Ethical approval has been granted. Trial results will be released to an appropriate peer-viewed journal. DISCUSSION: This paper presents the design of the PACE Plus trial: a multi-center, placebo-blinded, superiority randomized controlled trial in primary care that will assess the effectiveness of advice only, paracetamol, diclofenac and placebo for acute low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registration NTR6089 , registered September 14th, 2016. PROTOCOL: Version 4, June 2016.

Effectiveness of exercise therapy for meniscal lesions in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with meniscal lesions. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Nine databases were searched up to July 2015, including EMBASE and Medline OvidSP. Randomized and controlled clinical trials in adults with traumatic or degenerative meniscal lesions were considered for inclusion. Interventions had to consist of exercise therapy in non-surgical patients or after meniscectomy, and had to be compared with meniscectomy, no exercise therapy, or to a different type of exercise therapy. Primary outcomes were pain and function on short term (≤3 months) and long term (>3 months). Two researchers independently selected the studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. RESULTS: Of the 1415 identified articles 14 articles describing 12 studies were included; all had some concerns about the risk of bias. There was no significant difference between exercise therapy and meniscectomy for pain (MD 0.27 [-4.30,4.83]) and function (SMD -0.32 [-0.68,0.03]). After meniscectomy, there was conflicting evidence for the effectiveness of exercise therapy when compared to no exercise therapy for pain and function. There was no significant difference between various types of exercise therapy for pain (MD 19.30 [-6.60,45.20]) and function (SMD 0.01 [-0.27,0.28]). CONCLUSIONS: Exercise therapy and meniscectomy yielded comparable results on pain and function. Exercise therapy compared to no exercise therapy after meniscectomy showed conflicting evidence at short term, but was more effective on function at long term. The preferable type/frequency/intensity of exercise therapy remains unclear. The strength of the evidence was low to very low.

Cost-utility of exercise therapy in patients with hip osteoarthritis in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness (CE) of exercise therapy (intervention group) compared to 'general practitioner (GP) care' (control group) in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care. METHOD: This cost-utility analysis was conducted with 120 GPs in the Netherlands from the societal and healthcare perspective. Data on direct medical costs, productivity costs and quality of life (QoL) was collected using standardised questionnaires which were sent to the patients at baseline and at 6, 13, 26, 39 and 52 weeks follow-up. All costs were based on Euro 2011 cost data. RESULTS: A total of 203 patients were included. The annual direct medical costs per patient were significantly lower for the intervention group (€ 1233) compared to the control group (€ 1331). The average annual societal costs per patient were lower in the intervention group (€ 2634 vs € 3241). Productivity costs were higher than direct medical costs. There was a very small adjusted difference in QoL of 0.006 in favour of the control group (95% CI: -0.04 to +0.02). CONCLUSION: Our study revealed that exercise therapy is probably cost saving, without the risk of noteworthy negative health effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR1462.

Effectiveness of exercise therapy added to general practitioner care in patients with hip osteoarthritis: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of exercise therapy added to general practitioner (GP) care compared with GP care alone, in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) during 12 months follow-up. METHODS: We performed a multi-center parallel pragmatic randomized controlled trial in 120 general practices in the Netherlands. 203 patients, aged ≥45 years, with a new episode of hip complaints, complying with the ACR criteria for hip OA were randomized to the intervention group (n = 101; GP care with additional exercise therapy) or the control group (n = 102; GP care only). GP care was given by patient's own GP. The intervention group received, in addition, a maximum of 12 exercise therapy sessions in the first 3 months and hereafter three booster sessions. Blinding was not possible. Primary outcomes were hip pain and hip-related function measured with the HOOS questionnaire (score 0-100). RESULTS: The overall estimates on hip pain and function during the 12-month follow-up showed no between-group difference (intention-to-treat). At 3-months follow-up there was a statistically significant between-group difference for HOOS pain -3.7 (95% CI: -7.3; -0.2), effect size -0.23 and HOOS function -5.3 (95% CI: -8.9; -1.6), effect size -0.31. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: No differences were found during 12-months follow-up on pain and function. At 3-months follow-up, pain and function scores differed in favor of patients allocated to the additional exercise therapy compared with GP care alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands Trial Registry NTR1462.

