<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>5</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Imamura,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dryden,T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Irvin,E.</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dagenais,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Haldeman,S.</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Massage therapy</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evidence-Based Management of Low Back Pain</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pain</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Elsevier Mosby</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">St Louis</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">216 - 228</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">978-0-323-07293-9</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">16</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>5</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ammendolia,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Imamura,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Irvin,E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Tulder,M.</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dagenais,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Haldeman,S.</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Needle acupuncture</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evidence-Based Management of Low Back Pain</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence based practice</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Elsevier Mosby</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">St Louis</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">269 - 285</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">978-0-323-07293-9</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">20</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jamal,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alibhai,S.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Badley,E.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Time to treatment for new patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a major metropolitan city</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Rheumatology</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Rheumatol</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cohort studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011/05/15/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">38</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1282-8</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) seen by rheumatologists and treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) within 3 months of symptom onset, to determine where treatment delays occur, and to identify contributing factors. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study in which adult patients with RA, diagnosed between January 1, 2003, and May 31, 2006, were recruited from rheumatologists' offices to participate in a telephone survey and chart review. The percentage treated with DMARD within 3 months of symptom onset was determined, along with median times for delay. Factors contributing to the delay were explored using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Our study included 204 patients. Within 3 months of symptoms, 22.6% (95% CI 16.8%, 28.3%) received DMARD and within 6 months, 47.6% (95% CI 40.7%, 54.4%). The median time from symptom onset to DMARD was 6.4 months [interquartile range (IQR) 3.3, 12.0] with a median time from RA diagnosis by a rheumatologist to DMARD of 0.0 months (IQR 0.0, 1.0). Higher baseline swollen joint counts resulted in earlier treatment. Age, sex, education, comorbidity, rheumatologist practice type, and years since the physician's graduation did not affect time to treatment. CONCLUSION: Fewer than 25% of patients referred to rheumatologists were treated within 3 months of symptom onset. Identification of inflammatory arthritis and referral to rheumatologists are the key factors in timely care, because once patients are seen there is no delay to treatment. Future resources should be focused on development and evaluation of interventions to facilitate rapid triage, referral, and assessment by a rheumatologist</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20110516 IS - 0315-162X (Electronic) IS - 0315-162X (Linking) LA - ENG PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1282</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evidence for interferential current to treat musculoskeletal pain remains weak</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Clin J Sport Med</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011/05//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">21</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">278 - 279</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20110502 IS - 1536-3724 (Electronic) IS - 1050-642X (Linking) LA - eng PT - Journal Article SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vissers,M.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bussmann,J.B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verhaar,J.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arends,L.R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reijman,M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Recovery of physical functioning after total hip arthroplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Physical Therapy</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Phys Ther</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">recovery of function</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011/05//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">91</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">615 - 629</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Background After total hip arthroplasty (THA), patients today (who tend to be younger and more active than those who previously underwent this surgical procedure) have high expectations regarding functional outcome. Therefore, patients need to be well informed about recovery of physical functioning after THA. PURPOSE: /b&gt; The purpose of this study was to review publications on recovery of physical functioning after THA and examine the degree of recovery with regard to 3 aspects of functioning (ie, perceived physical functioning, functional capacity to perform activities, and actual daily activity in the home situation). Data Sources Data were obtained from the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to July 2009, and references in identified articles were tracked. Study Selection Prospective studies with a before-after design were included. Patients included in the analysis had to have primary THA for osteoarthritis. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two reviewers independently checked the inclusion criteria, conducted the risk of bias assessment, and extracted the results. Data were pooled in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. RESULTS: /b&gt; A total of 31 studies were included. For perceived physical functioning, patients recovered from less than 50% preoperatively to about 80% of that of controls (individuals who were healthy) 6 to 8 months postsurgery. On functional capacity, patients recovered from 70% preoperatively to about 80% of that of controls 6 to 8 months postsurgery. For actual daily activity, patients recovered from 80% preoperatively to 84% of that of controls at 6 months postsurgery. Limitations Only a few studies were retrieved that investigated the recovery of physical functioning longer than 8 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: /b&gt; Compared with the preoperative situation, the 3 aspects of physical functioning showed varying degrees of recovery after surgery. At 6 to 8 months postoperatively, physical functioning had generally recovered to about 80% of that of controls</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20110502 IS - 1538-6724 (Electronic) IS - 0031-9023 (Linking) LA - eng PT - Journal Article SB - AIM SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Machado,P.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Koevoets,R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van der Heijde,D.M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The value of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in undifferentiated arthritis: a systematic review</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Rheumatology</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Rheumatol</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">prognosis</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011/03//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">87</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">31 - 37</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic literature review of the diagnostic and prognostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) in patients with undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis (UPIA), and to assess if MRI and US should be done at baseline and repeated, and if so, at what interval. METHODS: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and abstracts presented at the 2007 and 2008 meetings of the American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism meetings were searched for diagnostic and prognostic studies of any duration examining the ability of MRI/US to predict outcome of patients with UPIA. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and positive/negative likelihood ratios (LR+/LR-) were calculated. When available, odds ratios were extracted. Quality was appraised using validated scales. RESULTS: Regarding MRI, 11 out of 2595 screened references were included: 2 described pure undifferentiated arthritis (UA) populations and 9, mixed populations. Bone edema (LR+ 4.5) and combination of a distinct MRI synovitis and erosion pattern (LR+ 4.8) increased probability of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Absence of MRI synovitis (LR- 0.2) and absence of a distinct synovitis pattern (LR- 0) decreased probability of developing RA. Regarding US, 2 out of 2111 references were included, both mixed populations; no data could be extrapolated for UPIA. CONCLUSION: MRI bone edema and combined synovitis and erosion pattern seem useful in predicting development of RA from UPIA. The value of US in UPIA remains to be determined. The absence of MRI synovitis seems useful in excluding development of RA. No data were found about the value of repeating MRI/US. Studies evaluating MRI/US in UPIA are scarce, but current knowledge strongly encourages further testing in UA</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Suppl</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20110302 IS - 0380-0903 (Print) IS - 0380-0903 (Linking) LA - eng PT - Journal Article SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ayeni,O.R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bhandari,M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Using extracorporeal shock-wave therapy for healing long-bone nonunions</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Clin J Sport Med</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">injuries</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">upper extremity</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011/01//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">21</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">74 - 75</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20110104 IS - 1536-3724 (Electronic) IS - 1050-642X (Linking) LA - eng PT - Comment PT - Journal Article</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kulkarni,A.V.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aziz,B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Shams,I.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Author self-citation in the general medicine literature</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PLoS One</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence based practice</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">e20885</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND: Author self-citation contributes to the overall citation count of an article and the impact factor of the journal in which it appears. Little is known, however, about the extent of self-citation in the general clinical medicine literature. The objective of this study was to determine the extent and temporal pattern of author self-citation and the article characteristics associated with author self-citation. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of articles published in three high impact general medical journals (JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) between October 1, 1999 and March 31, 2000. We retrieved the number and percentage of author self-citations received by the article since publication, as of June 2008, from the Scopus citation database. Several article characteristics were extracted by two blinded, independent reviewers for each article in the cohort and analyzed in multivariable linear regression analyses. Since publication, author self-citations accounted for 6.5% (95% confidence interval 6.3-6.7%) of all citations received by the 328 articles in our sample. Self-citation peaked in 2002, declining annually thereafter. Studies with more authors, in cardiovascular medicine or infectious disease, and with smaller sample size were associated with more author self-citations and higher percentage of author self-citation (all p&lt;/=0.01). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Approximately 1 in 15 citations of articles in high-profile general medicine journals are author self-citations. Self-citation peaks within about 2 years of publication and disproportionately affects impact factor. Studies most vulnerable to this effect are those with more authors, small sample size, and in cardiovascular medicine or infectious disease</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20110623 IS - 1932-6203 (Electronic) IS - 1932-6203 (Linking) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health + function&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Waseem,Z.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Boulias,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gordon,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ismail,F.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sheean,G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Botulinum toxin injections for low-back pain and sciatica</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cochrane Database Syst Rev</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21249702</style></url></web-urls></urls><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CD008257</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND: Adequate relief from low-back pain (LBP) is not always possible. Emerging evidence suggests a role for botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) injections in treating pain disorders. Proponents of BoNT suggest its properties can decrease muscle spasms, ischemia and inflammatory markers, thereby reducing pain. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of botulinum toxin injections in adults with LBP. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 3) and MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to August 2009; screened references from included studies; consulted with content experts and Allergan. We included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials without language restrictions SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials that evaluated BoNT serotypes versus other treatments in patients with non-specific LBP of any duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected the studies, assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Back Review Group criteria, and extracted the data using standardized forms. We performed a qualitative analysis due to lack of data. MAIN RESULTS: We excluded evidence from nineteen studies due to non-randomisation, incomplete or unpublished data. We included three randomised trials (N =123 patients). Only one study included patients with chronic non-specific LBP; the other two examined unique subpopulations. Only one of the three trials had a low risk of bias and demonstrated that BoNT injections reduced pain at three and eight weeks and improved function at eight weeks better than saline injections. The second trial showed that BoNT injections were better than injections of corticosteroid plus lidocaine or placebo in patients with sciatica attributed to piriformis syndrome. The third trial concluded that BoNT injections were better than traditional acupuncture in patients with third lumbar transverse process syndrome. Both studies with high risk of bias had several key limitations. Heterogeneity of the studies prevented meta-analysis. There is low quality evidence that BoNT injections improved pain, function, or both better than saline injections and very low quality evidence that they were better than acupuncture or steroid injections. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified three studies that investigated the merits of BoNT for LBP, but only one had a low risk of bias and evaluated patients with non-specific LBP (N = 31). Further research is very likely to have an important impact on the estimate of effect and our confidence in it. Future trials should standardize patient populations, treatment protocols and comparison groups, enlist more participants and include long-term outcomes, cost-benefit analysis and clinical relevance of findings</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20110120 IS - 1469-493X (Electronic) IS - 1361-6137 (Linking) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Review RN - 0 (Neuromuscular Agents) RN - EC 3.4.24.69 (Botulinum Toxins, Type A) SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Koehoorn,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">McLeod,C.B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fan,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mcgrail,K.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Barer,M.L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cote,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hogg-Johnson,S.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Do private clinics or expedited fees reduce disability duration for injured workers following knee surgery?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Healthcare Policy</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Healthc Policy</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">claim</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">disability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evaluation studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">return to work</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">workers compensation</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.longwoods.com/content/22528 </style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">55 - 70</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Objective: To investigate the effect of workers' compensation policies related to expedited surgical fees and private clinic surgical setting on disability duration among injured workers. Methods: The study included 1,380 injured workers with knee meniscectomy between 2001 and 2005 in British Columbia. Using linked workers' compensation claim and surgery/clinical records, wait time for surgery (time from last surgical consult to surgery) and time from surgery to return to work were computed and compared for workers who received care in public versus private facilities, and according to whether their surgeons received fees intended to expedite care. Results: The public expedited group had the shortest disability duration from surgical consult to return to work; the expedited fee reduced the surgery wait time (~2 work weeks), and surgeries performed in public hospitals had a shorter return-to-work time (~1 work week). Discussion: An overall difference of approximately three work weeks in disability duration may have meaningful clinical and quality-of-life implications for injured workers. However, minimal differences in expedited surgical wait times by private clinics versus public hospitals, and small differences in return-to-work outcomes favouring the public hospital group, suggest that a future economic evaluation of workers' compensation policies related to surgical setting is warranted</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">non medline, email sent to accesscopyright re abstract</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/compensation-benefits&quot;&gt;compensation + benefits&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Perruccio,A.V.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Davis,A.