Factor structure of the Oxford Shoulder Score: secondary analyses of the UK FROST and PROFHER trial populations

AIMS

Frozen shoulder and proximal humeral fracture can cause pain, stiffness and loss of function. The impact of these symptoms on patients can be measured using the comprehensively validated, 12-item Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS). Evidence suggests that pain and function may have a differential impact on patients' experience of shoulder conditions, and this may be important for clinical management. We therefore explored the factor structure of the OSS within the UK FROST and PROFHER trial populations.

METHODS

We performed exploratory factor analysis (EFA), followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), on baseline UK FROST data from 490 of the 503 trial participants. Data at 6 months post-randomisation were used for 228 of the 250 participants for the PROFHER trial.

RESULTS

UK FROST factor extraction results, using Velicer's Minimum Average Partial and Horn's Parallel Analysis tests, suggested a unifactorial solution, but two factors were weakly indicated by the less reliable 'Kaiser's eigenvalue > 1' and scree tests. We explored this further using EFA. Eight items (2 to 7, 9 and 10) loaded onto a 'Function' factor, three on a 'Pain' factor (1, 8 and 12) and item 11 cross-loaded. However, one- and two-factor models were rejected in CFA. Factor extraction of PROFHER data at 6 months demonstrated a single first-order factor solution, which was also subsequently rejected in CFA.

CONCLUSION

Insufficient evidence was found, within the constraints of the data available, to support the use of 'Pain' and 'Function' sub-scales of the OSS in either patient population.

Impact of the PROFHER trial findings on surgeons' clinical practice: An online questionnaire survey

Objectives

To explore whether orthopaedic surgeons have adopted the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation (PROFHER) trial results routinely into clinical practice.

Methods

A questionnaire was piloted with six orthopaedic surgeons using a ‘think aloud’ process. The final questionnaire contained 29 items and was distributed online to surgeon members of the British Orthopaedic Association and British Elbow and Shoulder Society. Descriptive statistics summarised the sample characteristics and fracture treatment of respondents overall, and grouped them by whether they changed practice based on PROFHER trial findings. Free-text responses were analysed qualitatively for emerging themes using Framework Analysis principles.

Results

There were complete responses from 265 orthopaedic and trauma surgeons who treat patients with proximal humeral fractures. Around half (137) had changed practice to various extents because of PROFHER, by operating on fewer PROFHER-eligible fractures. A third (43) of the 128 respondents who had not changed practice were already managing patients non-operatively. Those who changed practice were more likely to be younger, work in a trauma unit rather than a major trauma centre, be specialist shoulder surgeons and treat fewer PROFHER-eligible fractures surgically. This group gave higher scores when assessing validity and applicability of PROFHER. In contrast, a quarter of the non-changers were critical, sometimes emphatically, of PROFHER. The strongest theme that emerged overall was the endorsement of evidence-based practice.

Conclusion

PROFHER has had an impact on surgeons’ clinical practice, both through changing it, and through underpinning existing non-operative practice. Although some respondents expressed reservations about the trial, evidence from such trials was found to be the most important influence on surgeons’ decisions to change practice.

Cite this article: L. Jefferson, S. Brealey, H. Handoll, A. Keding, L. Kottam, I. Sbizzera, A. Rangan. Impact of the PROFHER trial findings on surgeons’ clinical practice: An online questionnaire survey. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:590–599. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.610.BJR-2017-0170.

Cost effectiveness of surgical versus non-surgical treatment of adults with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus

Aims

A pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (PROFHER) was conducted in United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) hospitals to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus involving the surgical neck in adults.

Methods

A cost utility analysis from the NHS perspective was performed. Differences between surgical and non-surgical treatment groups in costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at two years were used to derive an estimate of the cost effectiveness of surgery using regression methods.

Results

Patients randomised to receive surgical intervention accumulated mean greater costs and marginally lower QALYs than patients randomised to non-surgery. The surgical intervention cost a mean of £1758 more per patient (95% confidence intervals (CI) £1126 to £2389). Total QALYs for the surgical group were smaller than those for non-surgery -0.0101 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.11). The probability of surgery being cost effective was less than 10% given the current NICE willingness to pay at a threshold of £20 000 for an additional QALY. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses.