Prognosis and course of pain in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: A 1-year follow-up cohort study.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear to what extent patients recover from chronic non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). The objective of this study was to determine (1) the course of chronic NSLBP in tertiary care and (2) which factors predicted 5- and 12-month outcomes. METHODS: This prospective study includes 1760 chronic NSLBP patients from a rehabilitation clinic (mean age 40.1 years, SD 10.6). After baseline measurement, patients followed a 2-month multidisciplinary therapy programme; evaluation took place at 2, 5 and 12 months post baseline. Recovery was defined as (1) relative recovery [30% improvement on the pain, visual analogue scale (VAS) compared with baseline] and (2) absolute recovery (VAS pain ≤ 10 mm). The multivariate logistic regression analysis included 23 baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Patient-reported intensity of back pain decreased from 55.5 (SD 23.0) at baseline to 37.0 (SD 23.8), 35.3 (SD 26.1) and 32.3 (SD 26.9) at 2-, 5- and 12-month follow-up, respectively. Younger age, back pain at baseline, no psychological/physical dysfunction (Symptom Check List-90, item 9), and higher baseline scores on the physical component scale and mental component scale of quality of life (Short Form-36) were positively associated with recovery at 5 and 12 months. At 5-month follow-up, higher work participation at baseline was also a prognostic factor for both definitions of recovery. At 12-month follow-up, having co-morbidity was predictive for both definitions. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that in chronic NSLBP patients, bio-psychosocial prognostic factors may be important for clinicians when predicting recovery in back pain intensity during a 1-year period.

The 6-year trajectory of non-traumatic knee symptoms (including patellofemoral pain) in adolescents and young adults in general practice: a study of clinical predictors.

AIMS: (1) To assess the 1-year and 6-year courses of non-traumatic knee symptoms in adolescents and young adults presenting in general practice. (2) To identify prognostic factors for persistent knee symptoms at 1-year follow-up. METHODS: Adolescents and young adults (12-35 years; n=172) with non-traumatic knee symptoms were included in the cohort study by their general practitioner (GP) and followed for 6 years. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors for persistent knee symptoms at 1-year follow-up and the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) was calculated. RESULTS: Persistent knee symptoms in patients receiving a GP diagnosis of unspecified knee symptoms were reported by 41% of the patients at 1-year follow-up and by 19% of the available patients at 6-year follow-up. Patients receiving a GP diagnosis of patellofemoral pain syndrome had the worse prognosis, with 40% reporting persistent knee symptoms at 6-year follow-up. Prognostic factors associated with persistent knee symptoms at 1-year follow-up were BMI >25, low/middle education level, bilateral symptoms and self-reported absence of crepitus of the knee (AUC 0.80) for patients receiving a GP diagnosis of unspecified knee symptoms. For patients receiving a GP diagnosis of patellofemoral pain syndrome, prognostic factors were low/middle education level, poor health, having bilateral symptoms and self-report of a swollen knee (AUC 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis of non-traumatic knee symptoms in adolescents and young adults in general practice is not as good as was previously assumed. Several prognostic factors collected at baseline were associated with persistent knee symptoms at follow-up. However, the results should be replicated in another larger study.

Association between biochemical cartilage markers and clinical symptoms in patients with hip osteoarthritis: cohort study with 2-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVES: To assess associations between uCTX-II or uCIIM and severity of hip pain in patients with mild-moderate hip osteoarthritis (OA) over a 2-year period, and establish whether the level of these biomarkers at baseline could estimate a specific trajectory of hip pain. DESIGN: A cohort study with a 2-year follow-up and 6-monthly measurements of urinary biomarkers (uCTX-II and uCIIM) and symptom severity. Patients were recruited from general practices. The primary outcome was hip pain, measured with the Western Ontario and McMasters University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) subscale and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Associations between hip pain and biomarkers were assessed using linear mixed-model analysis for repeated measurements. Five previously identified pain trajectories were used as outcome to investigate whether the level of biomarkers at baseline could estimate membership in one of the trajectories using multinomial regression analysis. RESULTS: LoguCTX-II and loguCIIM were not associated with WOMAC pain or VAS pain during the 2-year follow-up. Patients in the highly progressive pain trajectory and the moderate pain trajectory were more likely to have a higher loguCTX-II at baseline (OR 6.7; 95% CI 1.6-28.2 and OR 4.8; 95% CI 1.0-22.8, respectively) than patients in the mild pain trajectory. CONCLUSION: This study shows that in patients with mild-moderate hip OA the urinary biochemical markers uCTX-II and uCIIM are not cross-sectionally associated with hip pain during the 2-year follow-up. Because the uCTX-II level estimated a progressive or moderate hip pain trajectory, this correlation needs to be confirmed in additional patients with hip OA.