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hogg-Johnson,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Badley,E.M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Importance of self-rated health and mental well-being in predicting health outcomes following total joint replacement surgery for osteoarthritis</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arthritis Care &amp; Research</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health outcome measures</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">measurement</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">mental health</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">psychosocial factors</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">63</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">973 - 981</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: The determinants of outcomes and the scope of outcomes examined in total joint replacement (TJR) typically have been limited to aspects of physical health. We investigated mental well-being, physical and social health, and self-rated health (SRH) as predictors of future health status within a cohort undergoing a TJR for hip or knee osteoarthritis. We also investigated the interrelationships among these health dimensions as they relate to SRH. METHODS: Participants (n = 215 hip, n = 234 knee) completed measures presurgery and 3 and 6 months postsurgery, including pain, physical function, fatigue, anxiety, depression, social participation limitations, passive/active recreation, community mobility, and SRH. Structural equation modeling was used to investigate the interrelationship between 3 latent health dimensions (physical, mental, social) and the predictive significance of SRH for future health status. RESULTS: The mean age was 63.5 years (range 31-88 years) and 60% were women. Prior dimension status strongly predicted future status. Adjusted for prior dimension scores, comorbidity, and sociodemographic characteristics, SRH predicted future scores for all 3 health dimensions. Worse prior SRH predicted less improvement at all time points. The effects of physical and social health on SRH were fully mediated through mental well-being. Only mental well-being significantly predicted SRH, within and across time. CONCLUSION: Mental well-being is critical for understanding the relationship between physical health and SRH. In addition, SRH significantly predicts TJR outcomes, above and beyond prior physical health. The exclusive focus on any one health dimension may lead to missed opportunities for predicting and improving outcomes following surgery, and likely improving overall health generally</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20110630 IS - 2151-4658 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health + function&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pennick,V.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Informing your practice with evidence-where to find it; how to understand it. Part 1</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of the Ontario Occupational Health Nurses Association</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OOHNA Journal</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence based practice</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">30</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">21 - 22</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Interpreting the outcomes of orthopaedic trials</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Advances in Orthopaedics</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health outcome measures</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">141 - 147</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Orthopaedic trials can provide important direction for clinical decision-making, but their strength of inference may be weakened by methodological limitations and the extent to which their reported outcomes fail to address patient-important endpoints. This article discusses the challenges for clinicians reviewing the literature, including assessing the impact of loss to follow-up, judging the validity of subgroup analyses, determining whether the effect of treatment on surrogate endpoints translates into patient-important outcomes, interpreting composite endpoints, and remaining vigilant for evidence of publication bias</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.remedicajournals.com/Advances-in-Orthopaedics/BrowseIssues/Volume-2-Issue-4/Article-Interpreting-the-Outcomes-of-Orthopaedic-Trials </style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Riva,J.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Crombeen,A.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rycroft,J.E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Donkers Ainsworth,K.E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gissler,T.P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Burnie,S.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Interprofessional education for medical students in clinical settings: a practical guide for an elective half-day</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Can Chiropr Assoc</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">55</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">168 - 173</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20110902 IS - 0008-3194 (Print) IS - 0008-3194 (Linking) LA - eng PT - Journal Article</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Walji,R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wilson,K.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Parents' experiences discussing pediatric vaccination with healthcare providers: a survey of canadian naturopathic patients</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PLoS One</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">utilization</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21829648</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">e22737</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND: Parents who choose to selectively vaccinate or avoid vaccination for their children may do so at risk of compromising relations with their family physician or pediatrician. Groups that are associated with reduced rates of pedicatic vaccination, such as parents who access naturopathic care, may be particularly vulnerable to this issue. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In March through September 2010, we administered a 26-item cross-sectional survey to 129 adult patients, all of whom were parents with children &lt;/=16 years of age, presenting for naturopathic care in Ontario, Canada. Ninety-five parents completed the survey (response rate 74%), and only 50.5% (48 of 95) reported that their children had received all recommended vaccines. Most parents (50.5%; 48 of 95) reported feeling pressure to vaccinate from their allopathic physician and, of those who discussed vaccination with their physician, 25.9% (21 of 81) were less comfortable continuing care as a result. Five percent (4 of 81) of respondents were advised by their physician that their children would be refused care if they decided against vaccination. In our adjusted generalized linear model, feeling pressure to vaccinate (odds ratio [OR] = 3.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.14 to 8.26) or endorsing a naturopathic physician as their most trusted source of information regarding vaccination (OR = 3.57; 95% CI = 1.22 to 10.44) were associated with greater odds of having a partially vaccinated or unvaccinated child. The majority (69.6%; 32 of 46) of parent's with partially vaccinated or unvaccinated children reported a willingness to re-consider this decision. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Use of naturopathic care should be explored among parents in order to identify this high-risk group and engage them in discussion regarding pediatric vaccination to encourage evidence-based, shared decision making. Physicians should ensure that discussions regarding vaccination are respectful, even if parents are determined not to vaccinate their children</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20110810 IS - 1932-6203 (Electronic) IS - 1932-6203 (Linking) LA - eng PT - Journal Article SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kennedy,C.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beaton,D.E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Warmington,K.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Shupak,R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jones,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hogg-Johnson,S.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Prescription for education: development, evaluation, and implementation of a successful interprofessional education program for adults with inflammatory arthritis</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Rheumatology</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Rheumatol</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">measurement</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">psychosocial factors</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">38</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2247 - 2257</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of recruitment and standardize care delivery for an interprofessional program for inflammatory arthritis education (Prescription for Education, or RxEd), and to explore outcomes relevant to arthritis patient education. METHODS: A patient-based needs assessment and ongoing patient feedback guided program development. An interprofessional team was involved in developing program content and delivering and adapting the program to patient needs. A quasiexperimental, waitlisted control with crossover design was used to evaluate the program. Data were collected at baseline, immediately following intervention, at 6 months (when the crossover control group received intervention), and at 1 year. Self-report measures included demographics, disorder-related data, Arthritis Self-efficacy Scale, arthritis knowledge, coping efficacy, and illness intrusiveness. Analysis included baseline comparisons and longitudinal trends; direct between-group comparison at 6 months; and generalized estimating equations (GEE) analysis to evaluate the main effect of the intervention on the primary outcome (arthritis self-efficacy) and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Program modifications based on patient input made recruitment possible. Forty-two persons participated (including 19 controls), with 93% followup at 1 year. Comparison of change shows moderate effect sizes (standardized effect size 0.5 to 0.7). GEE analysis showed significant main effect, before to after the program, in both groups for primary outcome (arthritis self-efficacy) and most secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Program feasibility was dependent on patient feedback. Our pilot study provides evidence that the RxEd program is feasible and improves arthritis self-efficacy and other outcomes</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20110718 IS - 0315-162X (Electronic) IS - 0315-162X (Linking) LA - ENG PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van der Velde,G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cote,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bayoumi,A.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cassidy,J.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Boyle,E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Shearer,H.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stupar,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jacobs,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ammendolia,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carette,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Tulder,M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Protocol for an economic evaluation alongside the University Health Network Whiplash Intervention Trial: cost-effectiveness of education and activation, a rehabilitation program, and the legislated standard of care for acute whiplash injury in Ontario</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BMC Public Health</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">economics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">rehabilitation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">whiplash injuries</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">594</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND: Whiplash injury affects 83% of persons in a traffic collision and leads to whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). A major challenge facing health care decision makers is identifying cost-effective interventions due to lack of economic evidence. Our objective is to compare the cost-effectiveness of: 1) physician-based education and activation, 2) a rehabilitation program developed by Aviva Canada (a group of property and casualty insurance providers), and 3) the legislated standard of care in the Canadian province of Ontario: the Pre-approved Framework Guideline for Whiplash developed by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. METHODS: The economic evaluation will use participant-level data from the University Health Network Whiplash Intervention Trial and will be conducted from the societal perspective over the trial's one-year follow-up. Resource use (costs) will include all health care goods and services, and benefits provided during the trial's 1-year follow-up. The primary health effect will be the quality-adjusted life year. We will identify the most cost-effective intervention using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental net-benefit. Confidence ellipses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will represent uncertainty around these statistics, respectively. A budget impact analysis will assess the total annual impact of replacing the current legislated standard of care with each of the other interventions. An expected value of perfect information will determine the maximum research expenditure Canadian society should be willing to pay for, and inform priority setting in, research of WAD management. DISCUSSION: Results will provide health care decision makers with much needed economic evidence on common interventions for acute whiplash management. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00546806 [Trial registry date: October 18, 2007; Date first patient was randomized: February 27, 2008]</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20110728 IS - 1471-2458 (Electronic) IS - 1471-2458 (Linking) LA - ENG PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Daraz,L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">MacDermid,J.C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wilkins,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gibson,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Shaw,L.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The quality of websites addressing fibromyalgia: an assessment of quality and readability using standardised tools</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BMJ Open</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">knowledge transfer</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1 - 8</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Background Patients living with fibromyalgia strongly prefer to access health information on the web. However, the majority of subjects in previous studies strongly expressed their concerns about the quality of online information resources. Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate existing online fibromyalgia information resources for content, quality and readability by using standardised quality and readability tools. Methods The first 25 websites were identified using Google and the search keyword 'fibromyalgia'. Pairs of raters independently evaluated website quality using two structured tools (DISCERN and a quality checklist). Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease score maps. Results Ranking of the websites' quality varied by the tool used, although there was general agreement about the top three websites (Fibromyalgia Information, Fibromyalgia Information Foundation and National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases). Content analysis indicated that 72% of websites provided information on treatment options, 68% on symptoms, 60% on diagnosis and 40% on coping and resources. DISCERN ratings classified 32% websites as 'very good', 32% as 'good and 36% as 'marginal'. The mean overall DISCERN score was 36.88 (good). Only 16% of websites met the recommended literacy level grade of 6-8 (range 7-15). Conclusion Higher quality websites tended to be less readable. Online fibromyalgia information resources do not provide comprehensive information about fibromyalgia, and have low quality and poor readability. While information is very important for those living with fibromyalgia, current resources are unlikely to provide necessary or accurate information, and may not be usable for most people</style></abstract><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000152</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Acess</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evans,C.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Katz,N.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mardekian,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Zlateva,G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Simon,L.S.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Further qualification of a therapeutic responder index for patients with chronic low back pain</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Rheumatology</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Rheumatol</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health outcome measures</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010/11/01/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">38</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">362-369</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: Previously, a preliminary patient responder index (RI) in chronic low back pain (CLBP) was developed and validated in 5 placebo-controlled clinical trials. The resulting RI was a &gt; 30% improvement in CLBP and patient global assessment (PGA), and no worsening (&lt; 20%) in the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) total score. Our objective was to provide further characterization of the preliminary RI in a trial with an active control. METHODS: Data from a 6-week randomized, double-blind study of celecoxib compared to tramadol hydrochloride was analyzed to determine differences by treatment group on the CLBP RI and its components, to compare the CLBP RI with each of its individual components, and to reanalyze the original cutoff points for the responder criteria. RESULTS: Of the celecoxib arm, 50.7%, and of the tramadol hydrochloride arm, 43.7% were classified as responders under the CLBP RI (p = 0.043). The PGA is the most important component in the RI (45% of the sample failed to reach the &gt; 30% improvement criteria on the PGA compared to 34% on the low back pain visual analog scale and only 11% on the RMDQ. The agreement among the CLBP RI with each of its 3 components was largest for the PGA component (kappa coefficient 0.849) and smallest for the RMDQ component (kappa coefficient 0.207). CONCLUSION: The RI appears to be particularly sensitive to the cutoff point used for improvement in the PGA component. Further testing of the index in trials with other active comparators is required to gain a fuller understanding of its performance</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20101102
IS - 0315-162X (Electronic)
IS - 0315-162X (Linking)
LA - ENG
PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health + function&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">362</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gossec,L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bijlsma,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Canhao,H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Devlin,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Edwards,C.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hamuryudan,V.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kvien,T.K.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Leeb,B.F.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Martin-Mola,E.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mielants,H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Muller-Ladner,U.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ostergaard,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pereira,I.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ramos-Remus,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Zochling,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dougados,M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dissemination and evaluation of the 3E initiative recommendations for use of methotrexate in rheumatic disorders: results of a study among 2233 rheumatologists</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ann Rheum Dis</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">guidelines</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">knowledge transfer</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010/05/14/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">70</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">388-389</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20100517
IS - 1468-2060 (Electronic)
IS - 0003-4967 (Linking)
LA - ENG
PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">388</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van der Velde,G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pham,B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Machado,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ieraci,L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Witteman,W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Krahn,M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cost-effectiveness of biologic response modifiers compared to disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arthritis Care &amp; Research</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken.)</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cost</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010/08/25/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20740606</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">63</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">65 - 78</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE:: Biologic response modifiers (biologics) have greater potential to slow the course of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but cost more than disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). We reviewed the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of biologics compared to DMARDs for RA in adults. METHODS:: Systematic earch of MEDLINE, Embase, NHS EED, OVID HealthStar, Econlit, Tufts CEA Registry from inception to 2008. The British Medical Journal (1996) and Phillips (2006) checklists were used to critically appraise selected articles. Results were stratified by indications for use according to American College of Rheumatology (2008) recommendations. Two acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) thresholds were used: CAD 50,000 and 100,000, per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain. RESULTS:: Of 918 identified citations, 18 studies were included. Four studies conducted cost-effectiveness analyses, 16 conducted cost-utility analyses, of adalimunab, etanercept, infliximab. The evaluations were limited by lack of evidence, including long-term response to biologics. In DMARD-naive patients, biologic-DMARD sequences were cost-effective for the threshold CAD 100,000/QALY. In patients who failed methotrexate combination therapy or sequentially-administered DMARDs, ICERs were well above CAD 50,000/QALY, while 40% were below CAD 100,000/QALY. In methotrexate monotherapy-resistant patients, all ICERs were below the higher willingness-to-pay threshold; several were below the lower threshold. CONCLUSIONS:: The cost-effectiveness of biologics for RA is not widely demonstrated for the commonly-cited CAD 50,000/QALY threshold; there is mixed evidence for cost-effectiveness at CAD 100,000/QALY. The most cost-effective approach appears to be treatment with a DMARD early in the course of RA, move through a DMARD sequence, and with continued non-response, add a biologic</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20100826
