Philippe Thoumie

A critical appraisal of guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis using Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation criteria

Clinical practice guidelines have been elaborated to summarize evidence related to the management of knee osteoarthritis and to facilitate uptake of evidence-based knowledge by clinicians. The objectives of the present review were summarizing the recommendations of existing guidelines on knee osteoarthritis, and assessing the quality of the guidelines using a standardized and validated instrument – the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) tool. Internet medical literature databases from 2001 to 2006 were searched for guidelines, with six guidelines being identified. Thirteen clinician researchers participated in the review. Each reviewer was trained in the AGREE instrument. The guidelines were distributed to four groups of three or four reviewers, each group reviewing one guideline with the exception of one group that reviewed two guidelines. One independent evaluator reviewed all guidelines. All guidelines effectively addressed only a minority of AGREE domains. Clarity/presentation was effectively addressed in three out of six guidelines, scope/purpose and rigour of development in two guidelines, editorial independence in one guideline, and stakeholder involvement and applicability in none. The clinical management recommendation tended to be similar among guidelines, although interventions addressed varied. Acetaminophen was recommended for initial pain treatment, combined with exercise and education. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were recommended if acetaminophen failed to control pain, but cautiously because of gastrointestinal risks. Surgery was recommended in the presence of persistent pain and disability. Education and activity management interventions were superficially addressed in most guidelines. Guideline creators should use the AGREE criteria when developing guidelines. Innovative and effective methods of knowledge translation to health professionals are needed.

Management recommendations for knee osteoarthritis: How usable are they?

OBJECTIVESnDespite the availability of practice guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis, inadequacies in practices of clinicians and patients have been found, leading to suboptimal outcomes. Literature has shown that simply disseminating management recommendations does not lead to adherence. Research suggests that barriers to use should be identified and addressed to improve adherence. The objective of this study was to identify barriers to use of conservative management recommendations for knee osteoarthritis by patients, general practitioners and physiotherapists.nnnMETHODSnFollowing systematic reviews of evidence and guidelines, 12 key management recommendations were elaborated on four themes: medication, exercise, self-management and occupation. Focus groups were separately done with patients with knee osteoarthritis, general practitioners and physiotherapists to assess barriers to the use of recommendations.nnnRESULTSnPatients and general practitioners appeared generally fatalistic with regards to knee osteoarthritis, with physiotherapists being more positive regarding long-term improvement of knee osteoarthritis. For medication, discrepancies were found between recommendations and views of clinicians. Both patients and general practitioners appeared ambivalent towards exercise and activity, recognizing its usefulness but identifying it at the same time as a cause of knee osteoarthritis. Patients and general practitioners appeared to consider weight loss particularly difficult.nnnDISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONSnBarriers specific to each knee osteoarthritis management recommendation and stakeholder group were identified. Recommendations to address these barriers were elaborated. Results of this study can be used to develop implementation strategies to overcome identified barriers, with the goal of facilitating the use of guideline recommendations and improving outcomes.

Patient acceptable symptom state and minimal clinically important difference for patient-reported outcomes in systemic sclerosis: A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing personalized physical therapy to usual care

BACKGROUNDnTo estimate patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for patient-reported outcomes in systemic sclerosis (SSc).nnnMETHODSnWe conducted a secondary analysis of the SCLEREDUC trial, a 12-month randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of physical therapy to usual care in 220 SSc patients followed-up from September 2005 to October 2010. Self-rated state and change in patient health at 12 months were assessed by using 2 external anchors extracted from the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form. Patients who self-rated their health as excellent, very good or good were the PASS group and those who self-rated their health change as somewhat better were the MCID group. Main outcomes were the estimates of PASS by using the 75th percentile method and of MCID by using the mean change in scores method for pain and activity limitation.nnnRESULTSnPASS (95% confidence interval) and mean (SD) MCID estimates at 12 months were 53.75 (34.00 to 68.00) and -6.74 (32.02) for the joint-pain visual analog scale (range 0-100), 1.41 (1.13 to 1.63) and -0.21 (0.48) for the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ, range 0-3), 1.27 (1.07 to 1.62) and -0.13 (0.45) for the scleroderma HAQ (range 0-3), 26.00 (17.00 to 37.00) and -3.38 (9.87) for the Cochin Hand Function Scale (range 0-90), and 19.40 (17.20 to 21.90) and -5.69 (6.79) for the McMaster-Toronto Arthritis Patient Preference Disability Questionnaire (range 0-30), respectively.nnnCONCLUSIONSnWe provide, for the first time, the PASS and MCID estimates for pain and activity limitation in SSc.nnnTRIAL REGISTRATIONnClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00318188. First Posted: April 26, 2006.

Effect of unloading brace treatment on pain and function in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: the ROTOR randomized clinical trial

Evidence is still inconclusive for the benefits of bracing in patients with knee osteoarthritis. To assess the effect of REBEL RELIEVER unloading knee brace in conservative treatment of knee osteoarthritis, a randomized controlled trial was conducted in 67 patients with symptomatic medial knee osteoarthritis, who randomly received 6-week treatment with either REBEL RELIVER unloading knee braceu2009+u2009usual care (Brace group, Nu2009=u200932) or usual care alone (Control group, Nu2009=u200935). Primary outcome was the global last 24h-pain relief (100-mm visual analogic scale [VAS]) at 6 weeks. Secondary endpoints included pain on motion (100-mm VAS), function (Lequesne index), safety and observance. At 6 weeks, mean [SD] last 24h-pain decreased significantly more in Brace group versus Control group (−41.35 [3.37] vs −15.37 [3.23], difference −25.98, 95% CI −41.64 to −10.33, Pu2009<u20090.0001). Higher mean [SD] pain on motion decrease (−51.91 [3.49] vs −19.91 [3.34], difference −32.01, 95% CI −48.21 to −15.80, Pu2009<u20090.0001) and better improvement of Lequesne index score (−5.8 [0.5] vs −2.3 [0.5], difference −3.5, 95% CI −5.0 to −2.0, Pu2009<u20090.0001) were observed in Brace group. Safety and observance to the brace were excellent. The additive clinical benefit of wearing REBEL RELIEVER unloading knee brace was demonstrated in knee osteoarthritis patients.