Characteristics of older patients with back pain in general practice: BACE cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although back pain is common among older people, limited information is available about the characteristics of these patients in primary care. Earlier research suggests that the severity of back symptoms increases with older age. METHODS: Patients aged >55 years visiting a general practitioner with a new episode of back pain were included in the BACE study. Information on patients' characteristics, characteristics of the complaint and physical examination were derived from the baseline measurement. Cross-sectional differences between patients aged >55-74 and ≥75 years were analysed using an unpaired t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test or a chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 675 back pain patients were included in the BACE study, with a median age of 65 (interquartile range 60-71) years. Patients aged >55-74 years had a mean disability score (measured with the Roland Disability Questionnaire) of 9.4 [standard deviation (SD) 5.8] compared with 12.1 (SD 5.5) in patients aged ≥75 years (p ≤ 0.01). The older group reported more additional musculoskeletal disorders and more often had low bone quality (based on ultrasound measurement of the heel) than patients aged >55-74 years. Average back pain severity over the previous week showed no difference (p = 0.11) between the age groups, but severity of back pain at the moment of filling in the questionnaire was higher (p = 0.03) in the older age group. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, older back pain patients reported more disabilities and co-morbidity. However, the clinical relevance of these differences for the course of the back pain episode in older patients remains a subject for further research.

How is radiating leg pain defined in randomized controlled trials of conservative treatments in primary care? A systematic review.

Many terms exist to describe radiating leg pain or symptoms associated with back pain (e.g., sciatica or radiculopathy) and it appears that these terms are used inconsistently. We examined the terms used to describe, and the eligibility criteria used to define, radiating leg pain in randomized controlled trials of conservative treatments, and evaluated how the eligibility criteria compared to an international pain taxonomy. Eligible studies were identified from two systematic reviews and an updated search of their search strategy. Studies were included if they recruited adults with radiating leg pain associated with back pain. Two independent reviewers screened the studies and extracted data. Studies were grouped according to the terms used to describe radiating leg pain. Thirty-one of the seventy-seven included studies used multiple terms to describe radiating leg pain; the most commonly used terms were sciatica (60 studies) and disc herniation (19 studies). Most studies that used the term sciatica included pain distribution in the eligibility criteria, but studies were inconsistent in including signs (e.g., neurological deficits) and imaging findings. Similarly, studies that used other terms to describe radiating leg pain used inconsistent eligibility criteria between studies and to the pain taxonomy, except that positive imaging findings were required for almost all studies that used disc herniation to describe radiating leg pain. In view of the varying terms to describe, and eligibility criteria to define, radiating leg pain, consensus needs to be reached for each of communication and comparison between studies.

Systematic review of prognostic factors predicting outcome in non-surgically treated patients with sciatica.

Identification of prognostic factors for surgery in patients with sciatica is important to be able to predict surgery in an early stage. Identification of prognostic factors predicting persistent pain, disability and recovery are important for better understanding of the clinical course, to inform patient and physician and support decision making. Consequently, we aimed to systematically review prognostic factors predicting outcome in non-surgically treated patients with sciatica. A search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cinahl, up to March 2012 was performed for prospective cohort studies on prognostic factors for non-surgically treated sciatica. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion and assessed the risk of bias. Outcomes were pain, disability, recovery and surgery. A best evidence synthesis was carried out in order to assess and summarize the data. The initial search yielded 4392 articles of which 23 articles reporting on 14 original cohorts met the inclusion criteria. High clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity among studies was found. Reported evidence regarding prognostic factors predicting the outcome in sciatica is limited. The majority of factors that have been evaluated, e.g., age, body mass index, smoking and sensory disturbance, showed no association with outcome. The only positive association with strong evidence was found for leg pain intensity at baseline as prognostic factor for subsequent surgery.