IS - 2151-4658 (Electronic)
LA - ENG
PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carnide,N.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Opioids for workers with an acute episode of low-back pain</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pain</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">workers</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010/08/18/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%"></style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">151</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1 - 2</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20100823IS - 1872-6623 (Electronic)IS - 0304-3959 (Linking)LA - ENGPT - EDITORIAL</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Katchamart,W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Johnson,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lin,H.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Phumethum,V.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Salliot,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Predictors for remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients: A systematic review</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arthritis Care &amp; Research</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">prognosis</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">recovery of function</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010/08//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%"></style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">62</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1128 - 1143</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: To summarize the potential predictors of remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We performed a systematic review of prognostic studies that identified the predictors of remission in RA patients. Studies were identified in Medline, EMBase, and the Cochrane Registry, and by hand search. We included only studies performing multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies from 2,062 citations were included. The following variables were found to be the independent predictors of RA remission: male sex; young age; late-onset RA; short disease duration; nonsmoker; low baseline disease activity; mild functional impairment; low baseline radiographic damage; absence of rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated peptide; low serum level of acute-phase reactant, interleukin-2, and RANKL at baseline; MTHFR 677T alleles and 1298C alleles in the methotrexate (MTX)-treated patients; magnetization transfer ratio 2756A allele +/- either the SLC 19A180A allele or the TYMS 3R-del6 haplotype in the MTX plus sulfasalazine combination-treated patients; early treatment with nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) combinations; the use of anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF); the concurrent use of DMARDs in anti-TNF-treated patients; and moderate or good response to treatments at the first 6 months. The magnitude of the association in the individual predictor was diverse among the studies depending on the patient characteristics, the study characteristics, and the variables used to adjust for in the models. CONCLUSION: A number of independent predictors of remission, i.e., baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics and genetic markers, were summarized. The predictive value of prognostic factors recently identified needs to be confirmed</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20100812IS - 2151-4658 (Electronic)LA - engPT - Journal ArticlePT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tSB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health + function&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Katchamart,W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bourre-Tessier,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Donka,T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Drouin,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rohekar,G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bykerk,V.P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Haraoui,B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Leclerq,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mosher,D.P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pope,J.E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Shojania,K.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Thomson,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Thorne,J.C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Canadian recommendations for use of methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Rheumatology</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Rheumatol</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">guidelines</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010/07//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%"></style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">37</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1422 - 1430</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for the use of methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Canadian rheumatologists who participated in the international 3e Initiative in Rheumatology (evidence, expertise, exchange) in 2007-2008 formulated 5 unique Canadian questions. A bibliographic team systematically reviewed the relevant literature on these 5 topics. An expert committee consisting of 26 rheumatologists from across Canada was convened, and a set of recommendations was proposed based on the results of systematic reviews combined with expert opinions using a nominal group consensus process. RESULTS: The 5 questions addressed drug interactions, predictors of response, strategies to reduce non-serious side effects, variables to assess clinical response, and incorporating patient preference into decision-making. The systematic review retrieved 93 pertinent articles; this evidence was presented to the expert committee during the interactive workshop. After extensive discussion and voting, a total of 9 recommendations were formulated: 2 on drug interactions, 1 on predictors of response, 2 on strategies to reduce non-serious side effects, 3 on variables to assess clinical response, and 1 on incorporating patient preferences into decision-making. The level of evidence and the strength of recommendations are reported. Agreement among panelists ranged from 85% to 100%. CONCLUSION: Nine recommendations pertaining to the use of MTX in daily practice were developed using an evidence-based approach followed by expert/physician consensus with high level of agreement</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20100702IS - 0315-162X (Print)IS - 0315-162X (Linking)LA - engPT - Journal ArticlePT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tSB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Katchamart,W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Systematic monitoring of disease activity using an outcome measure improves outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Rheumatology</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Rheumatol</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health outcome measures</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010/07//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">37</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1411 - 1415</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on the value of outcome measures to monitor treatment response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Canadian rheumatologists participating in the International 3e (evidence expertise exchange) Initiative formulated the question &quot;Which parameters should be recommended for use in the management of RA patients to assess a clinically meaningful response in clinical practice?&quot;. Searches in 3 electronic databases, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, yielded no relevant study addressing this question. Experts in the field proposed to extrapolate evidence from 3 randomized controlled trials of systematic monitoring or tight control strategy in the management of RA. RESULTS: Three studies were included in this review. The TICORA study showed that intensive management using systematic monitoring with the Disease Activity Score (DAS) aiming at least low disease activity, monthly followup, and more aggressive disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment improves outcomes with higher remission rates (65% vs 16%; p &lt; 0.0001). Fransen, et al demonstrated that targeted therapy aimed at low disease activity (DAS28 &lt; 3.2) led to more changes in DMARD treatment, resulting in a larger number of patients with low disease activity (31% vs 16%; p = 0.028). The CAMERA study showed that systematic monitoring using the objective computer decision program evaluation and monthly followup yielded a greater remission rate (50% vs 37%; p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Systematic monitoring of disease activity, aiming for at least low disease activity, and frequent followup improves outcome in RA</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20100702 IS - 0315-162X (Print) IS - 0315-162X (Linking) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health + function&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reardon,R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Weppler,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Opioids for chronic noncancer pain: a new Canadian practice guideline</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CMAJ</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">guidelines</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pain</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010/05/03/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">182</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">923 - 930</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">See Refman ID # 38831 for commentary DA - 20100504 IS - 1488-2329 (Electronic) IS - 0820-3946 (Linking) LA - ENG PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tang,K.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beaton,D.E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lacaille,D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gignac,M.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Zhang,W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Anis,A.H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Work Instability Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA-WIS): Does it work in osteoarthritis?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Quality of Life Research</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Qual Life Res</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">measurement</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">statistics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">workers</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010/04/25/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">19</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1057-1068</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PURPOSE: To validate the 23-item Work Instability Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA-WIS) for use in osteoarthritis (OA) using both classical test theory and item response theory approaches. METHODS: Baseline and 12-month follow-up data were collected from workers with OA recruited from community and clinical settings (n = 130). Fit of RA-WIS data to the Rasch model was evaluated by item- and person-fit statistics (size of residual, chi-sq), assessments of differential item functioning, and tests of unidimensionality and local independence. Internal consistency was assessed by KR-20. Convergent construct validity (Spearman r, known-groups) was evaluated against theoretical constructs that assess impact of health on work. Responsiveness to global indicators of change was assessed by standardized response means (SRM) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Data structure of the RA-WIS showed adequate fit to the Rasch model (chi-sq = 83.2, P = 0.03) after addressing local dependency in three item pairs by creating testlets. High internal consistency (KR-20 = 0.93) and convergent validity with work-oriented constructs (|r| = 0.55-0.77) were evident. The RA-WIS correlated most strongly with the concept of illness intrusiveness (r = 0.77) and was highly responsive to changes (SRM = 1.05 [deterioration]; -0.78 [improvement]). CONCLUSIONS: Although developed for RA, the RA-WIS is psychometrically sound for OA and demonstrates interval-level property</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20100426 IS - 1573-2649 (Electronic) IS - 0962-9343 (Linking) LA - ENG PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health + function&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Chandran,V.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tolusso,D.C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cook,R.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gladman,D.D.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Risk factors for axial inflammatory arthritis in patients with psoriatic arthritis</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Rheumatology</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Rheumatol</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">risk factors</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">statistics</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010/04//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20231209</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">37</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">809 - 815</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: Axial involvement is an important manifestation of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We aimed to identify risk factors associated with the presence of axial PsA (AxPsA) in patients with PsA. METHODS: Patients with AxPsA (bilateral sacroiliitis &gt;or= grade 2/unilateral sacroiliitis &gt;or= 3 and inflammatory neck/back pain or limited spinal mobility) at first clinic visit were identified from the University of Toronto PsA clinic database. Risk factors associated with the presence of AxPsA were determined. Subsequently, patients without AxPsA at first clinic visit were identified. Under a multistate framework, the proportion of patients with PsA who subsequently developed AxPsA was estimated robustly using marginal methods and a Markov model. Risk factors at baseline that were associated with future development of AxPsA were identified through multiplicative time-homogeneous Markov models. RESULTS: Our study included 206 patients. Fifty patients had AxPsA at first clinic visit. HLA-B*27, radiographic damage to peripheral joints, and elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) increased odds of having AxPsA, while family history of PsA decreased the odds. One hundred fifty-six patients did not have AxPsA at first clinic visit. On followup, 28 developed AxPsA, and 11 died. We estimated that after 10 years of followup, 15% would develop AxPsA. Nail dystrophy, number of radiographically damaged joints, periostitis, and elevated ESR increased the risk of developing AxPsA, while swollen joints decreased the risk. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that severe peripheral arthritis and HLA-B*27 are risk factors for AxPsA</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20100402IS - 0315-162X (Print)IS - 0315-162X (Linking)LA - engPT - Journal ArticlePT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tSB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health + function&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van der Velde,G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hogg-Johnson,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bayoumi,A.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cote,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Llewellyn-Thomas,H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hurwitz,E.L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Krahn,M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Neck pain patients' preference scores for their current health</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Quality of Life Research</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Qual Life Res</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">disability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">measurement</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">neck pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">quality of life</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010/03/27/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">19</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">687 - 700</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PURPOSE: To elicit neck pain (NP) patients' preference scores for their current health, and investigate the association between their scores and NP disability. METHODS: Rating scale scores (RSs) and standard gamble scores (SGs) for current health were elicited from chronic NP patients (n = 104) and patients with NP following a motor vehicle accident (n = 116). Patients were stratified into Von Korff Pain Grades: Grade I (low-intensity pain, few activity limitations); Grade II (high-intensity pain, few activity limitations); Grade III (pain with high disability levels, moderate activity limitations); and Grade IV (pain with high disability levels, several activity limitations). Multivariable regression quantified the association between preference scores and NP disability. RESULTS: Mean SGs and RSs were as follows: Grade I patients: 0.81, 0.76; Grade II: 0.70, 0.60; Grade III: 0.64, 0.44; Grade IV: 0.57, 0.39. The association between preference scores and NP disability depended on type of NP and preference-elicitation method. Chronic NP patients' scores were more strongly associated with depressive symptoms than with NP disability. In both samples, NP disability explained little more than random variance in SGs, and up to 51% of variance in RSs. CONCLUSION: Health-related quality-of-life is considerably diminished in NP patients. Depressive symptoms and preference-elicitation methods influence preference scores that NP patients assign to their health</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20100329 IS - 1573-2649 (Electronic) IS - 0962-9343 (Linking) LA - ENG PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health + function&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Martino,R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beaton,D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Diamant,N.E.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Perceptions of psychological issues related to dysphagia differ in acute and chronic patients</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dysphagia</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">acute disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">psychosocial factors</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">qualitative</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010/03//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19657695</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">25</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">26 - 34</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The objectives of this study were (1) to compare and contrast the psychological issues perceived by patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia and explore if the differences relate to recovery trajectory, and (2) to determine whether patients, caregivers, and clinicians had different perceptions of how psychological issues interacted with the lung and nutrition issues as consequences of dysphagia. Two focus groups (one each of acute and chronic patients) were conducted with a total of 8 participants. Four focus groups (3 with clinicians and 1 with caregivers) were also conducted. Through the constant comparison method of grounded theory, the differences in perceptions between acute and chronic patients with dysphagia as well as clinicians and caregivers were explored using theoretical sampling. Two themes evolved: (1) acute and chronic patients differed on how they perceived and prioritized major psychological dimensions; (2) acute patients, chronic patients, caregivers, and clinicians varied in their perceptions of how psychological issues interacted with lung and nutrition issues. The qualitative methodology was successful in identifying contrasting opinions on psychological issues of dysphagia between acute and chronic patients, which differ from the perspectives of clinicians and caregivers. It is important for treating clinicians to be aware of psychological issues, to address them according to the patients' clinical recovery, and to consider the interplay between psychological and biomedical consequences</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20100329 IS - 1432-0460 (Electronic) IS - 0179-051X (Linking) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kooistra,B.