Barriers and facilitators associated with the upscaling of the Transmural Trauma Care Model: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: To assess the barriers and facilitators associated with upscaling the Transmural Trauma Care Model (TTCM), a multidisciplinary and patient-centred transmural rehabilitation care model. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight trauma surgeons, eight hospital-based physiotherapists, eight trauma patients, and eight primary care physiotherapists who were part of a trauma rehabilitation network. Audio recordings of the interviews were made and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using a framework method based on the "constellation approach". Identified barriers and facilitators were grouped into categories related to structure, culture, and practice. RESULTS: Various barriers and facilitators to upscaling were identified. Under structure, barriers and facilitators belonged to one of five themes: "financial structure", "communication structure", "physical structures and resources", "rules and regulations", and "organisation of the network". Under culture, the five themes were "commitment", "job satisfaction", "acting as a team", "quality and efficiency of care", and "patients' experience". Under practice, the two themes were "practical issues at the outpatient clinic" and "knowledge gained". CONCLUSION: The success of upscaling the TTCM differed across hospitals and settings. The most important prerequisites for successfully upscaling the TTCM were adequate financial support and presence of "key actors" within an organisation who felt a sense of urgency for change and/or expected the intervention to increase their job satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NL8163 The Netherlands National Trial Register, date of registration 16-11-2019.

Cost-effectiveness of Transforaminal epidural steroid injections for patients with ACUTE sciatica: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal epidural injections with steroids (TESI) are increasingly being used in patients sciatica. The STAR (steroids against radiculopathy)-trial aimed to evaluate the (cost-) effectiveness of TESI in patients with acute sciatica (< 8 weeks). This article contains the economic evaluation of the STAR-trial. METHODS: Participants were randomized to one of three study arms: Usual Care (UC), that is oral pain medication with or without physiotherapy, n = 45); intervention group 1: UC and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TESI) 1 ml of 0.5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml of 40 mg/ml Methylprednisolone and intervention group 2: UC and transforaminal epidural injection (TEI) with 1 ml of 0,5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml of 0.9% NaCl (n = 50). The primary effect measure was health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes were pain, functioning, and recovery. Costs were measured from a societal perspective, meaning that all costs were included, irrespective of who paid or benefited. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation, and bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty. RESULTS: None of the between-group differences in effects were statistically significant for any of the outcomes (QALY, back pain, leg pain, functioning, and global perceived effect) at the 26-weeks follow-up. The adjusted mean difference in total societal costs was €1718 (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 3020 to 6052) for comparison 1 (intervention group 1 versus usual care), €1640 (95%CI: - 3354 to 6106) for comparison 2 (intervention group 1 versus intervention group 2), and €770 (95%CI: - 3758 to 5702) for comparison 3 (intervention group 2 versus usual care). Except for the intervention costs, none of the aggregate and disaggregate cost differences were statistically significant. The maximum probability of all interventions being cost-effective compared to the control was low (< 0.7) for all effect measures. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that adding TESI (or TEI) to usual care is not cost-effective compared to usual care in patients with acute sciatica (< 8 weeks) from a societal perspective in a Dutch healthcare setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch National trial register: NTR4457 (March, 6th, 2014).

Mapping Oswestry Disability Index Responses to EQ-5D-3L Utility Values: Are Cost-Utility Results Valid?