Course of back complaints in older adults: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is a common musculoskeletal complaint seen in older people. It is important to get an insight in the course of back complaints and to identify factors associated with a chronic course. AIM: To describe the course of acute and subacute back complaints in older people (≥ 45 years) and to identify prognostic factors for developing chronic back complaints. DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature. METHODS: A database search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, CINAHL, PsycINFO and PEDro. Cohort studies or randomized controlled trials reporting on the course of acute or subacute back complaints in older people were included. The percentage of patients that developed chronic back complaints was calculated, if possible. RESULTS: The search yielded 9293 potentially relevant articles. Of these, 5 studies met all inclusion criteria. At 3 months follow-up 37-40% of the patients still had back complaints. At 12 months follow-up, the percentage ranged from 26-45%. Older age was frequently reported as a prognostic factor for developing chronic back complaints of the whole study population. No prognostic factors could be retrieved for patients aged 45 years and older. CONCLUSIONS: At 3 and 12 month follow-up, about 40% of the older people still reported back complaints. However, the heterogeneity of the studies made comparisons difficult. In order to get a clear insight in the course of back complaints in the older adult patients and to indentify prognostic factors for developing chronic back complaints in older people, high quality prospective cohort studies are needed. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: More than one-third of the older patients with back pain still experience complaints after 3 and 12 months.

Association between spinal morning stiffness and lumbar disc degeneration: the Rotterdam Study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the associations between spinal morning stiffness and lumbar disc degeneration (LDD). DESIGN: Data from a cross-sectional general population-based study (Rotterdam Study-I) were used. Intervertebral disc spaces and osteophytes of people aged ≥55 years were scored on lumbar lateral radiographs (L1-2 through L5-S1 was scored). Logistic regression analysis was used to explore associations between spinal morning stiffness and two definitions of LDD (i.e., 'narrowing' and 'osteophytes'). Spinal morning stiffness combined with low back pain and its association with LDD was also analyzed. Similar analyses were performed for knee and hip pain, morning stiffness in the legs, and radiographic knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) in order to compare these associations with those of LDD. All analyses were adjusted for age, gender, and body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: Lumbar lateral radiographs were scored for 2,819 participants. Both definitions of LDD were associated with spinal morning stiffness: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1-1.6 for 'osteophytes' and aOR 1.8; 95% CI: 1.4-2.2 for 'narrowing'. Both the odds ratios increased when spinal morning stiffness was combined with low back pain: aOR 1.5; 95% CI: 1.1-2.0 for 'osteophytes' and aOR 2.5; 95% CI: 1.9-3.4 for 'narrowing'. When morning stiffness in the legs was combined with knee or hip pain, the associations with radiographic knee or hip OA were: aOR 3.0; 95% CI: 2.1-4.1 for knee OA and aOR 3.1; 95% CI: 1.9-5.0 for hip OA. CONCLUSIONS: Reported spinal morning stiffness is associated with LDD. The associations increased when we combined spinal morning stiffness with low back pain. The magnitude of the association for the definition 'narrowing' is similar to the association between morning stiffness in the legs and knee or hip OA.

Symptomatic and chondroprotective treatment with collagen derivatives in osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most prevalent musculoskeletal diseases. Collagen derivatives are candidates for disease-modifying OA drugs. This group of derivatives can be divided into undenatured collagen (UC), gelatine and collagen hydrolysate (CH). Collagen derivatives are marketed as having direct chondroprotective action and reducing complaints of OA. This review summarizes the evidence for the effectiveness of symptomatic and chondroprotective treatment with collagen derivatives in patients with OA. METHODS: Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were identified by searching PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until November 2011. Methodological quality was assessed using methods of the Cochrane Back Review Group. RESULTS: Eight studies were identified: six on CH, two on gelatine, and one on UC. The pooled mean difference based on three studies for pain reduction measured with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index comparing CH with placebo was -0.49 (95% CI -1.10-0.12). However, some studies report significant between-group differences in pain when measured with a visual analogical scale (VAS) or other instruments, or when CH is compared with glucosamine sulphate. For disability no significant between-group mean differences were found when comparing CH with placebo. Gelatine compared with placebo and with alternative therapies was superior for the outcome pain. UC compared with glucosamine+chondroitin showed no significant between-group differences for pain and disability. The most reported adverse events of collagen derivatives were mild to moderate gastro-intestinal complaints. The overall quality of evidence was moderate to very low. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend the generalized use of CHs in daily practice for the treatment of patients with OA. More independent high-quality studies are needed to confirm the therapeutic effects of collagen derivatives on OA complaints.