Discussion

The results suggest that current surgical treatment is not cost effective for the majority of displaced fractures of the proximal humerus involving the surgical neck in the United Kingdom’s NHS. Take home message: The results of this trial do not support the trend of increased surgical treatment for patients with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus involving the surgical neck within the United Kingdom NHS. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:152–9.

Management of frozen shoulder: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Frozen shoulder is condition in which movement of the shoulder becomes restricted. It can be described as either primary (idiopathic) whereby the aetiology is unknown, or secondary, when it can be attributed to another cause. It is commonly a self-limiting condition, of approximately 1 to 3 years' duration, though incomplete resolution can occur.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for primary frozen shoulder, identify the most appropriate intervention by stage of condition and highlight any gaps in the evidence.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review was conducted. Nineteen databases and other sources including the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Science Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) were searched up to March 2010 and EMBASE and MEDLINE up to January 2011, without language restrictions. MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched in June 2010 for studies of patients' views about treatment.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating physical therapies, arthrographic distension, steroid injection, sodium hyaluronate injection, manipulation under anaesthesia, capsular release or watchful waiting, alone or in combination were eligible for inclusion. Patients with primary frozen shoulder (with or without diabetes) were included. Quasi-experimental studies were included in the absence of RCTs and case series for manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) and capsular release only. Full economic evaluations meeting the intervention and population inclusion criteria of the clinical review were included. Two researchers independently screened studies for relevance based on the inclusion criteria. One reviewer extracted data and assessed study quality; this was checked by a second reviewer. The main outcomes of interest were pain, range of movement, function and disability, quality of life and adverse events. The analysis comprised a narrative synthesis and pair-wise meta-analysis. A mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) was also undertaken. An economic decision model was intended, but was found to be implausible because of a lack of available evidence. Resource use was estimated from clinical advisors and combined with quality-adjusted life-years obtained through mapping to present tentative cost-effectiveness results.

RESULTS

Thirty-one clinical effectiveness studies and one economic evaluation were included. The clinical effectiveness studies evaluated steroid injection, sodium hyaluronate, supervised neglect, physical therapy (mainly physiotherapy), acupuncture, MUA, distension and capsular release. Many of the studies identified were at high risk of bias. Because of variation in the interventions and comparators few studies could be pooled in a meta-analysis. Based on single RCTs, and for some outcomes only, short-wave diathermy may be more effective than home exercise. High-grade mobilisation may be more effective than low-grade mobilisation in a population in which most patients have already had treatment. Data from two RCTs showed that there may be benefit from adding a single intra-articular steroid injection to home exercise in patients with frozen shoulder of < 6 months' duration. The same two trials showed that there may be benefit from adding physiotherapy (including mobilisation) to a single steroid injection. Based on a network of nine studies the MTC found that steroid combined with physiotherapy was the only treatment showing a statistically and clinically significant beneficial treatment effect compared with placebo for short-term pain (standardised mean difference -1.58, 95% credible interval -2.96 to -0.42). This analysis was based on only a subset of the evidence, which may explain why the findings are only partly supportive of the main analysis. No studies of patients' views about the treatments were identified. Average costs ranged from £36.16 for unguided steroid injections to £2204 for capsular release. The findings of the mapping suggest a positive relationship between outcome and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score: a decreasing visual analogue scale score (less pain) was accompanied by an increasing (better) EQ-5D score. The one published economic evaluation suggested that low-grade mobilisation may be more cost-effective than high-grade mobilisation. Our tentative cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that steroid alone may be more cost-effective than steroid plus physiotherapy or physiotherapy alone. These results are very uncertain.

LIMITATIONS

The key limitation was the lack of data available. It was not possible to undertake the planned synthesis exploring the influence of stage of frozen shoulder or the presence of diabetes on treatment effect. As a result of study diversity and poor reporting of outcome data there were few instances where the planned quantitative synthesis was possible or appropriate. Most of the included studies had a small number of participants and may have been underpowered. The lack of available data made the development of a decision-analytic model implausible. We found little evidence on treatment related to stage of condition, treatment pathways, the impact on quality of life, associated resource use and no information on utilities. Without making a number of questionable assumptions modelling was not possible.

CONCLUSIONS

There was limited clinical evidence on the effectiveness of treatments for primary frozen shoulder. The economic evidence was so limited that no conclusions can be made about the cost-effectiveness of the different treatments. High-quality primary research is required.

The effect of waiting times from general practitioner referral to MRI or orthopaedic consultation for the knee on patient-based outcomes

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to test for the effect of waiting time from general practitioner (GP) referral to MRI or to orthopaedic consultation on outcomes of patients with knee problems, and to test whether any characteristics of trial participants predicted waiting time to MRI or orthopaedics.

METHODS

We undertook secondary analyses of data on 553 participants from a randomised trial who were recruited from 163 general practices during November 2002 to October 2004.

RESULTS

Of the patients allocated to MRI, 263 (94%) had an MRI, and of those referred to orthopaedics, 236 (86%) had an orthopaedic consultation. The median (interquartile range) waiting time in days from randomisation to MRI was 41.0 (21.0-71.0) and to orthopaedic appointment was 78.5 (54.5-167.5). Waiting time was found to have no significant effect on patient outcome for both the Short Form 36-item (SF-36) physical functioning score (p=0.570) and the Knee Quality of Life 26-item (KQoL-26) physical functioning score (p=0.268). There was weak evidence that males waited less time for their MRI (p=0.049) and older patients waited longer for their orthopaedic referral (p=0.049). For patients who resided in the catchment areas of some centres there were significantly longer waiting times for both MRI and orthopaedic appointment.

CONCLUSION

Where patients reside is a strong predictor of waiting time for access to services such as MRI or orthopaedics. There is no evidence to suggest, however, that this has a significant effect on physical well-being in the short term for patients with knee problems.

The effectiveness of interventions in the management of patients with primary frozen shoulder

There are many types of treatment used to manage the frozen shoulder, but there is no consensus on how best to manage patients with this painful and debilitating condition. We conducted a review of the evidence of the effectiveness of interventions used to manage primary frozen shoulder using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, MEDLINE and EMBASE without language or date restrictions up to April 2009. Two authors independently applied selection criteria and assessed the quality of systematic reviews using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Data were synthesised narratively, with emphasis placed on assessing the quality of evidence. In total, 758 titles and abstracts were identified and screened, which resulted in the inclusion of 11 systematic reviews. Although these met most of the AMSTAR quality criteria, there was insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of treatments commonly used to manage a frozen shoulder. This was mostly due to poor methodological quality and small sample size in primary studies included in the reviews. We found no reviews evaluating surgical interventions. More rigorous randomised trials are needed to evaluate the treatments used for frozen shoulder.

Methods to identify postnatal depression in primary care: an integrated evidence synthesis and value of information analysis

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of methods to identify postnatal depression (PND) in primary care and to assess their validity, acceptability, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, to model estimates of cost, to assess whether any method meets UK National Screening Committee (NSC) criteria and to identify areas for future research.

DATA SOURCES

Searches of 20 electronic databases (including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL, DARE and CDSR), forward citation searching, personal communication with authors and searching of reference lists.

REVIEW METHODS

A generalised linear mixed model approach to the bivariate meta-analysis was undertaken for the validation review with quality assessment using QUADAS. Within the acceptability review, a textual narrative approach was employed to synthesise qualitative and quantitative research evidence. For the clinical and cost-effectiveness reviews methods outlined by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Cochrane Collaboration were followed. Probabilistic models were developed to estimate the costs associated with different identification strategies.