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dijkman,B.G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sprague,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Schemitsch,E.H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bhandari,M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The radiographic union scale in tibial fractures: reliability and validity</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Orthop Trauma</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health outcome measures</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">injuries</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">outcome</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010/03//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">24</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">S81 - S86</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Radiographic assessment of tibial fracture healing continues to pose significant challenges to both routine fracture care and clinical research. Orthopaedic surgeons fail to achieve sufficient agreement on fracture healing when using conventional radiographic measures such as their general impression or the number of cortices bridged by callus. Moreover, the extent to which radiographic assessment of healing corresponds to patient-important outcomes is largely unknown. In an attempt to improve the former (ie, reliability) and inform the latter (ie, validity), recent studies have explored a novel radiographic assessment for tibial shaft fractures, the Radiographic Union Scale for Tibial fractures (RUST). The RUST score assesses the presence of bridging callus and that of a fracture line on each of 4 cortices seen on 2 orthogonal radiographic views. A recent study has found that RUST scores have greater inter-rater reliability when compared with surgeon's general impression or the number of cortices bridged by callus. This may increase the utility of radiographs as a standardized measure of treatment efficacy in the follow-up of tibial fractures</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Suppl 1</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20100225 IS - 1531-2291 (Electronic) IS - 0890-5339 (Linking) LA - eng PT - Journal Article SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health + function&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fregni,F.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Imamura,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Chien,H.F.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lew,H.L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Boggio,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kaptchuk,T.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Riberto,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hsing,W.T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Battistella,L.R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Challenges and recommendations for placebo controls in randomized trials in physical and rehabilitation medicine: a report of the international placebo symposium working group</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">American Journal of Physical Medicine &amp; Rehabilitation</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">rehabilitation</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010/02//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">89</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">160 - 172</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Compared with other specialties, the field of physical and rehabilitation medicine has not received the deserved recognition from clinicians and researchers in the scientific community. One of the reasons is the lack of sound evidence to support the traditional physical and rehabilitation medicine treatments. The best way to change this disadvantage is through a well conducted clinical research, such as standard placebo- or sham-controlled randomized clinical trials. Therefore, having placebo groups in clinical trials is essential to improve the level of evidence-based practice in physical and rehabilitation medicine that ultimately translates to better clinical care. To address the challenges for the use of placebo in physical and rehabilitation medicine and randomized clinical trials and to create useful recommendations, we convened a working group during the inaugural International Symposium in Placebo (February 2009, in Sao Paulo, Brazil) in which the following topics were discussed: (1) current status of randomized clinical trials in physical and rehabilitation medicine, (2) challenges for the use of placebo in physical and rehabilitation medicine, (3) bioethics, (4) use of placebo in acupuncture trials and for the treatment of low-back pain, (5) mechanisms of placebo, and (6) insights from other specialties. The current article represents the consensus report from the working group</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20100121 IS - 1537-7385 (Electronic) IS - 0894-9115 (Linking) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - AIM SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health + function&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pennick,V.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Schelkanova,I.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Informing your practice with reviews published by the Cochrane Back Review Group: conservative interventions for neck and back pain</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Physiotherapy Canada</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Physiother Can</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">neck pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010/01/01/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">62</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">81 - 85</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Waseem,Z.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Boulias,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gordon,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ismail,F.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Botulinum toxin for low-back pain</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cochrane Database Syst Rev</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">disability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">return to work</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">risk factors</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%"></style></url></web-urls></urls><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Art. No.: CD008257</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows:The objective of this review is to determine the effectiveness of botulinum toxin on pain, disability, return-to-work and patient satisfaction in adults with LBP.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Yazdi,F.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tsertsvadze,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gross,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Tulder,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Santaguida,L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cherkin,D.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Complementary and alternative therapies for back pain II.</style></title><tertiary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evidence report/Technology assessment. No.194.</style></tertiary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">neck pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/backcam2tp.htm</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rockville, MD</style></pub-location><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">AHRQ Publication No. 10(11)-E007</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1 - 226 (+appendixes)</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Structured AbstractBackground: Back and neck pain are important health problems with serious societal and economic implications. Conventional treatments have been shown to have limited benefit in improving patient outcomes. Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) therapies offer additional options in the management of low back and neck pain. Many trials evaluating CAM therapies have poor quality and inconsistent results.Objectives: To systematically review the efficacy, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and harms of acupuncture, spinal manipulation, mobilization, and massage techniques in management of back, neck, and/or thoracic pain.Data Sources: MEDLINEr, Cochrane Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched up to 2010; unpublished literature and reference lists of relevant articles were also searched.Study Selection: All records were screened by two independent reviewers. Primary reports of comparative efficacy, effectiveness, harms, and/or economic evaluations from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the CAM therapies in adults (age ? 18 years) with back, neck, or thoracic pain were eligible. Non-randomized controlled trials and observational studies (casecontrol, cohort, cross-sectional) comparing harms were also included. Reviews, case reports, editorials, commentaries or letters were excluded.Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers using a predefined form extracted data on study, participants, treatments, and outcome characteristics.Results: 265 RCTs and 5 non-RCTs were included. Acupuncture for chronic nonspecific low back pain was associated with significantly lower pain intensity than placebo but only immediately post-treatment (VAS: -0.59, 95 percent CI: -0.93, -0.25). However, acupuncture was not different from placebo in post-treatment disability, pain medication intake, or global improvement in chronic nonspecific low back pain. Acupuncture did not differ from sham-acupuncture in reducing chronic non-specific neck pain immediately after treatment (VAS: 0.24, 95 percent CI: -1.20, 0.73). Acupuncture was superior to no treatment in improving pain intensity (VAS: -1.19, 95 percent CI: 95 percent CI: -2.17, -0.21), disability (PDI), functioning (HFAQ), well-being (SF-36), and range of mobility (extension, flexion), immediately after the treatment. In general, trials that applied sham-acupuncture tended to produce negative results (i.e., statistically non-significant) compared to trials that applied other types of placebo (e.g., TENS, medication, laser). Results regarding comparisons with other active treatments (pain medication, mobilization, laser therapy) were less consistent Acupuncture was more cost-effective compared to usual care or no treatment for patients with chronic back pain.For both low back and neck pain, manipulation was significantly better than placebo or no treatment in reducing pain immediately or short-term after the end of treatment. Manipulation was also better than acupuncture in improving pain and function in chronic nonspecific low back pain. Results from studies comparing manipulation to massage, medication, or physiotherapy were inconsistent, either in favor of manipulation or indicating no significant difference between the two treatments. Findings of studies regarding costs of manipulation relative to other therapies were inconsistent.Mobilization was superior to no treatment but not different from placebo in reducing low back pain or spinal flexibility after the treatment. Mobilization was better than physiotherapy in reducing low back pain (VAS: -0.50, 95 percent CI: -0.70, -0.30) and disability (Oswestry: -4.93, 95 percent CI: -5.91, -3.96). In subjects with acute or subacute neck pain, mobilization compared to placebo significantly reduced neck pain. Mobilization and placebo did not differ in subjects with chronic neck pain.Massage was superior to placebo or no treatment in reducing pain and disability only amongst subjects with acute/sub-acute low back pain. Massage was also significantly better than physical therapy in improving back pain (VAS: -2.11, 95 percent CI: -3.15, -1.07) or disability. For subjects with neck pain, massage was better than no treatment, placebo, or exercise in improving pain or disability, but not neck flexibility. Some evidence indicated higher costs for massage use compared to general practitioner care for low back pain.Reporting of harms in RCTs was poor and inconsistent. Subjects receiving CAM therapies reported soreness or bleeding on the site of application after acupuncture and worsening of pain after manipulation or massage. In two case-control studies cervical manipulation was shown to be significantly associated with vertebral artery dissection or vertebrobasilar vascular accident.Conclusions: Evidence was of poor to moderate grade and most of it pertained to chronic nonspecific pain, making it difficult to draw more definitive conclusions regarding benefits and harms of CAM therapies in subjects with acute/subacute, mixed, or unknown duration of pain. The benefit of CAM treatments was mostly evident immediately or shortly after the end of the treatment and then faded with time. Very few studies reported long-term outcomes. There was insufficient data to explore subgroup effects. The trial results were inconsistent due probably to methodological and clinical diversity, thereby limiting the extent of quantitative synthesis and complicating interpretation of trial results. Strong efforts are warranted to improve the conduct methodology and reporting quality of primary studies of CAM therapies. Future well powered head to head comparisons of CAM treatments and trials comparing CAM to widely used active treatments that report on all clinically relevant outcomes are needed to draw better conclusions.</style></abstract><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Prepared by: University of Ottawa Evidence-based Practice Center  under Contract No: 290-2007-10059-I (EPCIII)</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">open access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Imamura,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dryden,T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pennick,V.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In response</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">35</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">844</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">AN - 00007632-201004010-00027 IN - Institute for Work &amp; Health; Toronto, ON, Canada (Furlan), Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabitation; University of Sao Paulo; Brazil (Imamura), Centennial College; Applied Research Centre; Toronto, ON, Canada (Dryden), Institute for Work &amp; Health; Toronto, ON, Canada (Pennick)</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Katchamart,W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Trudeau,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Phumethum,V.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Methotrexate monotherapy versus methotrexate combination therapy with non-biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cochrane Database Syst Rev</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CD008495</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND: Methotrexate (MTX) is among the most effective disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with less toxicity and better tolerability. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of MTX monotherapy compared to MTX combination with non-biologic DMARDs in adult with RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified in MEDLINE (1950 to 2009), EMBASE (1980 to 2009), the Cochrane Controlled trials Registry (CENTRAL) (up to 2009), the American and European scientific meeting abstracts 2005-9, the reference lists of all relevant studies, letters, and review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing MTX monotherapy versus MTX combined with other non-biologic DMARDs of at least 12 weeks of trial duration in adult RA patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies,extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias of relevant studies.The efficacy analysis was stratified into 3 groups based on previous DMARDs use: DMARD naive, MTX inadequate response, and non-MTX DMARDs inadequate response. The toxicity analysis was stratified by DMARD combination and pooled across trials for each combination. Our prespecified primary analysis was based on total withdrawal rates for efficacy or toxicity. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 19 trials (2,025 patients) from 6,938 citations were grouped by the type of patients randomised. Trials in DMARD naive patients showed no significant advantage of the MTX combination versus monotherapy; withdrawals for lack of efficacy or toxicity were similar in both groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% CI.0.70 to 1.93, absolute risk difference(ARD) 5%, 95%CI-3% to 13%). Trials in MTX or non-MTX DMARDs inadequate responder patients also showed no difference in withdrawal rates between the MTX combo versus mono groups with RR 0.86 95% CI 0.49 to1.51, ARD -2 %, 95% CI-13 % to 8 % and RR 0.75 95% CI 0.41 to 1.35, ARD -10%, 95% CI -31% to 11%, respectively. Significant reductions of pain and improvement in physical function (measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire or HAQ) were found in the MTX combination group, but only in MTX-inadequate responders (absolute risk difference -9.72%, 95%CI -14.7% to -4.75% for pain and mean difference (MD) -0.28, 95%CI -0.36 to -0.21 (0-3) for HAQ). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When the balance of efficacy and toxicity is taken into account, the moderate level of evidence from our systematic review showed no statistically significant advantage of the MTX combination versus monotherapy. Trials are needed that compare currently used MTX doses and combination therapies</style></abstract><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20100415IS - 1469-493X (Electronic)IS - 1361-6137 (Linking)LA - engPT - Journal ArticlePT - Meta-AnalysisPT - ReviewRN - 0 (Antirheumatic Agents)RN - 59-05-2 (Methotrexate)SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jacobs,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ngo,T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rodine,R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Torrance,D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jim,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kulkarni,A.V.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Petrisor,B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Drew,B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bhandari,M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Attitudes toward chiropractic: a survey of North American orthopedic surgeons</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chiropractic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009/12/01/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">34</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2818 - 2825</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDY DESIGN.: Questionnaire survey. OBJECTIVE.: To elicit orthopedic surgeons' attitudes toward chiropractic. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Orthopedic surgeons and chiropractors often attend to similar patient populations, but little is known about the attitudes of orthopedic surgeons toward chiropractic. METHODS.: We administered a 43-item cross-sectional survey to 1000 Canadian and American orthopedic surgeons that inquired about demographic variables and their knowledge and use of chiropractic. Imbedded in our survey was a 20-item chiropractic attitude questionnaire (CAQ). RESULTS.: 487 surgeons completed the survey (response rate, 49%). North American orthopedic surgeons' attitudes toward chiropractic were diverse, with 44.5% endorsing a negative impression, 29.4% holding favorable views, and 26.1% being neutral. Approximately half of respondents referred patients for chiropractic care each year, mainly due to patient request.The majority of surgeons believed that chiropractors provide effective therapy for some musculoskeletal complaints (81.8%), and disagreed that chiropractors could provide effective relief for nonmusculoskeletal conditions (89.5%). The majority endorsed that chiropractors provide unnecessary treatment (72.7%), engage in overly-aggressive marketing (63.1%) and breed dependency in patients on short-term symptomatic relief (52.3%).In our adjusted generalized linear model, older age (-2.62 points on the CAQ for each 10 year increment; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.74 to -1.50), clinical interest in foot and ankle (-2.77; 95% CI = -5.43 to -0.10), and endorsement of the research literature (-4.20; 95% CI = -6.29 to -2.11), the media (-3.05; 95% CI = -5.92 to -0.19), medical school (-7.42; 95% CI = -10.60 to -4.25), or 'other' (-4.99; 95% CI = -8.81 to -1.17) as a source of information regarding chiropractic were associated with more negative attitudes; endorsing a relationship with a specific chiropractor (5.05; 95% CI = 3.00 to 7.10) or residency (3.79;95% CI = 0.17 to 7.41) as sources of information regarding chiropractic were associated with more positive attitudes. CONCLUSION.: North American orthopedic surgeons' attitudes toward chiropractic range from very positive to extremely negative. Improved interprofessional relations may be important to ensure optimal care of shared patients</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">25</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20091126 IS - 1528-1159 (Electronic) LA - ENG PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pruitt,S.L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Shim,M.