NSAIDs vs acetaminophen in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review regarding heterogeneity influencing the outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To identify sources of heterogeneity (statistical, methodological, and clinical) in studies evaluating non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) vs acetaminophen in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) to elucidate variations in outcomes. METHOD: A database search (1966 to January 2010) was made for (randomized) controlled trials ((R)CTs) comparing NSAIDs vs acetaminophen in knee and hip OA. Extracted data included baseline demographic/clinical characteristics, outcomes at follow-up, and characteristics of study design. Heterogeneity was examined with subgroup analyses by exploring changes in effect size and with I(2) of Higgins. Pain measures were expressed as standardized mean differences. RESULTS: 15 RCTs, including 21 comparisons of NSAIDs and acetaminophen were included. Statistical heterogeneity was absent (Cochran's Q-test=14.11; I(2)=0; P=0.78). Moderate clinical heterogeneity was found for comparisons which included both hip and knee OA vs knee OA only (I(2)=51; P=0.09). NSAIDs seemed slightly more effective than acetaminophen if more patients with hip OA were included. However, the pooled effect sizes of comparisons with knee OA vs both knee and hip OA are equal. Low clinical heterogeneity was found for comparisons with low dosage of acetaminophen, normal dosage of NSAIDs, and moderate pain intensity at baseline. Low methodological heterogeneity was found for comparisons with a short duration. CONCLUSION: Future trials should present the results of hip and knee OA separately, as moderate clinical heterogeneity was found. There might be differences in effectiveness of NSAIDs vs acetaminophen in patients with hip vs knee OA. No significant methodological and statistical heterogeneity was found in studies evaluating NSAIDs vs acetaminophen.

[High level of satisfaction among patients despite persistent symptoms in the mid-long-term following surgery for lumbosacral radicular syndrome]. / Na operatie wegens lumbosacraal radiculair syndroom bij meer dan de helft van de patiënten nog klachten op middellange termijn, maar wel grote tevredenheid.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the mid-long-term outcomes after surgery in patients with lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS) and to identify prognostic factors for persisting LRS symptoms. DESIGN: Descriptive retrospective and prospective. METHOD: A total of 250 consecutive patients operated on by 7 neurosurgeons in four hospitals between May and December 2001 were selected from medical records. They were asked to take part in a telephone questionnaire at 6 and 19 months after operation. They had all undergone discectomy for LRS at L4-L5 or L5-S1 and were aged from 18 to 65. RESULTS: Of the 250 patients, 163 participated in the study: 63% reported that they still had LRS-related symptoms 19 months after surgery. However, severe leg pain had decreased in 83% of the patients. In general the patients were satisfied with their treatment. Female gender and an age of 51-65 were prognostic factors for persistent LRS symptoms. CONCLUSION: More than half of the patients reported LRS symptoms 19 months after surgery.

Do neurosurgeons subscribe to the guideline lumbosacral radicular syndrome?

BACKGROUND: This study presents a survey of the opinion of neurosurgeons on the multidisciplinary clinical guideline 'lumbosacral radicular syndrome'. The aim was to describe to what extent neurosurgeons in the Netherlands endorse the content of this guideline. The guideline was issued in 1996 by the Netherlands Institute of Quality Health Care and this is the first attempt to evaluate the implementation of this guideline. METHODS: All active neurosurgeons (n=92) in the Netherlands were invited to complete a questionnaire investigating to what extent they agree with the 26 recommendations in the guideline 'lumbosacral radicular syndrome'. The results are represented in frequencies (%) in order to express the magnitude of their consent or dissent with the recommendations. RESULTS: Overall, 75% of the neurosurgeons responded and, of these, 94% agreed (at least partially) with the content of the guideline. Of the 26 recommendations in the guideline, seven were not fully endorsed by the neurosurgeons. Three of these seven recommendations may need revision based on newly published data. CONCLUSION: This survey shows that almost all neurosurgeons subscribed (at least partially) to the multidisciplinary LRS guideline. Therefore, one important aspect of the implementation process has been fulfilled, i.e. acceptance of the content of the guideline.