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate approaches for mapping Oswestry Disability Index responses to 3-level version of EQ-5D utility values and to evaluate the impact of using mapped utility values on cost-utility results compared with published regression models. METHODS: Three response mapping approaches were developed in a random sample of 70% of 18 692 patients with low back pain: nonparametric approach (Non-p), nonparametric approach excluding logical inconsistencies (Non-peLI), and ordinal logistic regression (OLR). Performance was assessed in the remaining 30% using R-square (R2), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE). To evaluate whether MAEs and their 95% limits of agreement (LA) were clinically relevant, a minimally clinically important difference of 0.074 was used. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness estimated using observed and mapped utility values were compared in 2 economic evaluations. RESULTS: The Non-p performed the best (R2 = 0.43; RMSE = 0.22; MAE = 0.03; 95% LA = -0.40 to 0.47) compared with the Non-peLI (R2 = 0.07; RMSE = 0.29; MAE = -0.15; 95% LA = -0.63 to 0.34) and OLR (R2 = 0.22; RMSE = 0.26; MAE = 0.02; 95% LA = -0.49 to 0.53). MAEs were lower than the minimally clinically important difference for the Non-p and OLR but not for the Non-peLI. Differences in probabilities of cost-effectiveness ranged from 1% to 4% (Non-p), 0.1% to 9% (Non-peLI), and 0.1% to 20% (OLR). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the developed response mapping approaches are not valid for estimating individual patients' 3-level version of EQ-5D utility values, and-depending on the approach-may considerably affect cost-utility results. The developed approaches did not perform better than previously published regression-based models and are therefore not recommended for use in economic evaluations.

Development and feasibility of stratified primary care physiotherapy integrated with eHealth in patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints: results of a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Providing individualized care based on the context and preferences of the patient is important. Knowledge on both prognostic risk stratification and blended eHealth care in musculoskeletal conditions is increasing and seems promising. Stratification can be used to match patients to the most optimal content and intensity of treatment as well as mode of treatment delivery (i.e. face-to-face or blended with eHealth). However, research on the integration of stratified and blended eHealth care with corresponding matched treatment options for patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints is lacking. METHODS: This study was a mixed methods study comprising the development of matched treatment options, followed by an evaluation of the feasibility of the developed Stratified Blended Physiotherapy approach. In the first phase, three focus groups with physiotherapists and physiotherapy experts were conducted. The second phase investigated the feasibility (i.e. satisfaction, usability and experiences) of the Stratified Blended Physiotherapy approach for both physiotherapists and patients in a multicenter single-arm convergent parallel mixed methods feasibility study. RESULTS: In the first phase, matched treatment options were developed for six patient subgroups. Recommendations for content and intensity of physiotherapy were matched to the patient's risk of persistent disabling pain (using the Keele STarT MSK Tool: low/medium/high risk). In addition, selection of mode of treatment delivery was matched to the patient's suitability for blended care (using the Dutch Blended Physiotherapy Checklist: yes/no). A paper-based workbook and e-Exercise app modules were developed as two different mode of treatment delivery options, to support physiotherapists. Feasibility was evaluated in the second phase. Physiotherapists and patients were mildly satisfied with the new approach. Usability of the physiotherapist dashboard to set up the e-Exercise app was considered 'OK' by physiotherapists. Patients considered the e-Exercise app to be of 'best imaginable' usability. The paper-based workbook was not used. CONCLUSION: Results of the focus groups led to the development of matched treatment options. Results of the feasibility study showed experiences with integrating stratified and blended eHealth care and have informed amendments to the Stratified Blended Physiotherapy approach for patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints ready to use within a future cluster randomized trial.

The Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Shortform Does Not Adequately Represent Physical Functioning in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVES: A frequently used patient-reported outcome measure for assessing physical functioning in patients with hip problems is the 5-item Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Shortform (HOOS-PS). Nevertheless, its content validity (whether this instrument adequately reflects the construct of physical functioning) is unknown. This study aimed to assess the content validity of the HOOS-PS. METHODS: A quantitative and qualitative research approach was used. Physical functioning was defined as the ability to perform activities that require physical actions, ranging from self-care to more complex activities that require a combination of skills, often within a social context. Patients (n = 51) and experts (n = 25) completed questionnaires regarding the relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of the HOOS-PS. Semistructured interviews (n = 5) explored issues identified in the quantitative data in more depth. Thematic content analysis was conducted using a coding frame. RESULTS: One of the 5 items was considered relevant to measure physical functioning. Comprehensiveness was considered insufficient by both patients and experts. Furthermore, comprehensibility was considered inadequate. Several items were found ambiguous or double barreled. Regarding interpretability, floor or ceiling effects were not found. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed concerns about the content validity of the HOOS-PS: most items are considered not relevant, the HOOS-PS is considered not comprehensive, and several items are considered not comprehensible. These findings challenge the applicability of the HOOS-PS in clinical practice, research, value-based healthcare, and benchmarking.

