Optimal case definitions of upper extremity disorder for use in the clinical treatment and referral of patients
Optimal case definitions of upper extremity disorder for use in the clinical treatment and referral of patients
Objective: Experts disagree about the optimal classification of upper extremity disorders. To explore whether differential response to treatments offers a basis for choosing between case definitions, we analyzed previously published research.
Methods: We screened 183 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments for upper extremity disorders identified from the bibliographies of 10 Cochrane reviews and 4 other systematic reviews, and a search in Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar to June 2010. From these, we selected RCTs that allowed estimates of benefit (expressed as relative risks [RRs]) for >1 case definition to be compared when other variables (treatment, comparison group, followup time, outcome measure) were effectively held constant. Comparisons of RRs for paired case definitions were summarized by their ratios, with the RR for the simpler and broader definition as the denominator.
Results: Two RCT reports allowed within-trial comparison of RRs and 13 others allowed between-trial comparisons. Together these provided 17 ratios of RRs (5 for shoulder treatments, 12 for elbow treatments, and none for wrist/hand treatments). The median ratio of RRs was 1.0 (range 0.3–1.7, interquartile range 0.6–1.3).
Conclusion: Although the evidence base is limited, our findings suggest that for musculoskeletal disorders of the shoulder and elbow, clinicians in primary care will often do best to apply simpler and broader case definitions. Researchers should routinely publish secondary analyses for subgroups of patients by different diagnostic features at trial entry to expand the evidence base on optimal case definitions for patient management.
573-580
Palmer, K.T.
0cfe63f0-1d33-40ff-ae8c-6c33601df850
Harris, E.C.
3e4bd946-3f09-45a1-8725-d35e80dd7971
Linaker, C.
6c6d1b90-ee40-4c96-8b2e-b06efbe030ae
Ntani, G.
9b009e0a-5ab2-4c6e-a9fd-15a601e92be5
Cooper, C.
e05f5612-b493-4273-9b71-9e0ce32bdad6
Coggon, D.
2b43ce0a-cc61-4d86-b15d-794208ffa5d3
April 2012
Palmer, K.T.
0cfe63f0-1d33-40ff-ae8c-6c33601df850
Harris, E.C.
3e4bd946-3f09-45a1-8725-d35e80dd7971
Linaker, C.
6c6d1b90-ee40-4c96-8b2e-b06efbe030ae
Ntani, G.
9b009e0a-5ab2-4c6e-a9fd-15a601e92be5
Cooper, C.
e05f5612-b493-4273-9b71-9e0ce32bdad6
Coggon, D.
2b43ce0a-cc61-4d86-b15d-794208ffa5d3
Palmer, K.T., Harris, E.C., Linaker, C., Ntani, G., Cooper, C. and Coggon, D.
(2012)
Optimal case definitions of upper extremity disorder for use in the clinical treatment and referral of patients.
Arthritis & Rheumatism, 64 (4), .
(doi:10.1002/acr.21588).
(PMID:22213545)
Abstract
Objective: Experts disagree about the optimal classification of upper extremity disorders. To explore whether differential response to treatments offers a basis for choosing between case definitions, we analyzed previously published research.
Methods: We screened 183 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments for upper extremity disorders identified from the bibliographies of 10 Cochrane reviews and 4 other systematic reviews, and a search in Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar to June 2010. From these, we selected RCTs that allowed estimates of benefit (expressed as relative risks [RRs]) for >1 case definition to be compared when other variables (treatment, comparison group, followup time, outcome measure) were effectively held constant. Comparisons of RRs for paired case definitions were summarized by their ratios, with the RR for the simpler and broader definition as the denominator.
Results: Two RCT reports allowed within-trial comparison of RRs and 13 others allowed between-trial comparisons. Together these provided 17 ratios of RRs (5 for shoulder treatments, 12 for elbow treatments, and none for wrist/hand treatments). The median ratio of RRs was 1.0 (range 0.3–1.7, interquartile range 0.6–1.3).
Conclusion: Although the evidence base is limited, our findings suggest that for musculoskeletal disorders of the shoulder and elbow, clinicians in primary care will often do best to apply simpler and broader case definitions. Researchers should routinely publish secondary analyses for subgroups of patients by different diagnostic features at trial entry to expand the evidence base on optimal case definitions for patient management.
Text
Palmer Optimal case definitions of upper extremity 2012.pdf
- Other
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy
More information
e-pub ahead of print date: 27 March 2012
Published date: April 2012
Organisations:
Faculty of Health Sciences
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 340512
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/340512
ISSN: 0004-3591
PURE UUID: 291f18ae-c030-4863-af16-e6b313201bbc
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 25 Jun 2012 09:14
Last modified: 18 Mar 2024 02:45
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
K.T. Palmer
Author:
E.C. Harris
Author:
D. Coggon
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics