Zoekresultaten

Factors that affect functional capacity in patients with musculoskeletal pain

OBJECTIVE: To reach consensus on the most important biopsychosocial factors that influence functional capacity results in patients with chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain, arranged in the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.DESIGN: Three-round, internet-based Delphi survey.SETTING: Not applicable.PARTICIPANTS: Participants were scientists, clinicians, and patients familiar with functional capacity testing. Scientists were invited through purposive sampling based on the number of relevant publications in peer-reviewed journals. The scientists recruited clinicians and patients through snowball sampling.INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consensus was reached if at least moderate influence (25%) was achieved and an interquartile range of no more than 1 point was reached.RESULTS: Thirty-three scientists, 21 clinicians, and 21 patients from 9 countries participated. Participants reached consensus on 6 factors that can influence the outcome of the lifting test, having a median of severe influence (50%-95%): catastrophic thoughts and fear, patient adherence to "doctor's orders," internal and external motivation, muscle power, chronic pain behavior, and avoidance behavior. Motivation, chronic pain behavior, and sensation of pain were the top 3 factors affecting postural tolerance and repetitive movement functional capacity tests. Furthermore, participants reported 28 factors having a median of moderate influence (25%-49%) that could influence the outcome of lifting, postural tolerance, and repetitive movement tests.CONCLUSIONS: Overall, chronic pain behavior, motivation, and sensation of pain are the main factors that can influence functional capacity results. We recommend that scientists and clinicians, respectively, consider the most important factors when planning future studies and when interpreting functional capacity test results.

Factors associated with functional capacity test results in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain

INTRODUCTION: Functional capacity tests are standardized instruments to evaluate patients' capacities to execute work-related activities. Functional capacity test results are associated with biopsychosocial factors, making it unclear what is being measured in capacity testing. An overview of these factors was missing. The objective of this review was to investigate the level of evidence for factors that are associated with functional capacity test results in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain.METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed identifying relevant studies from an electronic journal databases search. Candidate studies employed a cross-sectional or RCT design and were published between 1980 and October 2010. The quality of these studies was determined and level of evidence was reported for factors that were associated with capacity results in at least 3 studies.RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included. The level of evidence was reported for lifting low, lifting high, carrying, and static lifting capacity. Lifting low test results were associated with self-reported disability and specific self-efficacy but not with pain duration. There was conflicting evidence for associations of lifting low with pain intensity, fear of movement/(re)injury, depression, gender and age. Lifting high was associated with gender and specific self-efficacy, but not with pain intensity or age. There is conflicting evidence for the association of lifting high with the factors self-reported disability, pain duration and depression. Carrying was associated with self-reported disability and not with pain intensity and there is conflicting evidence for associations with specific self-efficacy, gender and age. Static lifting was associated with fear of movement/(re)injury.CONCLUSIONS: Much heterogeneity was observed in investigated capacity tests and candidate associated factors. There was some evidence for biological and psychological factors that are or are not associated with capacity results but there is also much conflicting evidence. High level evidence for social factors was absent.

A consensus-based framework for conducting and reporting osteoarthritis phenotype research

BACKGROUND: The concept of osteoarthritis (OA) heterogeneity is evolving and gaining renewed interest. According to this concept, distinct subtypes of OA need to be defined that will likely require recognition in research design and different approaches to clinical management. Although seemingly plausible, a wide range of views exist on how best to operationalize this concept. The current project aimed to provide consensus-based definitions and recommendations that together create a framework for conducting and reporting OA phenotype research.METHODS: A panel of 25 members with expertise in OA phenotype research was composed. First, panel members participated in an online Delphi exercise to provide a number of basic definitions and statements relating to OA phenotypes and OA phenotype research. Second, panel members provided input on a set of recommendations for reporting on OA phenotype studies.RESULTS: Four Delphi rounds were required to achieve sufficient agreement on 11 definitions and statements. OA phenotypes were defined as subtypes of OA that share distinct underlying pathobiological and pain mechanisms and their structural and functional consequences. Reporting recommendations pertaining to the study characteristics, study population, data collection, statistical analysis, and appraisal of OA phenotype studies were provided.CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a number of consensus-based definitions and recommendations relating to OA phenotypes. The resulting framework is intended to facilitate research on OA phenotypes and increase combined efforts to develop effective OA phenotype classification. Success in this endeavor will hopefully translate into more effective, differentiated OA management that will benefit a multitude of OA patients.

Objective parameters to measure (in)stability of the knee joint during gait

BACKGROUND: Instability of the knee joint during gait is frequently reported by patients with knee osteoarthritis or an anterior cruciate ligament rupture. The assessment of instability in clinical practice and clinical research studies mainly relies on self-reporting. Alternatively, parameters measured with gait analysis have been explored as suitable objective indicators of dynamic knee (in)stability.RESEARCH QUESTION: This literature review aimed to establish an inventory of objective parameters of knee stability during gait.METHODS: Five electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Cinahl and SPORTDiscuss) were systematically searched, with keywords concerning knee, stability and gait. Eligible studies used an objective parameter(s) to assess knee (in)stability during gait, being stated in the introduction or methods section. Out of 10717 studies, 89 studies were considered eligible.RESULTS: Fourteen different patient populations were investigated with kinematic, kinetic and/or electromyography measurements during (challenged) gait. Thirty-three possible objective parameters were identified for knee stability, of which the majority was based on kinematic (14 parameters) or electromyography (12 parameters) measurements. Thirty-nine studies used challenged gait (i.e. external perturbations, downhill walking) to provoke knee joint instability. Limited or conflicting results were reported on the validity of the 33 parameters.SIGNIFICANCE: In conclusion, a large number of different candidates for an objective knee stability gait parameter were found in literature, all without compelling evidence. A clear conceptual definition for dynamic knee joint stability is lacking, for which we suggest : "The capacity to respond to a challenge during gait within the natural boundaries of the knee". Furthermore biomechanical gait laboratory protocols should be harmonized, to enable future developments on clinically relevant measure(s) of knee stability during gait.

Rating scales for shoulder and elbow range of motion impairment

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effect of (new) treatments or analyse prevalence and risk factors of contractures, rating scales are used based on joint range of motion. However, cut-off points for levels of severity vary between scales, and it seems unclear how cut-off points relate to function. The purpose of this study was to compare severity ratings of different rating scales for the shoulder and elbow and relate these with functional range of motion.METHODS: Often used contracture severity rating scales in orthopedics, physiotherapy, and burns were included. Functional range of motion angles for the shoulder and elbow were derived from a recent synthesis published by our group. Shoulder flexion and elbow flexion range of motion data of patients three months after a burn injury were rated with each of the scales to illustrate the effects of differences in classifications. Secondly, the shoulder and elbow flexion range of motion angles were related to the required angles to perform over 50 different activities of daily living tasks.RESULTS: Eighteen rating scales were included (shoulder: 6, elbow: 12). Large differences in the number of severity levels and the cut-off points between scales were determined. Rating the measured range of motions with the different scales showed substantial inconsistency in the number of joints without impairment (shoulder: 14-36%, elbow: 26-100%) or with severe impairment (shoulder: < 10%-29%, elbow 0%-17%). Cut-off points of most scales were not related to actual function in daily living.CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need for rating scales that express the severity of contractures in terms of loss of functionality. This study proposes a direction for a solution.

Knee extensor muscle steadiness in relation to maximal torque and physical functioning in patients with knee osteoarthritis