Can EQ-5D-3L utility values of low back pain patients be validly predicted by the Oswestry Disability Index for use in cost-effectiveness analyses?

PURPOSE: To assess whether regression modeling can be used to predict EQ-5D-3L utility values from the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in low back pain (LBP) patients for use in cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: EQ-5D-3L utility values of LBP patients were estimated using their ODI scores as independent variables using regression analyses, while adjusting for case-mix variables. Six different models were estimated: (1) Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression, with total ODI score, (2) OLS, with ODI item scores as continuous variables, (3) OLS, with ODI item scores as ordinal variables, (4) Tobit model, with total ODI score, (5) Tobit model, with ODI item scores as continuous variables, and (6) Tobit model, with ODI item scores as ordinal variables. The models' performance was assessed using explained variance (R2) and root mean squared error (RMSE). The potential impact of using predicted instead of observed EQ-5D-3L utility values on cost-effectiveness outcomes was evaluated in two empirical cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: Complete individual patient data of 18,692 low back pain patients were analyzed. All models had a more or less similar R2 (range 45-52%) and RMSE (range 0.21-0.22). The two best performing models produced similar probabilities of cost-effectiveness for a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) values compared to those based on the observed EQ-5D-3L values. For example, the difference in probabilities ranged from 2 to 5% at a WTP of 50,000 €/QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the ODI can be validly used to predict low back pain patients' EQ-5D-3L utility values and QALYs for use in cost-effectiveness analyses.

Assessing the Impact of EQ-5D Country-specific Value Sets on Cost-utility Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of EQ-5D country-specific value sets on cost-utility outcomes. METHODS: Data from 2 randomized controlled trials on low back pain (LBP) and depression were used. 3L value sets were identified from the EuroQol Web site. A nonparametric crosswalk was employed for each tariff to obtain the likely 5L values. Differences in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between countries were tested using paired t tests, with United Kingdom as reference. Cost-utility outcomes were estimated for both studies and both EQ-5D versions, including differences in QALYs and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: For the 3L, QALYs ranged between 0.650 (Taiwan) and 0.892 (United States) in the LBP study and between 0.619 (Taiwan) and 0.879 (United States) in the depression study. In both studies, most country-specific QALY estimates differed statistically significantly from that of the United Kingdom. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged between &OV0556;2044/QALY (Taiwan) and &OV0556;5897/QALY (Zimbabwe) in the LBP study and between &OV0556;38,287/QALY (Singapore) and &OV0556;96,550/QALY (Japan) in the depression study. At the NICE threshold of &OV0556;23,300/QALY (≈£20,000/QALY), the intervention's probability of being cost-effective versus control ranged between 0.751 (Zimbabwe) and 0.952 (Taiwan) and between 0.230 (Canada) and 0.396 (Singapore) in the LBP study and depression study, respectively. Similar results were found for the 5L, with extensive differences in ICERs and moderate differences in the probability of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that the use of different EQ-5D country-specific value sets impacts on cost-utility outcomes. Therefore, to account for the fact that health state preferences are affected by sociocultural differences, relevant country-specific value sets should be used.

The statistical approach in trial-based economic evaluations matters: get your statistics together!