RESULTS

The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) was the most frequently explored instrument across all of the reviews. In terms of test performance, postnatally the EPDS performed reasonably well: sensitivity ranged from 0.60 (specificity 0.97) to 0.96 (specificity 0.45) for major depression only; from 0.31 (specificity 0.99) to 0.91 (specificity 0.67) for major or minor depression; and from 0.38 (specificity 0.99) to 0.86 (specificity 0.87) for any psychiatric disorder. Evidence from the acceptability review indicated that, in the majority of studies, the EPDS was acceptable to women and health-care professionals when women were forewarned of the process, when the EPDS was administered in the home, with due attention to training, with empathetic skills of the health visitor and due consideration to positive responses to question 10 about self-harm. Suggestive evidence from the clinical effectiveness review indicated that use of the EPDS, compared with usual care, may lead to reductions in the number of women with depression scores above a threshold. In the absence of existing cost-effectiveness studies of PND identification strategies, a decision-analytic model was developed. The results of the base-case analysis suggested that use of formal identification strategies did not appear to represent value for money, based on conventional thresholds of cost-effectiveness used in the NHS. However, the scenarios considered demonstrated that this conclusion was primarily driven by the costs of false positives assumed in the base-case model.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of the results of our evidence synthesis and decision modelling we revisited the examination of PND screening against five of the NSC criteria. We found that the accepted criteria for a PND screening programme were not currently met. The evidence suggested that there is a simple, safe, precise and validated screening test, in principle a suitable cut-off level could be defined and that the test is acceptable to the population. Evidence surrounding clinical and cost-effectiveness of methods to identify PND is lacking. Further research should aim to identify the optimal identification strategy, in terms of key psychometric properties for postnatal populations. In particular, research comparing the performance of the Whooley and help questions, the EPDS and a generic depression measure would be informative. It would also be informative to identify the natural history of PND over time and to identify the clinical effectiveness of the most valid and acceptable method to identify postnatal depression. Further research within a randomised controlled trial would provide robust estimates of the clinical effectiveness.

Variation in bone mineral density by anatomical site in patients with proximal humeral fractures

Low-energy fractures of the proximal humerus indicate osteoporosis and it is important to direct treatment to this group of patients who are at high risk of further fracture. Data were prospectively collected from 79 patients (11 men, 68 women) with a mean age of 69 years (55 to 86) with fractures of the proximal humerus in order to determine if current guidelines on the measurement of the bone mineral density at the hip and lumbar spine were adequate to stratify the risk and to guide the treatment of osteoporosis. Bone mineral density measurements were made by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at the proximal femur, lumbar spine (L2-4) and contralateral distal radius, and the T-scores were generated for comparison. Data were also collected on the use of steroids, smoking, the use of alcohol, hand dominance and comorbidity.

The mean T-score for the distal radius was −2.97 (sd 1.56) compared with −1.61 (sd 1.62) for the lumbar spine and −1.78 (sd 1.33) for the femur. There was a significant difference between the mean lumbar and radial T scores (1.36 (1.03 to 1.68); p < 0.001) and between the mean femoral and radial T-scores (1.18 (0.92 to 1.44); p < 0.001). The inclusion of all three sites in the determination of the T-score increased the sensitivity to 66% compared with that of 46% when only the proximal femur and lumbar spine were used. This difference between measurements in the upper limb compared with the axial skeleton and lower limb suggests that basing risk assessment and treatment on only the bone mineral density taken at the hip or lumbar spine may misrepresent the extent of osteoporosis in the upper limb and the subsequent risk of fracture at this site.

The assessment of osteoporosis must include measurement of the bone mineral density at the distal radius to avoid underestimation of osteoporosis in the upper limb.

Are you reading what we are reading? The effect of who interprets medical images on estimates of diagnostic test accuracy in systematic reviews

Observer variation and error in the interpretation of medical images is substantial and has been described as Radiology's Achilles' heel. The enormous development in imaging technologies has brought with it an increase in the complexity and volume of images produced. There is also increased diversity as to who interprets medical images. Whilst the influence of the observer on diagnostic test performance is frequently ignored, there is evidence that this influences estimates of accuracy. Characteristics of observers that should be considered when designing systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy are: allocation of images to be read by observers; number, experience and training of observers; profession of observers; and assessment of observer variability and examination of its effect on test accuracy. This information could be used to inform study appraisal, data synthesis, and the investigation of sources of heterogeneity. Establishing the effect of the role of the observer on estimates of accuracy and explaining heterogeneity is important for informing the delivery of these potentially expensive and resource-intensive imaging technologies and the continuing debate about who should read the images.

Accuracy of radiographers red dot or triage of accident and emergency radiographs in clinical practice: a systematic review

AIM

To determine the accuracy of radiographers red dot or triage of accident and emergency (A&E) radiographs in clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible studies assessed radiographers red dot or triage of A&E radiographs in clinical practice compared with a reference standard and provided accuracy data to construct 2 x 2 tables. Data were extracted on study eligibility and characteristics, quality, and accuracy. Pooled sensitivities and specificities and chi-square tests of heterogeneity were calculated.

