Katriona Brooksbank

Diagnostic accuracy of the Thessaly test, standardised clinical history and other clinical examination tests (Apley’s, McMurray’s and joint line tenderness) for meniscal tears in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis

BACKGROUND Reliable non-invasive diagnosis of meniscal tears is difficult. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is often used but is expensive and incidental findings are problematic. There are a number of physical examination tests for the diagnosis of meniscal tears that are simple, cheap and non-invasive. OBJECTIVES To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Thessaly test and to determine if the Thessaly test (alone or in combination with other physical tests) can obviate the need for further investigation by MRI or arthroscopy for patients with a suspected meniscal tear. DESIGN Single-centre prospective diagnostic accuracy study. SETTING Although the study was performed in a secondary care setting, it was designed to replicate the results that would have been achieved in a primary care setting. PARTICIPANTS Two cohorts of patients were recruited: patients with knee pathology (n = 292) and a control cohort with no knee pathology (n = 75). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of the Thessaly test in determining the presence of meniscal tears. METHODS Participants were assessed by both a primary care clinician and a musculoskeletal clinician. Both clinicians performed the Thessaly test, McMurrays test, Apleys test, joint line tenderness test and took a standardised clinical history from the patient. RESULTS The Thessaly test had a sensitivity of 0.66, a specificity of 0.39 and a diagnostic accuracy of 54% when utilised by primary care clinicians. This compared with a sensitivity of 0.62, a specificity of 0.55 and diagnostic accuracy of 59% when used by musculoskeletal clinicians. The diagnostics accuracy of the other tests when used by primary care clinicians was 54% for McMurrays test, 53% for Apleys test, 54% for the joint line tenderness test and 55% for clinical history. For primary care clinicians, age and past history of osteoarthritis were both significant predictors of MRI diagnosis of meniscal tears. For musculoskeletal clinicians age and a positive diagnosis of meniscal tears on clinical history taking were significant predictors of MRI diagnosis. No physical tests were significant predictors of MRI diagnosis in our multivariate models. The specificity of MRI diagnosis was tested in subgroup of patients who went on to have a knee arthroscopy and was found to be low [0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.77)], although the sensitivity was 1.0. CONCLUSIONS The Thessaly test was no better at diagnosing meniscal tears than other established physical tests. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of all physical tests was too low to be of routine clinical value as an alternative to MRI. Caution needs to be exercised in the indiscriminate use of MRI scanning in the identification of meniscal tears in the diagnosis of the painful knee, due to the low specificity seen in the presence of concomitant knee pathology. Further research is required to determine the true diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of MRI for the detection of meniscal tears. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trial ISRCTN43527822. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Functional outcome and satisfaction with a “self-care” protocol for the management of mallet finger injuries: a case-series

BackgroundMallet finger injuries are usually successfully treated non-operatively with a splint. Most patients are reviewed at least twice in a clinic after the initial presentation in A&E. A new protocol promoting “self-care” was introduced at our institution. Patients were provided with structured verbal and written information, and given access to a telephone helpline.MethodsA prospective electronic patient record was used to identify all patients who presented to the emergency department with a mallet finger with a minimum six month follow-up. A satisfaction and patient reported outcome measure was administered via a postal questionnaire. The response rate was 36/47 (77%).ResultsThe median QuickDASH score was 2.3 (IQR 0 to 4.6). All patients were satisfied with the treatment plan provided. Nine used the helpline and all were satisfied with information given. Although 13 patients reported some extensor lag, or bump, they had no functional limitation. Seven patients were reviewed by the general practitioner or other clinicians during their treatment period for issues such a skin care, splint size changes or sickness certification. Five were subsequently reviewed at the end of their treatment period in a clinic at their request, or their general practitioner, but did not require further surgical intervention.ConclusionsSelf-care for mallet finger injuries, with adequate patient information and telephone back-up, leads to acceptable functional results and satisfaction.Level of evidence: III

Rationale and design of the British Heart Foundation (BHF) Coronary Microvascular Angina CorMicA) stratified medicine clinical trial

Background Coronary angiography is performed to assess for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), but “nonobstructive CAD” is a common finding. Microvascular or vasospastic angina may be relevant, but routine confirmatory testing is not evidence based and thus rarely performed. Aim The aim was to assess the effect of stratified medicine guided by coronary function testing on the diagnosis, treatment, and well-being of patients with angina and nonobstructive CAD. Design The BHF CorMicA trial is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, blinded, sham-controlled trial of stratified medicine (NCT03193294). All-comers referred for elective coronary angiography for investigation of suspected CAD will be screened. Following informed consent, eligible patients with angina and nonobstructive CAD will be randomized 1:1 immediately in the catheter laboratory to either coronary artery function–guided diagnosis and treatment (intervention group) or not (control group). Coronary function will be assessed using a pressure-temperature–sensitive guidewire and adenosine followed by pharmacological testing with intracoronary acetylcholine. Patients will be stratified into endotypes with linked therapy. The primary outcome is change in Seattle Angina Questionnaire score at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include safety, feasibility, diagnostic utility (impact on diagnosis and diagnostic certainty), and clinical utility (impact on treatment and investigations). Health status is a key secondary outcome assessed according to the following domains: quality of life, treatment satisfaction, illness perception, physical activity, and anxiety-depression score. Patients with obstructive disease who are not randomized will form a registry group who will be followed up as a comparator for secondary outcomes including health status. Health and economic outcomes will be evaluated in the longer term using electronic health record linkage. Value CorMicA is a proof-of-concept clinical trial of a disruptive stratified intervention with potential benefits to patients and health care providers.