BACKGROUND: Baseline imbalances, skewed costs, the correlation between costs and effects, and missing data are statistical challenges that are often not adequately accounted for in the analysis of cost-effectiveness data. This study aims to illustrate the impact of accounting for these statistical challenges in trial-based economic evaluations. METHODS: Data from two trial-based economic evaluations, the REALISE and HypoAware studies, were used. In total, 14 full cost-effectiveness analyses were performed per study, in which the four statistical challenges in trial-based economic evaluations were taken into account step-by-step. Statistical approaches were compared in terms of the resulting cost and effect differences, ICERs, and probabilities of cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In the REALISE study and HypoAware study, the ICER ranged from 636,744€/QALY and 90,989€/QALY when ignoring all statistical challenges to - 7502€/QALY and 46,592€/QALY when accounting for all statistical challenges, respectively. The probabilities of the intervention being cost-effective at 0€/ QALY gained were 0.67 and 0.59 when ignoring all statistical challenges, and 0.54 and 0.27 when all of the statistical challenges were taken into account for the REALISE study and HypoAware study, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Not accounting for baseline imbalances, skewed costs, correlated costs and effects, and missing data in trial-based economic evaluations may notably impact results. Therefore, when conducting trial-based economic evaluations, it is important to align the statistical approach with the identified statistical challenges in cost-effectiveness data. To facilitate researchers in handling statistical challenges in trial-based economic evaluations, software code is provided.

Stratified care integrated with eHealth versus usual primary care physiotherapy in patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neck and shoulder complaints are common in primary care physiotherapy. These patients experience pain and disability, resulting in high societal costs due to, for example, healthcare use and work absence. Content and intensity of physiotherapy care can be matched to a patient's risk of persistent disabling pain. Mode of care delivery can be matched to the patient's suitability for blended care (integrating eHealth with physiotherapy sessions). It is hypothesized that combining these two approaches to stratified care (referred to from this point as Stratified Blended Approach) will improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy for patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints compared to usual physiotherapy. METHODS: This paper presents the protocol of a multicenter, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, cluster randomized controlled trial. A total of 92 physiotherapists will be recruited from Dutch primary care physiotherapy practices. Physiotherapy practices will be randomized to the Stratified Blended Approach arm or usual physiotherapy arm by a computer-generated random sequence table using SPSS (1:1 allocation). Number of physiotherapists (1 or > 1) will be used as a stratification variable. A total of 238 adults consulting with neck and/or shoulder complaints will be recruited to the trial by the physiotherapy practices. In the Stratified Blended Approach arm, physiotherapists will match I) the content and intensity of physiotherapy care to the patient's risk of persistent disabling pain, categorized as low, medium or high (using the Keele STarT MSK Tool) and II) the mode of care delivery to the patient's suitability and willingness to receive blended care. The control arm will receive physiotherapy as usual. Neither physiotherapists nor patients in the control arm will be informed about the Stratified Blended Approach arm. The primary outcome is region-specific pain and disability (combined score of Shoulder Pain and Disability Index & Neck Pain and Disability Scale) over 9 months. Effectiveness will be compared using linear mixed models. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal and healthcare perspective. DISCUSSION: The trial will be the first to provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Stratified Blended Approach compared with usual physiotherapy in patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NL8249 . Officially registered since 27 December 2019. Date of first enrollment: 30 September 2020. Study status: ongoing, data collection.

Construct validity of the OCTOPuS stratification algorithm for allocating patients with knee osteoarthritis into subgroups.

BACKGROUND: We recently developed a model of stratified exercise therapy, consisting of (i) a stratification algorithm allocating patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) into one of the three subgroups ('high muscle strength subgroup' representing a post-traumatic phenotype, 'low muscle strength subgroup' representing an age-induced phenotype, and 'obesity subgroup' representing a metabolic phenotype) and (ii) subgroup-specific exercise therapy. In the present study, we aimed to test the construct validity of this algorithm. METHODS: Data from five studies (four exercise therapy trial cohorts and one cross-sectional cohort) were used to test the construct validity of our algorithm by 63 a priori formulated hypotheses regarding three research questions: (i) are the proportions of patients in each subgroup similar across cohorts? (15 hypotheses); (ii) are the characteristics of each of the subgroups in line with their proposed underlying phenotypes? (30 hypotheses); (iii) are the effects of usual exercise therapy in the 3 subgroups in line with the proposed effect sizes? (18 hypotheses). RESULTS: Baseline data from a total of 1211 patients with knee OA were analyzed for the first and second research question, and follow-up data from 584 patients who were part of an exercise therapy arm within a trial for the third research question. In total, the vast majority (73%) of the hypotheses were confirmed. Regarding our first research question, we found similar proportions in each of the three subgroups across cohorts, especially for three cohorts. Regarding our second research question, subgroup characteristics were almost completely in line with the proposed underlying phenotypes. Regarding our third research question, usual exercise therapy resulted in similar, medium to large effect sizes for knee pain and physical function for all three subgroups. CONCLUSION: We found mixed results regarding the construct validity of our stratification algorithm. On the one hand, it is a valid instrument to consistently allocate patients into subgroups that aligned our hypotheses. On the other hand, in contrast to our hypotheses, subgroups did not differ substantially in effects of usual exercise therapy. An ongoing trial will assess whether this algorithm accompanied by subgroup-specific exercise therapy improves clinical and economic outcomes.