RESULT

Three red dot and five triage studies were eligible for inclusion. Radiographers' red dot of A&E radiographs in clinical practice compared with a reference standard is 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-0.89] and 0.92 (0.91-0.93) sensitivity and specificity, respectively. Radiographers' triage of A&E radiographs of the skeleton is 0.90 (0.89-0.92) and 0.94 (0.93-0.94) sensitivity and specificity, respectively; and for chest and abdomen is 0.78 (0.74-0.82) and 0.91 (0.88-0.93). Radiographers' red dot of skeletal A&E radiographs without training is 0.71 (0.62-0.79) and 0.96 (0.93-0.97) sensitivity and specificity, respectively; and with training is 0.81 (0.72-0.87) and 0.95 (0.93-0.97). Pooled sensitivity and specificity for radiographers without training for the triage of skeletal A&E radiographs is 0.89 (0.88-0.91) and 0.93 (0.92-0.94); and with training is 0.91 (0.88-0.94) and 0.95 (0.93-0.96).

CONCLUSION

Radiographers red dot or triage of A&E radiographs in clinical practice is affected by body area, but not by training.

The costs and effects of introducing selectively trained radiographers to an A&E reporting service: a retrospective controlled before and after study

The costs and effects of introducing selectively trained radiographers reporting accident and emergency (A&E) radiographs of the appendicular skeleton in a district general hospital were assessed using a retrospective controlled before and after design. Reference standard reports were compared with a random stratified sample of 200 A&E and 200 general practitioner (GP) reports before and after the intervention. GP reports were used as a non-intervention, non-equivalent control group. An A&E specialist registrar judged whether incorrect A&E reports might have a clinically important effect on patient management. The effect of incorrect A&E reports on outcome was assessed by patient re-attendance to the hospital because of missed abnormalities. The annual, average and incremental costs of radiographers and radiologists reporting A&E radiographs were calculated and a sensitivity analysis was undertaken. The introduction of the radiographers resulted in a 1% (95% CI -7.9 to 5.9) fall in A&E radiograph reporting accuracy and 11% (95% CI -33.7 to 11.3) reduction of cases in which incorrect A&E reports might have a clinically important effect on patient management. Only two A&E reports (one before and one after the intervention) affected patient outcome in that a fracture missed at the first visit resulted in patient re-attendance to the X-ray Department. There was a saving of 361 pounds per annum to the X-ray Department. In conclusion this study provides further evidence that selectively trained radiographers can accurately report A&E plain radiographs and at no additional cost.

Accuracy of radiographer plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice: a meta-analysis

AIM

To determine the accuracy of radiographer plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies were identified from electronic sources and by hand searching journals, personal communication and checking reference lists. Eligible studies assessed radiographers' plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice compared with a reference standard, and provided accuracy data to construct 2 x 2 contingency tables. Data were extracted on study eligibility and characteristics, quality and accuracy. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to pool the accuracy data.

RESULTS

Radiographers compared with a reference standard, report plain radiographs in clinical practice at 92.6% (95% CI: 92.0-93.2) and 97.7% (95% CI: 97.5-97.9) sensitivity and specificity, respectively. Studies that compared selectively trained radiographers and radiologists of varying seniority against a reference standard showed no evidence of a difference between radiographer and radiologist reporting accuracy of accident and emergency plain radiographs. Selectively trained radiographers were also found to report such radiographs as accurately as those not solely from accident and emergency, although some variation in reporting accuracy was found for different body areas. Training radiographers improved their accuracy when reporting normal radiographs.

CONCLUSION

This study systematically synthesizes the literature to provide an evidence-base showing that radiographers can accurately report plain radiographs in clinical practice.

Accuracy of fetal echocardiography in the routine detection of congenital heart disease among unselected and low risk populations: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine among unselected and low risk populations the accuracy with which fetal echocardiography during the second trimester detects congenital heart disease.

DESIGN

A systematic review of studies that assess the accuracy of fetal echocardiography.

SETTING

District General Hospital and Tertiary referral centres.

POPULATION

Women during the second trimester attending for ultrasound assessment.

