RESUMEN
ABSTRACT: Pain is a common symptom in patients referred to polyneuropathy assessment. Diagnostic evaluation and choice of treatment may depend on whether the pain is likely to be neuropathic or not. This study aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of 3 tools commonly used to differentiate between neuropathic and nonneuropathic pain. To accomplish this, we included patients with bilateral distal lower extremity pain, referred to neurological outpatient clinics at 5 Norwegian University hospitals for polyneuropathy assessment. The patients filled in Norwegian versions of painDETECT, the Self-Completed Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANSS), and the clinician-rated Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4). All patients underwent a clinical examination and nerve conduction measurements and were classified according to the NeuPSIG neuropathic pain criteria (reference standard). In total, 729 patients were included, of which 63% had neuropathic pain by the reference standard. Only DN4 demonstrated high sensitivity (0.87), whereas all 3 tools had low specificity (≤0.65). Importantly, the tools' predictive ability was unsatisfactory; The probability of getting a correct test result was 3 quarters at best, and at worst, no better than two fifths. Consequently, we show that neither DN4, painDETECT, nor S-LANSS can be confidently used to assess neuropathic pain in a neurological outpatient population with symptoms of polyneuropathy.
Asunto(s)
Neuralgia , Polineuropatías , Humanos , Dimensión del Dolor , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Neuralgia/diagnóstico , Neuralgia/epidemiología , Polineuropatías/diagnóstico , Reproducibilidad de los ResultadosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To describe characteristics of older adults with back pain in primary care, and to assess associations between patient characteristics and type of first primary care provider (general practitioner (GP), physiotherapist (PT) or chiropractor). DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis from the Back Complaints in the Elders-Norway cohort study. SETTING: Norwegian GP, PT and chiropractic primary care centres. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥55 years seeking Norwegian primary care with a new episode of back pain were invited to participate. Between April 2015 and February 2020, we included 452 patients: 127 first visited a GP, 130 first visited a PT and 195 first visited a chiropractor. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: For the first objective, the outcome measure was descriptive statistics of patient characteristics, covering the following domains: sociodemographic, general health, current and previous back pain, psychological and clinical factors. For the second objective, first primary care provider was the outcome measure. Associations between patient characteristics and visiting a GP or PT compared with a chiropractor were assessed with multiple multinomial regression analyses. RESULTS: Median (IQR) age was 66 (59-72) years. Levels of back-related disability was moderate to severe, with a median (IQR) Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (range 0-24) score of 9 (5-13). Recurring episodes were common, 301 (67%) patients had monthly or yearly recurrences. Patients with worse back-related disability, longer duration of symptoms, lower expectations for full recovery and worse physical performance measured with the Back Performance Scale had higher odds of visiting a GP or PT compared with a chiropractor (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Older back pain patients in primary care had moderate to severe levels of back-related disability, and most had recurring episodes. Our results suggest that older adult's choice of first primary care provider was associated with important patient characteristics, which highlights the need for caution with generalisations of study results across primary care populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04261309.
Asunto(s)
Dolor de Espalda , Quiropráctica , Anciano , Dolor de Espalda/epidemiología , Estudios de Cohortes , Estudios Transversales , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Atención Primaria de SaludRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate criterion validity of the iMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ) by comparing iPCQ-reported occurrence and duration of long-term absenteeism (> 4 weeks) with public registry data collected from the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV) among people on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders. METHOD: Baseline data from a cohort study was used, in which people on sick leave for at least 4 weeks due to musculoskeletal disorders were recruited electronically through the NAV website. To compare the occurrence of long-term absenteeism overall agreement between the two methods was measured by percentages. To compare the duration (number of days with absenteeism) and adjusted duration (number of days with complete absenteeism) of long-term absenteeism we conducted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) two-way random average agreement, descriptive statistic and Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: In total, 144 participants with a median age (range) of 49 (24-67) were included. The overall agreement on the occurrence of long-term absenteeism was 100%. The ICC value was 0.97 and 0.86 for duration and adjusted duration of long-term absenteeism, respectively. The median difference(iPCQ-registry) between the two methods was 0 and 17 days for long-term absenteeism duration and adjusted duration, respectively. A significant difference between the two methods was observed (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p < 0.001) with regards to adjusted duration of long-term absenteeism. CONCLUSION: The iPCQ showed good agreement with public registry data regarding the occurrence and duration of long-term absenteeism among people with musculoskeletal disorders on long-term sick-leave in Norway. However, the iPCQ does not cover part-time sick-leave and thereby potentially overestimate the total amount of long-term absenteeism. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier no. NCT04196634.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Musculoesqueléticas , Ausencia por Enfermedad , Absentismo , Estudios de Cohortes , Humanos , Enfermedades Musculoesqueléticas/epidemiología , Autoinforme , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-utility of 100 days of antibiotics in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) and type I or II Modic changes included in the Antibiotic treatment In patients with chronic low back pain and Modic changes (AIM) study. DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis from a societal and healthcare perspective alongside a double-blinded, parallel group, placebo, multicentre trial. SETTING: Hospital outpatient clinics at six hospitals in Norway. The main results from the AIM study showed a small effect in back-related disability in favour of the antibiotics group, and slightly larger in those with type I Modic changes, but this effect was below the pre-defined threshold for clinically relevant effect. PARTICIPANTS: 180 patients with chronic LBP, previous disc herniation and Modic changes type I (n=118) or type II (n=62) were randomised to antibiotic treatment (n=89) or placebo-control (n=91). INTERVENTIONS: Oral treatment with either 750 mg amoxicillin or placebo three times daily for 100 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by EuroQoL-5D over 12 months and costs for healthcare and productivity loss measured in Euro (1=NOK 10), in the intention-to-treat population. Cost-utility was expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Mean (SD) total cost was 21 046 (20 105) in the amoxicillin group and 19 076 (19 356) in the placebo group, mean difference 1970 (95% CI; -3835 to 7774). Cost per QALY gained was 24 625. In those with type I Modic changes, the amoxicillin group had higher healthcare consumption than the placebo group, resulting in 39 425 per QALY gained. Given these ICERs and a willingness-to-pay threshold of 27 500 (NOK 275 000), the probability of amoxicillin being cost-effective was 51%. Even when the willingness-to-pay threshold increased to 55 000, the probability of amoxicillin being cost-effective was never higher than 53%. CONCLUSIONS: Amoxicillin treatment showed no evidence of being cost-effective for people with chronic LBP and Modic changes during 1-year follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02323412.