Cost-Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Denervation for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: The MINT Randomized Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation when added to a standardized exercise program for patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside 3 pragmatic multicenter, nonblinded randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in The Netherlands with a follow up of 52 weeks. Eligible participants were included between January 1, 2013, and October 24, 2014, and had chronic low back pain; a positive diagnostic block at the facet joints (n = 251), sacroiliac (SI) joints (n = 228), or a combination of facet joints, SI joints, and intervertebral discs (n = 202); and were unresponsive to initial conservative care. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and societal costs were measured using self-reported questionnaires. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty. RESULTS: After 52 weeks, no difference in costs between groups was found in the facet joint or combination RCT. The total costs were significantly higher for the intervention group in the SI joint RCT. The maximum probability of radiofrequency denervation being cost-effective when added to a standardized exercise program ranged from 0.10 in the facet joint RCT to 0.17 in the SI joint RCT irrespective of the ceiling ratio, and 0.65 at a ceiling ratio of €30 000 per QALY in the combination RCT. CONCLUSIONS: Although equivocal among patients with symptoms in a combination of the facet joints, SI joints, and intervertebral discs, evidence suggests that radiofrequency denervation combined with a standardized exercise program cannot be considered cost-effective from a societal perspective for patients with chronic low back pain originating from either facet or SI joints in a Dutch healthcare setting.

PROMIS Physical Function Short Forms Display Item- and Scale-Level Characteristics at Least as Good as the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare dimensionality, item-level characteristics, scale-level reliability, and construct validity of PROMIS Physical Function short forms (PROMIS-PF) and 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ-24) in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Secondary care center for rehabilitation and rheumatology. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with nonspecific LBP ≥3 months (N=768). Mean age was 49±13 years, 77% were female, and 54% displayed pain for more than 5 years. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dutch versions of the 4-, 6-, 8-, 10-, and 20-item PROMIS-PF and of the RMDQ-24. RESULTS: PROMIS-PF-6, PROMIS-PF-8, and RMDQ-24 exhibited sufficient unidimensionality (confirmatory factor analysis: comparative fit index>0.950, Tucker-Lewis index>0.950, root means square error of approximation<0.060), whereas the other instruments did not. All instruments were free of local dependence except PROMIS-PF-20 with 4 item pairs with clear residual correlations. Mokken scale analysis found 1 nonmonotone item for PROMIS-PF-20 and 8 for RMDQ-24 (ie, the probability of endorsing these items was not increasing with increasing level on the underlying construct). PROMIS-PF-20 displayed 2 misfitting items (S-χ2P value>.001). Two-parameter item response theory models found 2 items with low discrimination for RMDQ-24. All other instruments had adequate fit statistics and item parameters. PROMIS-PF-20 displayed the best scale-level reliability. Construct validity was sufficient for all instruments as all hypotheses on expected correlations with other instruments and differences between relevant subgroups were met. CONCLUSIONS: PROMIS-PF-6, PROMIS-PF-8, and RMDQ-24 exhibited better unidimensionality, whereas PROMIS-PF-4, PROMIS-PF-6, PROMIS-PF-8, and PROMIS-PF-10 showed superior item-level characteristics. PROMIS-PF-20 was the instrument with the best scale-level reliability. This study warrants assessment of other measurement properties of PROMIS-PF short forms in comparison with disease-specific physical functioning instruments in LBP.