METHODS

General bibliographic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE) and specialist computerised databases (e.g. Cochrane Library, National Research Register), grey literature, manual searching of reference lists of primary and review articles and personal contact with experts were used to identify studies. Studies were included if fetal echocardiography among unselected or low risk pregnant women was compared against a postnatal reference standard. Data were extracted on quality, study design and characteristics, and accuracy data to construct 2 x 2 tables. Data were synthesised qualitatively, and sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

Five primary studies met the inclusion criteria and comprised 60,901 subjects. One study assessed the accuracy of fetal echocardiography among an unselected population and four studies among low risk populations. All eligible studies found that fetal echocardiography helped to correctly diagnose normal fetus among unselected and low risk populations. Correct diagnosis of babies for congenital heart defects was higher among the unselected population (85%) than among the low risk populations (range from 35% to 86%); however, the potential for ascertainment bias and the choice of reference standard limits the validity of this finding. The variation in sensitivity across studies was not explainable by clinical factors such as scanning regime, operator skill and equipment.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from this review about the accuracy of fetal echocardiography does not lend support to its routine use among unselected and low risk populations during the second trimester to detect congenital heart disease.

Patient-assessed health instruments for the knee: a structured review

OBJECTIVES

To identify patient-assessed health instruments specific to the knee and review evidence for reliability, validity and responsiveness.

METHODS

Instruments were identified through systematic searches of the literature. Information relating to instrument content, patient population, reliability, validity and responsiveness was extracted from published papers.

RESULTS

The 16 instruments that met the inclusion criteria varied in length from 4 to 42 items. The majority form a single index; six produce a profile of scores. Eight have been evaluated in patients with a variety of knee problems. All instruments have satisfactory internal or test-retest reliability. However, there is limited empirical support for the health domains of six instruments. Patients informed the development of items within just five instruments. Few authors gave explicit consideration to the size of expected relationships in tests of construct validity. Eleven instruments have evidence for responsiveness to changes in health. The minimally important difference was not determined for any of the instruments.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of comparative evidence, the large number of patient-assessed instruments for knee problems makes instrument selection difficult. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Pain Scale and Oxford Knee Score have good evidence for reliability, content validity and construct validity. The KOOS and Oxford instruments also have evidence for responsiveness. The instruments have not been evaluated for all knee problems, and instrument appropriateness, including content relevance, must be assessed before application. The comparative evaluation of instruments is recommended.

UK Back pain Exercise And Manipulation (UK BEAM) trial--national randomised trial of physical treatments for back pain in primary care: objectives, design and interventions [ISRCTN32683578]

BACKGROUND

Low back pain has major health and social implications. Although there have been many randomised controlled trials of manipulation and exercise for the management of low back pain, the role of these two treatments in its routine management remains unclear. A previous trial comparing private chiropractic treatment with National Health Service (NHS) outpatient treatment, which found a benefit from chiropractic treatment, has been criticised because it did not take treatment location into account. There are data to suggest that general exercise programmes may have beneficial effects on low back pain. The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) has funded this major trial of physical treatments for back pain, based in primary care. It aims to establish if, when added to best care in general practice, a defined package of spinal manipulation and a defined programme of exercise classes (Back to Fitness) improve participant-assessed outcomes. Additionally the trial compares outcomes between participants receiving the spinal manipulation in NHS premises and in private premises.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial using a 3 x 2 factorial design.

METHODS

We sought to randomise 1350 participants with simple low back pain of at least one month's duration. These came from 14 locations across the UK, each with a cluster of 10-15 general practices that were members of the MRC General Practice Research Framework (GPRF). All practices were trained in the active management of low back pain. Participants were randomised to this form of general practice care only, or this general practice care plus manipulation, or this general practice care plus exercise, or this general practice care plus manipulation followed by exercise. Those randomised to manipulation were further randomised to receive treatment in either NHS or private premises. Follow up was by postal questionnaire one, three and 12 months after randomisation. The primary analysis will consider the main treatment effects before interactions between the two treatment packages. Economic analysis will estimate the cost per unit of health utility gained by adding either or both of the treatment packages to general practice care.