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mullen,P.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vernon,S.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Amick,B.C.,III</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Association of area socioeconomic status and breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &amp; Prevention</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">determinants of health</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">socioeconomic factors</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009/10//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">18</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2579 - 2599</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND: Although numerous studies have examined the association of area socioeconomic status (SES) and cancer screening after controlling for individual SES, findings have been inconsistent. A systematic review of existing studies is timely to identify conceptual and methodologic limitations and to provide a basis for future research directions and policy. OBJECTIVE: The objectives were to (a) describe the study designs, constructs, methods, and measures; (b) describe the independent association of area SES and cancer screening; and (c) identify neglected areas of research. METHODS: We searched six electronic databases and manually searched cited and citing articles. Eligible studies were published before 2008 in peer-reviewed journals in English, represented primary data on individuals ages &gt; or = 18 years from developed countries, and measured the association of area and individual SES with breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening. RESULTS: Of 19 eligible studies, most measured breast cancer screening. Studies varied widely in research design, definitions, and measures of SES, cancer screening behaviors, and covariates. Eight employed multilevel logistic regression, whereas the remainder analyzed data with standard single-level logistic regression. The majority measured one or two indicators of area and individual SES; common indicators at both levels were poverty, income, and education. There was no consistent pattern in the association between area SES and cancer screening. DISCUSSION: The gaps and conceptual and methodologic heterogeneity in the literature to date limit definitive conclusions about an underlying association between area SES and cancer screening. We identify five areas of research deserving greater attention in the literature</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;,  &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health + function&lt;/a&gt;, </style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Daraz,L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">MacDermid,J.C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wilkins,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gibson,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Shaw,L.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Health information from the web -  assessing its quality: a KET intervention</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Science and Technology for Humanity (TIC-STH), 2009 IEEE Toronto International Conference</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">knowledge transfer</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009/09/26/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">244 - 251</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">978-1-4244-3877-8</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The World Wide Web has been recognized as a significant Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to educate and empower consumers by providing information on their health problems, prevention/management of diseases and related health services. It has the ability to reach those with limited access to information, potential for online support/interaction, access to volumes of information on a wide breadth of topics and the ability for people to access information when needed or &quot;in real-time&quot;. Information professionals and healthcare providers have become aware that consumers are increasingly using the web for meeting their health information needs. However, concerns remain about the potential effects of seeking health information on the web for health matters as consumers tend to be non-clinical and may not be able to judge the quality of online health information resources. The purpose of this pilot Knowledge Exchange and Transfer (KET) project was to develop a tool (Information Brochure) that could be used by consumers to empower and to help them identify higher-quality web health information. A structured process was used for the development of the KET intervention. Consumer feedback and evaluation confirmed that the intervention can be useful to increase knowledge about their health conditions, better communications with healthcare providers and assist in making decisions about their own health</style></abstract><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Simon,L.S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Strand,C.V.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Boers,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brooks,P.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tugwell,P.S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fries,J.F.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Henry,D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Goldkind,L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guyatt,G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Laupacis,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lynd,L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Macdonald,T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mamdani,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Moore,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Saag,K.S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Silman,A.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stevens,R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tyndall,A.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">How to ascertain drug safety in the context of benefit. Controversies and concerns</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Rheumatology</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J.Rheumatol.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">outcome</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009/09//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">36</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2114 - 2121</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">There is great concern about clearly defining benefit and risk in the context of both drug development and clinical practice. In view of this pressure, the OMERACT Executive identified the need to bring together clinical trialists, pharmacoepidemiologists, clinicians, clinical epidemiologists, statistical experts, and regulatory representatives to discuss different approaches to define risk and perhaps improved ways to express it. Each attendee spoke on a given topic and the group was charged to consider the issue of risk in the context of formally posed questions. This article provides a summary of the presentations and outlines the discussions that followed</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20090909 IS - 0315-162X (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article RN - 0 (Antirheumatic Agents) SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pennick,V.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Limitations of guidelines for low back pain therapy</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nature Reviews.Rheumatology</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">guidelines</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pain</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009/09//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">473 - 474</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20090827 IS - 1759-4804 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - News SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pennick,V.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Tulder,M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">epidemiology</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">guidelines</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">outcome</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009/08/15/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">34</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1929 - 1941</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDY DESIGN: Method guidelines for systematic reviews of trials of treatments for neck and back pain. OBJECTIVE: To help review authors design, conduct and report systematic reviews of trials in this field. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In 1997, the Cochrane Back Review Group published Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews, which was updated in 2003. Since then, new methodologic evidence has emerged and standards have changed. Coupled with the upcoming revisions to the software and methods required by The Cochrane Collaboration, it was clear that revisions were needed to the existing guidelines. METHODS: The Cochrane Back Review Group editorial and advisory boards met in June 2006 to review the relevant new methodologic evidence and determine how it should be incorporated. Based on the discussion, the guidelines were revised and circulated for comment. As sections of the new Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were made available, the guidelines were checked for consistency. A working draft was made available to review authors in The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 3. RESULTS: The final recommendations are divided into 7 categories: objectives, literature search, inclusion criteria, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, data analysis, and updating your review. Each recommendation is classified into minimum criteria (mandatory) and further guidance (optional). Instead of recommending Levels of Evidence, this update adopts the GRADE approach to determine the overall quality of the evidence for important patient-centered outcomes across studies and includes a new section on updating reviews. CONCLUSION: Citations of previous versions of the method guidelines in published scientific articles (1997: 254 citations; 2003: 209 citations, searched February 10, 2009) suggest that others may find these guidelines useful to plan, conduct, or evaluate systematic reviews in the field of spinal disorders</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">18</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20090814 IS - 1528-1159 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health &amp; function&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carnide,N.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kreiger,N.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cotterchio,M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Association between frequency and intensity of recreational physical activity and epithelial ovarian cancer risk by age period</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">European Journal of Cancer Prevention</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">epidemiology</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">population health</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">risk factors</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009/08//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">18</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">322 - 330</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The objective of this study was to examine the association between recreational physical activity across the life span and epithelial ovarian cancer. This relationship was investigated using data from the Ontario arm of the National Enhanced Cancer Surveillance Study, a Canadian population-based case-control study. Data were collected from 240 epithelial ovarian cases and 891 female controls using a self-administered questionnaire. The frequency and intensity of recreational activity in four age periods (mid-teens, early 30s, early 50s, 2 years ago) were examined. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using multivariate logistic regression. Participation up to two times/week, but not more than two times/week, in strenuous recreational activity in mid-teens (OR = 1.69, 95% CI=1.15-2.49) and early 30s (OR = 1.45, 95% CI=1.03-2.05) was associated with increased risk of ovarian cancer. For activity 2 years ago, participation in both strenuous activity (OR = 0.69, 95% CI=0.47-1.01) and moderate activity (OR = 0.55, 95% CI=0.34-0.88) up to two times/week was associated with reduced ovarian cancer risk. Participating more than two times/week was not associated with ovarian cancer risk. Strenuous activity performed in early 50s and moderate activity performed in mid-teens, early 30s, and early 50s were unrelated to risk. In conclusion, strenuous recreational activity early in life may increase the risk of ovarian cancer, whereas more recent recreational activity may reduce the risk</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20090622 IS - 1473-5709 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health &amp; function&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Katchamart,W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Trudeau,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Phumethum,V.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Efficacy and toxicity of methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy versus MTX combination therapy with non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ann Rheum Dis</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">outcome</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009/07//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">68</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1105 - 1112</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy compared with MTX combination with non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis. METHOD: A systematic review of randomised trials comparing MTX alone and in combination with other non-biological DMARDs was carried out. Trials were identified in Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and ACR/EULAR meeting abstracts. Primary outcomes were withdrawals for adverse events or lack of efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 19 trials (2025 patients) from 6938 citations were grouped by the type of patients randomised. Trials in DMARD naive patients showed no significant advantage of the MTX combination versus monotherapy; withdrawals for lack of efficacy or toxicity were similar in both groups (relative risk (RR) = 1.16; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.93). Trials in MTX or non-MTX DMARD inadequate responder patients also showed no difference in withdrawal rates between the MTX combo versus mono groups (RR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.51 and RR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.35), but in one study the specific combination of MTX with sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine showed a better efficacy/toxicity ratio than MTX alone with RR = 0.3 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.65). Adding leflunomide to MTX non-responders improved efficacy but increased the risk of gastrointestinal side effects and liver toxicity. Withdrawals for toxicity were most significant with ciclosporin and azathioprine combinations. CONCLUSION: In DMARD naive patients the balance of efficacy/toxicity favours MTX monotherapy. In DMARD inadequate responders the evidence is inconclusive. Trials are needed that compare currently used MTX doses and combination therapies</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20090615 IS - 1468-2060 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Comparative Study PT - Journal Article PT - Meta-Analysis PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't PT - Review RN - 0 (Antirheumatic Agents) RN - 59-05-2 (Methotrexate) SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ammendolia,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cote,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hogg-Johnson,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Utilization and costs of lumbar and full spine radiography by Ontario chiropractors from 1994 to 2001</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chiropractic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">claim</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cost</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evaluation studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">guidelines</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">high risk</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">insurance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">outcome</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">safety</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">utilization</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">workplace</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009/07//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">556 - 563</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In Ontario, chiropractors see one-third of patients who seek care for low back pain. Previous studies suggest that chiropractors have high utilization rates of lumbar and full spine radiography. There has been a proliferation of evidence-based guidelines recommending that plain film radiography be used only to assess high-risk patients with low back pain. Evidence for the use of full spine radiography, except for the evaluation of scoliosis is lacking. It is uncertain what impact the growing evidence against their use has had on radiography utilization by Ontario chiropractors. PURPOSE: To describe the annual costs and use of lumbar and full spine plain film radiography among Ontario chiropractors between 1994 and 2001. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Time-trend analysis of radiography utilization by Ontario chiropractors. PATIENT SAMPLE: Chiropractic claims data submitted to the Ontario Health Insurance Plan or the Workplace Safety &amp; Insurance Board from 1994/1995 to 2000/2001. OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in the annual cost and proportion of claimants receiving lumbar and full spine radiography. METHODS: Time-trend analysis of chiropractic claims submitted to the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) or Workplace Safety &amp; Insurance Board (WSIB) from 1994/1995 to 2000/2001 fiscal years. RESULTS: During the 7-year period, the proportion of OHIP claimants receiving lumbar spine radiography decreased from 4.54% to 3.25% and for full spine radiography from 3.87% to 3.04%. For WSIB claimants, lumbar spine radiography deceased from 6.49% to 3.30% of claimants and full spine radiography from 1.51% to 0.94%. OHIP payments for lumbar spine radiography decreased 12.7% to $562,944, whereas full spine radiography payments decreased 5.3% to $1,071,408. WSIB lumbar and full spine radiography payments decreased 44.2% and 34.3% to $31,202 and $11,713 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Claims data from the two largest third-party payers of chiropractic services in Ontario, suggest that lumbar and full spine radiography, and their associated costs decreased steadily between 1994 and 2001</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20090629 IS - 1878-1632 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Imamura,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dryden,T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Irvin,E.