Correction to: Disc inflammation and Modic changes show an interaction effect on recovery after surgery for lumbar disc herniation.

In Tables 3 and 4: In the first column and row, the text reads "Mixed model test (patients with Modic changes)". This should have been just "Mixed model". The complete correct Tables 3 and 4 are given below.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy in patients with non-specific low back pain: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient education, advice on returning to normal activities and (home-based) exercise therapy are established treatment options for patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on physical functioning and prevention of recurrent events largely depends on patient self-management, adherence to prescribed (home-based) exercises and recommended physical activity behaviour. Therefore we have developed e-Exercise LBP, a blended intervention in which a smartphone application is integrated within face-to-face care. E-Exercise LBP aims to improve patient self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations and consequently improve the effectiveness of physiotherapy on patients' physical functioning. The aim of this study is to investigate the short- (3 months) and long-term (12 and 24 months) effectiveness on physical functioning and cost-effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP in comparison to usual primary care physiotherapy in patients with LBP. METHODS: This paper presents the protocol of a prospective, multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial. In total 208 patients with LBP pain were treated with either e-Exercise LBP or usual care physiotherapy. E-Exercise LBP is stratified based on the risk for developing persistent LBP. Physiotherapists are able to monitor and evaluate treatment progress between face-to-face sessions using patient input from the smartphone application in order to optimize physiotherapy care. The smartphone application contains video-supported self-management information, video-supported exercises and a goal-oriented physical activity module. The primary outcome is physical functioning at 12-months follow-up. Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, physical activity, adherence to prescribed (home-based) exercises and recommended physical activity behaviour, self-efficacy, patient activation and health-related quality of life. All measurements will be performed at baseline, 3, 12 and 24 months after inclusion. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal and the healthcare perspective and will assess cost-effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP compared to usual physiotherapy at 12 and 24 months. DISCUSSION: A multi-phase development and implementation process using the Center for eHealth Research Roadmap for the participatory development of eHealth was used for development and evaluation. The findings will provide evidence on the effectiveness of blended care for patients with LBP and help to enhance future implementation of blended physiotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN94074203. Registered 20 July 2018 - Retrospectively registered.

Disc inflammation and Modic changes show an interaction effect on recovery after surgery for lumbar disc herniation.

PURPOSE: To study the interaction between Modic changes (MC) and inflammation by macrophages in the disc, in relation to clinical symptoms before and after discectomy for lumbar disc herniation. METHODS: Disc tissue was embedded in paraffin and stained with haematoxylin and CD68. Subsequently, tissue samples were categorized for degree of inflammation. Type of MC was scored on MRI at baseline. Roland Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) score and visual analogue scale for back pain and leg pain separately were considered at baseline and 1-year follow-up post-surgery. Main and interaction effects of MC and inflammation were tested against clinical outcome questionnaires. In addition, this analysis was repeated in bulging and extruded discs separately. RESULTS: Disc material and MRI's of 119 patients were retrieved and analysed. Forty-eight patients demonstrated mild inflammation, 45 showed moderate inflammation, and 26 showed considerable inflammation. In total, 49 out of 119 patients demonstrated MC. Grade of disc inflammation did not associate with the presence of MC. At baseline, no main or interaction effects of MC and inflammation were found on the clinical scores. However, during follow-up after discectomy, significant interaction effects were found for RDQ score: Only in patients with MC at baseline, patients remained significantly more disabled (3.2 points p = 0.006) if they showed considerable disc inflammation compared to patients with mild inflammation. The additional analysis showed similar results in extruded discs, but no significant effects in bulging discs. CONCLUSIONS: An interaction effect of MC and disc inflammation by macrophages is present. Only in patients with MC, those with considerable inflammation recover less satisfactory during follow-up after surgery. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Transmural Trauma Care Model (TTCM) for the rehabilitation of trauma patients is effective in improving patient related outcome measures: a non-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Transmural Trauma Care Model (TTCM) is a refined post-clinical rehabilitation approach, in which a multidisciplinary hospital-based team guides a network of primary care physical therapists in the treatment of trauma patients. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the TTCM compared to regular care. METHODS: A controlled-before-and-after study was performed in a level 1 trauma center. The TTCM includes four elements: 1) a multidisciplinary team at the outpatient clinic, 2) coordination and individual goal setting for each patient by this team, 3) a network of primary care physical therapists, 4) E-health support for transmural communication. Intervention group patients were prospectively followed (3, 6 and 9 months). The control group consisted of 4 clusters of patients who either had their first consultation at the outpatient clinic 0, 3, 6 or 9 months ago. Outcomes included generic- and disease-specific health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), pain, functional status, patient satisfaction, and perceived recovery. Between-group comparisons were made using linear regression analyses. The recovery pattern of intervention group patients was identified using longitudinal data analysis methods. RESULTS: A total of 83 participants were included in the intervention group. In the control group, 202 participants were included (68 in the baseline cluster, 26 in the 3-month cluster, 51 in the 6-month cluster, 57 in the 9-month cluster). Between-group differences were statistically significant in favor of the intervention group for disease-specific HR-QOL at 9 months, pain at 6 and 9 months, functional status at 6 and 9 months, patient satisfaction at 3, 6 and 9 months, and perceived recovery at 6 months. No significant differences were found between groups for generic HR-QOL at any time point. Generic HR-QOL, disease-specific HR-QOL, pain, and functional status significantly improved in a linear fashion among intervention group patients during the nine-month follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides preliminary evidence that the TTCM is effective in improving patient related outcome measures, such as disease-specific HR-QOL, pain and functional status. A multicenter, and ideally randomized controlled trial, is required to confirm these results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at the Dutch Trial Register (NTR5474). Registered 12 October 2015. Retrospectively registered.

Inflammatory biomarkers in patients with sciatica: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review focusses on inflammation as an underlying pathogenic mechanism in sciatica. We addressed two questions in particular: (1) what inflammatory biomarkers have been identified in patients with sciatica in the literature so far? 2) is there an association between the level of inflammatory activity and clinical symptoms? METHODS: The search was conducted up to December 19th 2018 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Web of Science. The study selection criteria: (1) observational cohort studies, cross-sectional studies and randomized clinical trials (RCT), (2) adult population (≥ 18 years) population with sciatica, (3) concentrations of inflammatory biomarkers measured in serum, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or biopsies, and (4) evaluation of clinically relevant outcome measures (pain or functional status). Three reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data regarding the study characteristics and the outcomes. Risk of Bias was evaluated using an adjusted version of the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. RESULTS: In total 16 articles fulfilled the criteria for inclusion: 7 cross sectional observational studies and 9 prospective cohort studies that included a total of 1212 patients. With regard to question 1) the following markers were identified: interleukin (IL)-1ß, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-17, IL-21, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), phospholipase A2, high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), C-X-C motif chemokine 5 (CXCM5), CX3CL1, CCL2, epidermal growth factor (EGF), and monocyte chemotactic protein 4 (MCP-4). With regard to question 2) several positive correlations were found in longitudinal studies: a strong positive correlation between inflammatory mediators or byproducts and pain (measured by visual analogue scale, VAS) was found for IL-21 in two studies (r > 0,8), and moderate positive correlations for TNF-a in both serum (r = 0,629) and biopsy (r = 0.65); severe pain (VAS > 4) is associated with increased hsCRP levels among patients with sciatica (adjusted OR = 3.4 (95% CI, 1.1 to 10). CONCLUSION: In this systematic review there was considerable heterogeneity in the type of biomarkers and in the clinical measurements in the included studies. Taking into account the overall risk of bias of the included studies there is insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions regarding the relationship between inflammation and clinical symptoms in patients with sciatica.