Confidence intervals and sample size calculations for studies of film-reading performance

The relaxation of restrictions on the type of professions that can report films has resulted in radiographers and other healthcare professionals becoming increasingly involved in image interpretation in areas such as mammography, ultrasound and plain-film radiography. Little attention, however, has been given to sample size determinations concerning film-reading performance characteristics such as sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Illustrated with hypothetical examples, this paper begins by considering standard errors and confidence intervals for performance characteristics and then discusses methods for determining sample size for studies of film-reading performance. Used appropriately, these approaches should result in studies that produce estimates of film-reading performance with adequate precision and enable investigators to optimize the sample size in their studies for the question they seek to answer.

Accident and emergency and general practitioner plain radiograph reporting by radiographers and radiologists: a quasi-randomized controlled trial

Two specially trained radiographers at York District Hospital have been reporting appendicular plain radiograph X-ray examinations for Accident and Emergency (A&E) patients since February 1995. This study explores the potential for further expanding their reporting role. This was achieved by assessing the two radiographers' and a group of consultant radiologists' ability to report on a retrospectively selected random stratified sample of 400 A&E and General Practitioner (GP) plain radiograph X-ray examinations for all body areas. Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses there was no statistically significant difference at the 5% level between the area under the ROC curves for the radiographers and consultant radiologists when reporting A&E or GP plain radiographs. It may be feasible to expand the reporting role of suitably trained radiographers to include plain radiograph X-ray examinations for all A&E patients and for GP patients, with no detriment to the quality of reports.

Review article: methodological standards in radiographer plain film reading performance studies

The objectives of this paper are to raise awareness of the methodological standards that can affect the quality of radiographer plain-film reading performance studies and to determine the frequency with which these standards are fulfilled. Multiple search methods identified 30 such studies from between 1971 and the end of June 1999. The percentage of studies that fulfilled criteria for the 10 methodological standards were as follows. (1) Performance of a sample size calculation, 3%; (2) definition of a normal and abnormal report, 97%; (3) description of the sequence of events through which films passed before reporting, 94%; (4) analysis of individual groups of observers within a combination of groups, 50% (5) appropriate choice of reference standard, 80%; (6) appropriate choice of arbiter, 57%; (7) appropriate use of a control, 22%; (8) analysis of pertinent clinical subgroups, e.g. body areas, patient type, 44%; (9) availability of data for re-calculation, 59%; and (10) presentation of indeterminate results, 69%. These findings indicate variation in the application of the methodological standards to studies of radiographer's film reading performance. Careful consideration of these standards is an essential component of study quality and hence the validity of the evidence base used to underpin radiographic reporting policy.

Measuring the effects of image interpretation: an evaluative framework

The relaxing of restrictions on reporting films has resulted in radiographers and other health care professionals becoming increasingly involved in the interpretation of images in areas such as mammography, ultrasound and plain film radiography. However, errors and variation in the interpretation of images now represents the weakest area of clinical imaging. This has been highlighted by the difficulty of establishing standards to measure the film reading performance of radiographers as part of role extension initiatives. Despite a growing literature of studies that evaluate the film reading performance of different health care professionals, there is a paucity of evidence of the subsquent effects on the referring clinician's diagnosis, management plans and patient outcome. This paper proposes an evaluative framework that can be used to measure the chain of events from the initial technical assessment of observers' potential to interpret images using search behaviour techniques, through to the potential costs and benefits to society. Evaluating the wider implications of alternative or complementary reporting policies is essential for generating the evidence base to comprehensively underpin policy and practice and direct future research. Brealey, S.(2001). Clinical Radiology56, 341-347.

Bias in plain film reading performance studies

Radiographers and other healthcare professionals are becoming increasingly involved in radiological reporting, for instance plain radiographs, mammography and ultrasound. Systematic reviews of research evidence can help to assimilate a knowledge base by ordering and evaluating the available evidence on the reporting accuracy of different professional groups. This article reviews the biases that can undermine the results of plain film reading performance studies. These biases are subdivided into three categories. The first category refers to the selection of subjects, including both films and professionals, and covers the validity of generalizing results beyond the study population. The other two categories are concerned with study design and the interpretation both of films and of reports and the effect on study validity. An understanding of these biases is essential when designing such studies and when interpreting the results of existing studies.