Can Primary Care for Back and/or Neck Pain in the Netherlands Benefit From Stratification for Risk Groups According to the STarT Back Tool Classification?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether current Dutch primary care clinicians offer tailored treatment to patients with low back pain (LBP) or neck pain (NP) according to their risk stratification, based on the Keele STarT (Subgroup Targeted Treatment) Back-Screening Tool (SBT). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with 3-month follow-up. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: General practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists included patients (N=284) with nonspecific LBP, NP, or both. INTERVENTIONS: Patients completed a baseline questionnaire, including the Dutch SBT, for either LBP or NP. A follow-up measurement was conducted after 3 months to determine recovery (using Global Perceived Effect Scale), pain (using Numeric Pain Rating Scale), and function (using Roland Disability Questionnaire or Neck Disability Index). A questionnaire was sent to the GPs and physiotherapists to evaluate the provided treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of patients' risk profile and clinicians' applied care, and the percentage of patients with persisting disability at follow-up. A distinction was made between patients receiving the recommended treatment and those receiving the nonrecommended treatment. RESULTS: In total, 12 GPs and 33 physiotherapists included patients. After 3 months, we analyzed 184 patients with LBP and 100 patients with NP. In the LBP group, 52.2% of the patients were at low risk for persisting disability, 38.0% were at medium risk, and 9.8% were at high risk. Overall, 24.5% of the patients with LBP received a low-risk treatment approach, 73.5% a medium-risk, and 2.0% a high-risk treatment approach. The specific agreement between the risk profile and the received treatment for patients with LBP was poor for the low-risk and high-risk patients (21.1% and 10.0%, respectively), and fair for medium-risk patients (51.4%). In the NP group, 58.0% of the patients were at low risk for persisting disability, 37.0% were at medium risk, and 5.0% were at high risk. Only 6.1% of the patients with NP received the low-risk treatment approach. The medium-risk treatment approach was offered the most (90.8%), and the high-risk approach was applied in only 3.1% of the patients. The specific agreement between the risk profile and received treatment for patients with NP was poor for low-risk and medium-risk patients (6.3% and 48.0%, respectively); agreement for high-risk patients could not be calculated. CONCLUSIONS: Current Dutch primary care for patients with nonspecific LBP, NP, or both does not correspond to the recommended stratified-care approach based on the SBT, as most patients receive medium-risk treatment. Most low-risk patients are overtreated, and most high-risk patients are undertreated. Although the stratified-care approach has not yet been validated in Dutch primary care, these results indicate there may be substantial room for improvement.

Which patient-reported factors predict referral to spinal surgery? A cohort study among 4987 chronic low back pain patients.

PURPOSE: It is unknown which chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients are typically referred to spinal surgery. The present study, therefore, aimed to explore which patient-reported factors are predictive of spinal surgery referral among CLBP patients. METHODS: CLBP patients were consecutively recruited from a Dutch orthopedic hospital specialized in spine care (n = 4987). The outcome of this study was referral to spinal surgery (yes/no), and was assessed using hospital records. Possible predictive factors were assessed using a screening questionnaire. A prediction model was constructed using logistic regression, with backwards selection and p < 0.10 for keeping variables in the model. The model was internally validated and evaluated using discrimination and calibration measures. RESULTS: Female gender, previous back surgery, high intensity leg pain, somatization, and positive treatment expectations increased the odds of being referred to spinal surgery, while being obese, having comorbidities, pain in the thoracic spine, increased walking distance, and consultation location decreased the odds. The model's fit was good (X 2 = 10.5; p = 0.23), its discriminative ability was poor (AUC = 0.671), and its explained variance was low (5.5%). A post hoc analysis indicated that consultation location was significantly associated with spinal surgery referral, even after correcting for case-mix variables. CONCLUSION: Some patient-reported factors could be identified that are predictive of spinal surgery referral. Although the identified factors are known as common predictive factors of surgery outcome, they could only partly predict spinal surgery referral.