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Massage for low back pain: an updated systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">disability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">qualitative</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">rehabilitation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009/06/25/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">34</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1669 - 1684</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDY DESIGN.: Systematic Review. OBJECTIVES.: To assess the effects of massage therapy for nonspecific low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Low back pain is one of the most common and costly musculoskeletal problems in modern society. Proponents of massage therapy claim it can minimize pain and disability, and speed return to normal function. METHODS.: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL from their beginning to May 2008. We also searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2006, issue 3), HealthSTAR and Dissertation abstracts up to 2006. There were no language restrictions. References in the included studies and in reviews of the literature were screened. The studies had to be randomized or quasi-randomized trials investigating the use of any type of massage (using the hands or a mechanical device) as a treatment for nonspecific low back pain. Two review authors selected the studies, assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group, and extracted the data using standardized forms. Both qualitative and meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS.: Thirteen randomized trials were included. Eight had a high risk and 5 had a low risk of bias. One study was published in German and the rest in English. Massage was compared to an inert therapy (sham treatment) in 2 studies that showed that massage was superior for pain and function on both short- and long-term follow-ups. In 8 studies, massage was compared to other active treatments. They showed that massage was similar to exercises, and massage was superior to joint mobilization, relaxation therapy, physical therapy, acupuncture, and self-care education. One study showed that reflexology on the feet had no effect on pain and functioning. The beneficial effects of massage in patients with chronic low back pain lasted at least 1 year after the end of the treatment. Two studies compared 2 different techniques of massage. One concluded that acupuncture massage produces better results than classic (Swedish) massage and another concluded that Thai massage produces similar results to classic (Swedish) massage. CONCLUSION.: Massage might be beneficial for patients with subacute and chronic nonspecific low back pain, especially when combined with exercises and education. The evidence suggests that acupuncture massage is more effective than classic massage, but this need confirmation. More studies are needed to confirm these conclusions, to assess the impact of massage on return-to-work, and to determine cost-effectiveness of massage as an intervention for low back pain</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">16</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20090629 IS - 1528-1159 (Electronic) LA - ENG PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rabinovitch,D.L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Peliowski,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Influence of lumbar epidural injection volume on pain relief for radicular leg pain and/or low back pain</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">guidelines</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">outcome</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009/06//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">509 - 517</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Epidural injections are commonly used to treat low back disorders. It has been proposed that in addition to the anti-inflammatory effects, injected material displaces the dura forward and inward, producing a stretch of the nerve roots that leads to lysis of neural adhesions. Despite this, there are no controlled trials investigating the effect of volume injected with pain as an independent outcome. PURPOSE: Review the existing literature to assess the effect of epidural injection volume on relief of radicular leg and low back pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of published clinical trials to assess the correlation between volume of epidural injection and relief of radicular leg and low back pain. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (1966 to January 2009), EMBASE (1980 to January 2009), The Cochrane Library, and the reference lists of retrieved articles. The literature search was limited to English and Human subjects. Studies were included if they involved the following: 1) a controlled clinical trial; 2) epidural injections in treatment groups compared with control injections; 3) the same approach to epidural space in both groups; and 4) pain relief as an independent outcome. Trials that measured pain relief for radicular leg and low back pain, before and after epidural injections were included. Using the Cochrane Back Review Group recommendations, pain relief data were extracted independently by two reviewers into four categories: immediate (&lt;or=6 weeks); short-term (&gt;6 weeks-3 months); intermediate (&gt;or=3 months-1 year); and long-term (&gt;or=1 year). Common effect sizes were calculated for each data point. Quality of the trials was assessed (two independent authors) using the 11-item criteria list recommended in the method guidelines for systematic reviews for the Cochrane Back Review Group. The data were analyzed by calculating the following: correlations between volume difference and effect size at each data point; and comparing the average effect sizes in the studies with same volume in both groups to ones with different volumes. RESULTS: Fifteen studies fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The correlation between volume difference and pain relief was 0.8027 (p=.002) for the immediate category, 0.5019 (p=.168) for the short-term category, and 0.9470 (p=.014) for the intermediate category. Insufficient data were available to calculate the correlation coefficient in the long-term category. There was a statistically significant difference when comparing the mean effect size where the volume injected was the same between the two groups (mean, standard deviation [SD]: 0.07, -0.26) with those where the volumes were different between comparison groups (mean, SD: 0.81, -0.6), irrespective of the medications injected. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results suggest a positive correlation between larger volumes of fluid injected in the epidural space and greater relief of radicular leg pain and/or low back pain. Clinicians should not change their practice, until further high-quality clinical studies confirm these findings</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20090525 IS - 1878-1632 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beaton,D.E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Clark,J.P.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Qualitative research: a review of methods with use of examples from the total knee replacement literature</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Bone &amp; Joint Surgery - American Volume</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">qualitative</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">work</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009/05//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">91</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">107 - 112</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Qualitative research is a useful approach to explore perplexing or complicated clinical situations. Since 1996, at least fifteen qualitative studies in the area of total knee replacement alone were found. Qualitative studies overcome the limits of quantitative work because they can explicate deeper meaning and complexity associated with questions such as why patients decline joint replacement surgery, why they do not adhere to pain medication and exercise regimens, how they manage in the postoperative period, and why providers do not always provide evidence-based care. In this paper, we review the role of qualitative methods in orthopaedic research, using knee osteoarthritis as an illustrative example. Qualitative research questions tend to be inductive, and the stance of the investigator is relevant and explicitly acknowledged. Qualitative methodologies include grounded theory, phenomenology, and ethnography and involve gathering opinions and text from individuals or focus groups. The methods are rigorous and take training and time to apply. Analysis of the textual data typically proceeds with the identification, coding, and categorization of patterns in the data for the purpose of generating concepts from within the data. With use of analytic techniques, researchers strive to explain the findings; questions are asked to tease out different levels of meaning, identify new concepts and themes, and permit a deeper interpretation and understanding. Orthopaedic practitioners should consider the use of qualitative research as a tool for exploring the meaning and complexities behind some of the perplexing phenomena that they observe in research findings and clinical practice</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Suppl 3</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20090504 IS - 1535-1386 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't PT - Review SB - AIM SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health &amp; function&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guyatt,G.H.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Optimizing the use of patient data to improve outcomes for patients: narcotics for chronic noncancer pain</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics &amp; Outcomes Research</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">epidemiology</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">outcome</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">statistics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009/04//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">171 - 179</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Randomized trials can provide important direction to clinical decision-making; however, their strength of inferences may be weakened by methodological limitations, the extent that their reported outcomes fail to address patient-important end points and by failing to report results that provide interpretable estimates of magnitude of effect. Strategies that investigators can use to address interpretability include reporting mean differences between groups in relation to the minimal important difference and reporting the proportion of patients who benefit from treatment and the associated number needed to treat. These strategies also apply to reporting pooled estimates from meta-analyses, even when studies use different instruments to measure the same construct. We illustrate these techniques using, as an example, current evidence for the use of opioids in chronic noncancer pain</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20090430 IS - 1744-8379 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't PT - Review RN - 0 (Narcotics) SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health &amp; function&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Santaguida,P.L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gross,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gagnier,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Walker,K.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bhandari,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Raina,P.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evidence report on complementary and alternative medicine in back pain utilization report. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 177.</style></title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chiropractic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">utilization</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009/02//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=hserta&part=A291755</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rockville, MD</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Objectives: This systematic review was undertaken to evaluate which complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies are being used for persons with back pain in the United States. Data Sources: MEDLINEr, EMBASEr, CINAHLr and Cochrane Centralr and a variety of CAM specific databases were searched from 1990 to November 2007. A grey literature search was also undertaken, particularly for clinical practice guidelines (CPG) related to CAM. Review Methods: Standard systematic review methodology was employed. Eligibility criteria included English studies of adults with back pain, and a predefined list of CAM therapies. Results: A total of 103 publications were evaluated; of these 29 did not present CAM therapy use stratified for back pain. There were a total of 65 utilization studies, 43 of which were American. Four publications evaluated the concurrent use of four or more CAM therapies and these suggest that chiropractic/manipulation is the most frequently used modality followed by massage and acupuncture. A limited number of publications evaluated utilization rates within multiple regions of the back and show that CAM was used least for treating the thoracic spine and most for the low back. However, rates of use of massage were similar for neck and lower back regions. Concurrent use of different CAM or conventional therapies was not well reported. From 11 eligible CPG, only one (for electro-acupuncture) provided recommendations for frequency of use for low back pain of all acuity levels. Eighteen cost publications were reviewed and all but one publication (cost-effectiveness) were cost identification studies. There is limited information on the impact of insurance coverage on costs and utilization specific to back pain. Conclusions: There are few studies evaluating the relative utilization of various CAM therapies for back pain. For those studies evaluating utilization of individual CAM therapies, the specific characteristics of the therapy, the providers, and the clinical presentation of the back pain patients were not adequately detailed; nor was the overlap with other CAM or conventional treatments&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;(Prepared by the McMaster University Evidence-based Practice Center,  under Contract No. 290-02-0020. AHRQ Publication No.09-E006)&lt;/p&gt;</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Open Access&lt;/p&gt;</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Novak,C.B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Anastakis,D.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beaton,D.E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Katz,J.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Patient-reported outcome after peripheral nerve injury</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Hand Surgery - American Volume</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">disability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health outcome measures</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">injuries</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">outcome</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">quality of life</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">upper extremity</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009/02//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">34</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">281 - 287</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PURPOSE: This study evaluated patient-reported outcome and the factors associated with disability after an upper extremity nerve injury. We hypothesized that patients at least 6 months after injury would report considerable disability and that pain would be the strongest predictor of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score. METHODS: After research ethics board approval, the medical charts of patients with these inclusion criteria were reviewed: adults; presenting to a nerve surgeon; 6 months or greater after nerve injury. Patients completed the DASH questionnaire and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) as a routine part of the initial evaluation. These data were reviewed retrospectively to determine predictors of the DASH score. RESULTS: There were 84 patients (mean age, 39 years; SD, 14 years) with brachial plexus (n=27) and peripheral nerve (n=57) injuries. The mean time after injury was 38 months (SD, 47). For all SF-36 domains, the mean values of the nerve-injured patients were significantly lower than the normative data, indicating a lower health status. The mean DASH score was 52 (SD, 22) of 100. Significantly more disability was associated with more SF-36 bodily pain and with brachial plexus injuries. In the final regression model, SF-36 bodily pain, age, and nerve injured were significant predictors of the DASH score. SF-36 bodily pain accounted for 35% of the variance. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial long-term disability (high DASH scores) was found in patients after nerve injury that was predicted by higher pain, older age, and brachial plexus injury. Further investigation of this pain and the associated factors may provide the opportunity for improved health-related quality of life. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic II</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20090202 IS - 1531-6564 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health &amp; function&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ferreira-Gonzalez,I.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Permanyer-Miralda,G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Devereaux,P.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guyatt,G.H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alonso-Coello,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Montori,V.M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Composite outcomes can distort the nature and magnitude of treatment benefits in clinical trials [letter to the editor]</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Annals of Internal Medicine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ann.Intern.Med.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health outcome measures</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.annals.org/content/150/8/566.3.long</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">150</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">566 - 567</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mansyur,C.L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Amick III,B.C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Harrist,R.B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Franzini,L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Roberts,R.E.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The cultural production of health inequalities: a cross-sectional, multilevel examination of 52 countries</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">International Journal of Health Services</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Int'l.J Health Serv</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">determinants of health</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">policy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">population health</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">psychosocial factors</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">socioeconomic factors</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">39</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">301 - 319</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In a 2001 report, the U.S. National Institutes of Health called for more integration of the social sciences into health-related research, including research guided by theories and methods that take social and cultural systems into consideration. Based on a theoretical framework that integrates Hofstede's cultural dimensions with sociological theory, the authors used multilevel modeling to explore the association of culture with structural inequality and health disparities. Their results support the idea that cultural dimensions and social structure, along with economic development, may account for much of the cross-national variation in the distribution of health inequalities. Sensitivity tests also suggest that an interaction between culture and social structure may confound the relationship between income inequality and health. It is necessary to identify important cultural and social structural characteristics before we can achieve an understanding of the complex, dynamic systems that affect health, and develop culturally sensitive interventions and policies. This study takes a step toward identifying some of the relevant cultural and structural influences. More research is needed to explore the pathways leading from the sociocultural environment to health inequalities</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health &amp; function&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Johnson,C.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Begley,C.E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Munseok,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Amick,B.C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evaluation of the Harris County Hospital district ask your nurse advice line</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Texas Public Health Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evaluation studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">61</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12 - 15</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kaur,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mollon,B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bhandari,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tornetta,P.,III</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Schunemann,H.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guyatt,G.H.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Low intensity pulsed ultrasonography for fractures: systematic review of randomised controlled trials</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">British Medical Journal</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BMJ</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evaluation studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">outcome</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/338/feb27_1/b351</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">338</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">b351</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of low intensity pulsed ultrasonography for healing of fractures. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Electronic literature search without language restrictions of CINAHL, Embase, Medline, HealthSTAR, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, from inception of the database to 10 September 2008. Review methods Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials that enrolled patients with any kind of fracture and randomly assigned them to low intensity pulsed ultrasonography or to a control group. Two reviewers independently agreed on eligibility; three reviewers independently assessed methodological quality and extracted outcome data. All outcomes were included and meta-analyses done when possible. RESULTS: 13 randomised trials, of which five assessed outcomes of importance to patients, were included. Moderate quality evidence from one trial found no effect of low intensity pulsed ultrasonography on functional recovery from conservatively managed fresh clavicle fractures; whereas low quality evidence from three trials suggests benefit in non-operatively managed fresh fractures (faster radiographic healing time mean 36.9%, 95% confidence interval 25.6% to 46.0%). A single trial provided moderate quality evidence suggesting no effect of low intensity pulsed ultrasonography on return to function among non-operatively treated stress fractures. Three trials provided very low quality evidence for accelerated functional improvement after distraction osteogenesis. One trial provided low quality evidence for a benefit of low intensity pulsed ultrasonography in accelerating healing of established non-unions managed with bone graft. Four trials provided low quality evidence for acceleration of healing of operatively managed fresh fractures. CONCLUSION: Evidence for the effect of low intensity pulsed ultrasonography on healing of fractures is moderate to very low in quality and provides conflicting results. Although overall results are promising, establishing the role of low intensity pulsed ultrasonography in the management of fractures requires large, blinded trials, directly addressing patient important outcomes such as return to function</style></abstract><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20090302 IS - 1468-5833 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Evaluation Studies PT - Journal Article PT - Meta-Analysis PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't PT - Review SB - AIM SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health &amp; function&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Montori,V.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Krasnik,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Patelis-Siotis,I.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guyatt,G.H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">=Medically Unexplained Syndromes Study Group</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Psychological intervention for premenstrual syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Psychother Psychosom</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">78</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6 - 15</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of psychological interventions for premenstrual syndrome. METHODS: We systematically searched and selected studies that enrolled women with premenstrual syndrome in which investigators randomly assigned them to a psychological intervention or to a control intervention. Trials were included irrespective of their outcomes and, when possible, we conducted meta-analyses. RESULTS: Nine randomized trials, of which 5 tested cognitive behavioural therapy, contributed data to the meta-analyses. Low quality evidence (design and implementation weaknesses of the studies, possible reporting bias) suggests that cognitive behavioural therapy significantly reduces both anxiety (effect size [ES] = -0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.15 to -0.01; number needed to treat [NNT] = 5), and depression (ES = -0.55; 95% CI = -1.05 to -0.05; NNT = 5), and also suggests a possible beneficial effect on behavioural changes (ES = -0.70; 95% CI = -1.29 to -0.10; NNT = 4) and interference of symptoms on daily living (ES = -0.78; 95% CI = -1.53 to -0.03; NNT = 4). Results provide much more limited support for monitoring as a form of therapy and suggest the ineffectiveness of education. CONCLUSIONS: Low quality evidence from randomized trials suggests that cognitive behavioural therapy may have important beneficial effects in managing symptoms associated with premenstrual syndrome. 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel</style></abstract><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Comondore,V.R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Devereaux,P.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Zhou,Q.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stone,S.B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ravindran,N.C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Burns,K.E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Haines,T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stringer,B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cook,D.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Walter,S.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sullivan,T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Berwanger,O.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bhandari,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Banglawala,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lavis,J.N.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Petrisor,B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Schunemann,H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Walsh,K.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bhatnagar,N.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guyatt,G.H.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Quality of care in for-profit and not-for-profit nursing homes: systematic review and meta-analysis</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">British Medical Journal</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BMJ</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">economics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">observational studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/aug04_2/b2732</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">339</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">b2732</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: To compare quality of care in for-profit and not-for-profit nursing homes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomised controlled trials investigating quality of care in for-profit versus not-for-profit nursing homes. RESULTS: A comprehensive search yielded 8827 citations, of which 956 were judged appropriate for full text review. Study characteristics and results of 82 articles that met inclusion criteria were summarised, and results for the four most frequently reported quality measures were pooled. Included studies reported results dating from 1965 to 2003. In 40 studies, all statistically significant comparisons (P&lt;0.05) favoured not-for-profit facilities; in three studies, all statistically significant comparisons favoured for-profit facilities, and the remaining studies had less consistent findings. Meta-analyses suggested that not-for-profit facilities delivered higher quality care than did for-profit facilities for two of the four most frequently reported quality measures: more or higher quality staffing (ratio of effect 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.14, P&lt;0.001) and lower pressure ulcer prevalence (odds ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.98, P=0.02). Non-significant results favouring not-for-profit homes were found for the two other most frequently used measures: physical restraint use (odds ratio 0.93, 0.82 to 1.05, P=0.25) and fewer deficiencies in governmental regulatory assessments (ratio of effect 0.90, 0.78 to 1.04, P=0.17). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence suggests that, on average, not-for-profit nursing homes deliver higher quality care than do for-profit nursing homes. Many factors may, however, influence this relation in the case of individual institutions</style></abstract><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20090805 IS - 1468-5833 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - AIM SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Raaij,T.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reijman,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verhaar,J.A.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Total knee arthroplasty after high tibial osteotomy. A systematic review</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cohort studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10:88</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND: Previous osteotomy may compromise subsequent knee replacement, but no guidelines considering knee arthroplasty after prior osteotomy have been developed. We describe a systematic review of non-randomized studies to analyze the effect of high tibial osteotomy on total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: A computerized search for relevant studies published up to September 2007 was performed in Medline and Embase using a search strategy that is highly sensitive to find nonrandomized studies. Included were observational studies in which patients had total knee arthroplasty performed after prior high tibial osteotomy. Studies that fulfilled these criteria, were assessed for methodologic quality by two independent reviewers using the critical appraisal of observational studies developed by Deeks and the MINORS instrument. The study characteristics and data on the intervention, follow-up, and outcome measures, were extracted using a pre-tested standardized form. Primary outcomes were: knee range of motion, knee clinical score, and revision surgery. The grade of evidence was determined using the guidelines of the GRADE working group. RESULTS: Of the 458 articles identified using our search strategy, 17 met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen studies were cohort study with a concurrent control group, one was a historical cohort study and one a case-control study. Nine studies scored 50% or more on both methodological quality assessments. Pooling of the results was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the studies, and our analysis could not raise the overall low quality of evidence. No significant differences between primary total knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty after osteotomy were found for knee range of motion in four out of six studies, knee clinical scores in eight out of nine studies, and revision surgery in eight out of eight studies after a median follow-up of 5 years. CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that osteotomy does not compromise subsequent knee replacement. However, the low quality of evidence precludes solid clinical conclusions</style></abstract><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20090805 IS - 1471-2474 Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Review SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wilson,K.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Campbell,J.B.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Attitudes towards vaccination among chiropractic and naturopathic students</style></title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vaccine</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">population health</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008/11/18/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18674581</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">26</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6237 - 6243</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">We have investigated the attitudes towards vaccination of undergraduate chiropractic and naturopathic students in the two major complementary and alternative medicine colleges in Canada. While the majority of the students were not averse to vaccination, we found in both colleges that anti-vaccination attitudes were more prevalent in the later years of the programs. Reasons for this are discussed, and we provide suggestions for strategies to address the situation</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">49</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20081110 IS - 0264-410X (Print) IS - 0264-410X (Linking) LA - eng PT - Historical Article PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mollon,B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">da Silva,V.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Einhorn,T.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bhandari,M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Electrical stimulation for long-bone fracture-healing: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Bone Joint Surg Am</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">injuries</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008/11//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18978400</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">90</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2322 - 2330</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND: Bone stimulation represents a $500 million market in the United States. The use of electromagnetic stimulation in the treatment of fractures is common; however, the efficacy of this modality remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effect of electromagnetic stimulation on long-bone fracture-healing. METHODS: We searched four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and all Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews) for trials of electromagnetic stimulation and bone repair, in any language, published from the inception of the database to April 2008. In addition, we searched by hand seven relevant journals published between 1980 and April 2008 and the bibliographies of eligible trials. Eligible trials enrolled patients with long-bone lesions, randomly assigned them to electromagnetic stimulation or a control group, and reported on bone-healing. Information on the methodological quality, stimulation device, duration of treatment, patient demographics, and all clinical outcomes were independently extracted by two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 2546 citations obtained in the literature search, eleven articles met the inclusion criteria. Evidence from four trials reporting on 106 delayed or ununited fractures demonstrated an overall nonsignificant pooled relative risk of 1.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.8 to 3.8; p = 0.15; I(2) = 60.4%) in favor of electromagnetic stimulation. Single studies found a positive benefit of electromagnetic stimulation on callus formation in femoral intertrochanteric osteotomies, a limited benefit for conservatively managed Colles fracture or for lower limb-lengthening, and no benefit on limb-length imbalance and need for reoperation in surgically managed pseudarthroses or on time to clinical healing in tibial stress fractures. Pain was reduced in one of the four trials assessing this outcome. CONCLUSIONS: While our pooled analysis does not show a significant impact of electromagnetic stimulation on delayed unions or ununited long-bone fractures, methodological limitations and high between-study heterogeneity leave the impact of electromagnetic stimulation on fracture-healing uncertain</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20081103 IS - 1535-1386 (Electronic) IS - 0021-9355 (Linking) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Meta-Analysis PT - Randomized Controlled Trial SB - AIM SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Morton,E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lacchetti,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guyatt,G.H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bhandari,M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Current management of tibial shaft fractures: a survey of 450 Canadian orthopedic trauma surgeons</style></title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Acta Orthop</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">injuries</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008/10//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18839377</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">79</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">689 - 694</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Strategies to manage tibial fractures include nonoperative and operative approaches. Strategies to enhance healing include a variety of bone stimulators. It is not known what forms of management for tibial fractures predominate among Canadian orthopedic surgeons. We therefore asked a representative sample of orthopedic trauma surgeons about their management of tibial fracture patients. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of 450 Canadian orthopedic trauma surgeons. We inquired about demographic variables and current tibial shaft fracture management strategies. RESULTS: 268 surgeons completed the survey, a response rate of 60%. Most respondents (80%) managed closed tibial shaft fracture operatively; 47% preferred reamed intramedullary nailing and 40% preferred unreamed. For open tibial shaft fractures, 59% of surgeons preferred reamed intramedullary nailing. Some surgeons (16%) reported use of bone stimulators for management of uncomplicated open and closed tibial shaft fractures, and almost half (45%) made use of this adjunctive modality for complicated tibial shaft fractures. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound and electrical stimulation proved equally popular (21% each) and 80% of respondents felt that a reduction in healing time of 6 weeks or more, attributed to a bone stimulator, would be clinically important. INTERPRETATION: Current practice regarding orthopedic management of tibial shaft fractures in Canada strongly favors operative treatment with intramedullary nailing, although respondents were divided in their preference for reamed and unreamed nailing. Use of bone stimulators is common as an adjunctive modality in this injury population. Large randomized trials are needed to provide better evidence to guide clinical decision making regarding the choice of reamed or unreamed nailing for tibial shaft fractures, and to inform surgeons about the actual effect of bone stimulators</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20081007 IS - 1745-3682 (Electronic) IS - 1745-3674 (Linking) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bogoch,E.R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Elliot-Gibson,V.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Escott,B.G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beaton,D.E.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Osteoporosis needs of patients with wrist fracture</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">injuries</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">risk factors</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">upper extremity</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008/09//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18753893</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">22</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">S73 - S78</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVES: To provide information for practitioners regarding the osteoporosis (OP)-related needs of patients who present with low-trauma wrist fractures and are at high risk of subsequent hip fracture. DESIGN: Prospective protocol, retrospective analysis. SETTING: Large urban teaching hospital, regional trauma center. PATIENTS: All outpatients (women &gt; or =40 years; men &gt; or =50 years) who sustained fragility fractures of the wrist between December 1, 2002 and June 30, 2005. INTERVENTION: Patients were evaluated by a coordinator and recruited to an OP program for education, diagnosis, and treatment. Patient demographic data were collected. A baseline questionnaire included fracture and OP risk history, sociodemographics, Osteoporosis Health Beliefs Scale, and Osteoporosis Self-Efficacy Scale. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fracture history, OP risk factors, attitudes, and beliefs. RESULTS: Of 339 patients with wrist fractures, 286 had fragility fractures (mean age 64.8 years; 82% female) and met the age criteria. Seventeen percent of men and 36% of women with fragility wrist fractures had been previously diagnosed with OP or osteopenia; nearly all of them had been prescribed supplements, and two thirds had received aminobisphosphonate treatment for OP. Half of the patients had one or more risk factors for OP. Most patients were aware of OP, but few felt their fracture could result from OP. Bone densitometry completed on 55 patients in the first year indicated OP or osteopenia in 43 of 55 patients. Patients' health beliefs underestimated the seriousness of OP. Every patient with a fragility fracture of the wrist should understand that: (1) their fracture may be related to OP; (2) by having a fragility fracture, they are at higher risk for hip fracture; and (3) preventive treatment is effective and safe. Information should be partly gender specific. Patients who believe that weak bones didn't cause their fracture require additional attention to motivate them to undergo special treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention by the orthopaedic team to address potential underlying OP in patients with low-trauma wrist fractures should include directed patient education, testing, treatment with supplements and pharmacotherapy where indicated, and referral as needed</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8 Suppl</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lodha,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Whyte,H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Moore,A.M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of catheter-associated bloodstream bacterial infection in preterm neonates: a systematic review</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Perinatology</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">prevention</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008/08//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">28</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">526 - 533</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in preventing infection associated with central venous catheters in preterm neonates. STUDY DESIGN: The search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used. The following databases were searched: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL and EMBASE. In addition, we hand-searched abstracts of Pediatric Academic Societies annual meetings published in Pediatric Research (1990 to July 2007) and Canadian Pediatric Society annual meeting proceedings (1990 to July 2007). No language restrictions were applied. Included were randomized controlled trials of antibiotics given prophylactically to prevent infection in preterm infants (&lt;37 completed weeks) less than 1-month old admitted to neonatal intensive care units. Both centrally or peripherally inserted central venous catheters were included. Assessment of methodological quality and extraction of data for included trials was undertaken independently by two authors. When suitable, data from trials were combined in a meta-analysis. RESULT: A total of three studies were found which addressed the role of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent catheter-related infection in neonates. Two studies used vancomycin as the prophylactic antibiotic and one study used amoxicillin. The meta-analysis of studies that used vancomycin had shown an absolute risk reduction of infection from 23 to 2.4%, which yields a number needed to treat equal to 5 (P=0.0001). Total duration of catheter stay and mortality, were both similar in the vancomycin and control groups. In the amoxicillin study, catheter-related sepsis was not significantly different between the treatment and control groups (P=0.40). The rate of colonization, however, was significantly higher in the control group (relative risk 0.48; 95% CI 0.12, 1.35). The incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis, intracranial hemorrhage, thrombosis and deaths were not statistically significant between groups. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic vancomycin appeared to be effective in preventing catheter-related sepsis in preterm neonates. The potential risks, however, of the emergence of resistance because of prophylactic antibiotics, and their continued effectiveness, need further evaluation, before routine use can be recommended</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20080731 IS - 1476-5543 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Meta-Analysis PT - Review SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ammendolia,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Taylor,J.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pennick,V.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cote,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hogg-Johnson,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Adherence to radiography guidelines for low back pain: a survey of chiropractic schools worldwide</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Manipulative Physiol Ther</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chiropractic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">guidelines</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008/07//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">31</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">412 - 418</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: This study describes instruction provided at chiropractic schools worldwide on the use of spine radiography and compares instruction with evidence-based guidelines for low back pain. METHODS: Individuals responsible for radiology instruction at accredited chiropractic schools throughout the world were contacted and invited to participate in a Web-based survey. The survey included questions on the role of conventional radiography in chiropractic practice and instruction given to students for its use in patients with acute low back pain. RESULTS: Of the 33 chiropractic schools identified worldwide, 32 (97%) participated in the survey. Consistent with the guidelines, 25 (78%) respondents disagreed that &quot;routine radiography should be used prior to spinal manipulative therapy,&quot; 29 (91%) disagreed that there &quot;was a role for full spine radiography for assessing patients with low back pain,&quot; and 29 (91%) disagreed that &quot;oblique views should be part of a standard radiographic series for low back pain.&quot; However, only 14 (44%) respondents concurred with the guidelines and disagreed with the statement that there &quot;is a role for radiography in acute low back pain in the absence of 'red flags' for serious disease.&quot; CONCLUSIONS: This survey suggests that many aspects of radiology instruction provided by accredited chiropractic schools appear to be evidence based. However, there appears to be a disparity between some schools and existing evidence with respect to the role of radiography for patients with acute low back pain without &quot;red flags&quot; for serious disease. This may contribute to chiropractic overutilization of radiography for low back pain</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20080825 IS - 1532-6586 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Targino,R.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Imamura,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kaziyama,H.H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Souza,L.P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hsing,W.T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Imamura,S.T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Azevedo Neto,R.S.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Randomized controlled trial of acupuncture added to usual treatment for fibromyalgia</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008/07//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18758677</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">40</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">582 - 588</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture for fibromyalgia. METHODS: Fifty-eight women with fibromyalgia were allocated randomly to receive either acupuncture together with tricyclic antidepressants and exercise (n=34), or tricyclic antidepressants and exercise only (n=24). Patients rated their pain on a visual analogue scale. A blinded assessor evaluated both the mean pressure pain threshold value over all 18 fibromyalgia points and quality of life using SF-36. RESULTS: At the end of 20 sessions, patients who received acupuncture were significantly better than the control group in all measures of pain and in 5 of the SF-36 subscales. After 6 months, the acupuncture group was significantly better than the control group in numbers of tender points, mean pressure pain threshold at the 18 tender points and 3 subscales of SF-36. After one year, the acupuncture group showed significance in one subscale of the SF-36; at 2 years there were no significant differences in any outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Addition of acupuncture to usual treatments for fibromyalgia may be beneficial for pain and quality of life for 3 months after the end of treatment. Future research is needed to evaluate the specific effects of acupuncture for fibromyalgia</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20080901 IS - 1650-1977 (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Randomized Controlled Trial RN - 0 (Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic) SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pennick,V.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cochrane back review group</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">neck pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008/06//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18516232 ; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2391021/?tool=pubmed</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">52</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">124 - 126</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20080602 IS - 0008-3194 (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reid,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Leznoff,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Barsky,A.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Qureshi,R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guyatt,G.H.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Managing environmental sensitivity: an overview illustrated with a case report</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Can Chiropr Assoc</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">psychosocial factors</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008/06//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=2009947600&site=ehost-live;Publisher URL: www.cinahl.com/cgi-bin/refsvc?jid=1297&accno=2009947600</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">52</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">88 - 95</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">While the adverse impact of certain environmental agents is well established and affect individuals in a predictable dose-dependent manner, the validity of some exposure syndromes, such as environmental sensitivity, attributed to the influence of environmental chemicals in low, usually harmless doses, is less certain. Diagnosis of environmental sensitivity is subjective, and both standard medical and complementary and alternative treatment often fails to provide clinically meaningful functional gains. Existing evidence suggests that in many individuals with these syndromes, psychosocial factors play a prominent role. In this article we present an approach to managing patients presenting with sensitivities to environmental agents that includes identifying and managing organic disease, obtaining a thorough biopsychosocial history, confirming a diagnosis, and developing a rehabilitative process that focuses on support and improvements in function. A case of multiple chemical sensitivity illustrates this approach</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Accession Number: 2009947600. Language: English. Entry Date: 20080725. Publication Type: journal article; case study; tables/charts. Journal Subset: Alternative/Complementary Therapies; Canada; Double Blind Peer Reviewed; Editorial Board Reviewed; Expert Peer Reviewed; Peer Reviewed. Special Interest: Chiropractic Care. No. of Refs: 65 ref. NLM UID: 8009545</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Johnston,B.C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">da Costa,B.R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Devereaux,P.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Akl,E.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The use of expertise-based randomized controlled trials to assess spinal manipulation and acupuncture for low back pain: a systematic review</style></title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine (Phila Pa 1976)</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chiropractic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evaluation studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008/04/15/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18404113</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">33</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">914 - 918</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To assess current use of expertise-based randomization in trials of acupuncture or spinal manipulation for low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The randomized clinical trial is often referred to as the gold standard for providing evidence to guide therapeutic decisions. Random allocation of participants to intervention and control groups theoretically should balance these groups for both known and unknown prognostic factors; however, when randomizing patients to competing interventions in which the clinician's skill is a central aspect of the intervention, (e.g., surgery, chiropractic, rehabilitation) a differential expertise bias may exist if a majority of clinicians participating have greater expertise in 1 of the 2 interventions under evaluation. Randomizing patients to therapists experienced in the interventions under investigation can overcome this bias. METHODS: We systematically identified relevant randomized controlled trials published up to December 2005. Two independent reviewers extracted data in duplicate using a standardized form. RESULTS: Of 12 eligible trials, none made use of an expertise-based randomized trial design. CONCLUSION: Investigators designing acupuncture or spinal manipulation trials in which 2 or more active therapies are compared should consider expertise-based randomization to increase the validity and feasibility of their efforts</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20080411 IS - 1528-1159 (Electronic) IS - 0362-2436 (Linking) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't PT - Review SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bassler,D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guyatt,G.H.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evaluating the evidence for assessing BNP and NT-proBNP levels</style></title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Clin Biochem.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">measurement</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">prognosis</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008/03//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17949704</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">41</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">227 - 230</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of 5 systematic reviews in this issue of Clinical Biochemistry addressing the diagnostic and prognostic power of natriuretic peptides. DESIGN AND METHODS: Editorial. RESULTS: Limited quality of the primary studies and the large variability in their results limit the inferences that can be drawn from reviews in this series. CONCLUSIONS: The current data justify neither enthusiastic use, nor confident rejection, of BNP and NT-proBNP levels to inform the prognosis or diagnosis of heart failure</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4-5</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20080218 IS - 0009-9120 (Print) IS - 0009-9120 (Linking) LA - eng PT - Editorial PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't RN - 0 (Biological Markers) RN - 0 (Peptide Fragments) RN - 0 (pro-brain natriuretic peptide (1-76)) RN - 114471-18-0 (Natriuretic Peptide, Brain) SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guzman,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Haldeman,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carroll,L.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carragee,E.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hurwitz,E.L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Peloso,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nordin,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cassidy,J.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Holm,L.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cote,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van der Velde,G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hogg-Johnson,S.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Clinical practice implications of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders: from concepts and findings to recommendations</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">neck pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008/02/15/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18204393</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">33</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">S199 - S213</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDY DESIGN: Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance to primary care clinicians about how to best assess and treat patients with neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a need to translate the results of clinical and epidemiologic studies into meaningful and practical information for clinicians. METHODS: Based on best evidence syntheses of published studies on the risk, prognosis, assessment, and management of people with neck pain and its associated disorders, plus additional research projects and focused literature reviews reported in this supplement, the 12-member multidisciplinary Scientific Secretariat of the Neck Pain Task Force followed a 4-step approach to develop practical guidance for clinicians. RESULTS: The Neck Pain Task Force recommends that people seeking care for neck pain should be triaged into 4 groups: Grade I neck pain with no signs of major pathology and no or little interference with daily activities; Grade II neck pain with no signs of major pathology, but interference with daily activities; Grade III neck pain with neurologic signs of nerve compression; Grade IV neck pain with signs of major pathology. In the emergency room after blunt trauma to the neck, triage should be based on the NEXUS criteria or the Canadian C-spine rule. Those with a high risk of fracture should be further investigated with plain radiographs and/or CT-scan. In ambulatory primary care, triage should be based on history and physical examination alone, including screening for red flags and neurologic examination for signs of radiculopathy. Exercises and mobilization have been shown to provide some degree of short-term relief of Grade I or Grade II neck pain after a motor vehicle collision. Exercises, mobilization, manipulation, analgesics, acupuncture, and low-level laser have been shown to provide some degree of short-term relief of Grade I or Grade II neck pain without trauma. Those with confirmed Grade III and severe persistent radicular symptoms might benefit from corticosteroid injections or surgery. Those with confirmed Grade IV neck pain require management specific to the diagnosed pathology. CONCLUSION: The best available evidence suggests initial assessment for neck pain should focus on triage into 4 grades, and those with common neck pain (Grade I and Grade II) might be offered the listed noninvasive treatments if short-term relief is desired</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4 Suppl</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20080121 IS - 1528-1159 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't PT - Review RN - 0 (Analgesics) SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van der Velde,G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hogg-Johnson,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bayoumi,A.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cassidy,J.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cote,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Boyle,E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Llewellyn-Thomas,H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Chan,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Subrata,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hoving,J.L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hurwitz,E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Krahn,M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Identifying the best treatment among common nonsurgical neck pain treatments: a decision analysis</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">neck pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008/02/15/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18204391</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">33</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">S184 - S191</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDY DESIGN: Decision analysis. OBJECTIVE: To identify the best treatment for nonspecific neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In Canada and the United States, the most commonly prescribed neck pain treatments are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), exercise, and manual therapy. Deciding which treatment is best is difficult because of the trade-offs between beneficial and harmful effects, and because of the uncertainty of these effects. METHODS: (Quality-adjusted) life expectancy associated with standard NSAIDs, Cox-2 NSAIDs, exercise, mobilization, and manipulation were compared in a decision-analytic model. Estimates of the course of neck pain, background risk of adverse events in the general population, treatment effectiveness and risk, and patient-preferences were input into the model. Assuming equal effectiveness, we conducted a baseline analysis using risk of harm only. We assessed the stability of the baseline results by conducting a second analysis that incorporated effectiveness data from a high-quality randomized trial. RESULTS: There were no important differences across treatments. The difference between the highest and lowest ranked treatments predicted by the baseline model was 4.5 days of life expectancy and 3.4 quality-adjusted life-days. The difference between the highest and lowest ranked treatments predicted by the second model was 7.3 quality-adjusted life-days. CONCLUSION: When the objective is to maximize life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy, none of the treatments in our analysis were clearly superior</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4 Suppl</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20080121 IS - 1528-1159 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Comparative Study PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't RN - 0 (Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal) SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guzman,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hurwitz,E.L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carroll,L.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Haldeman,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cote,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carragee,E.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Peloso,P.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van der Velde,G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Holm,L.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hogg-Johnson,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nordin,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cassidy,J.D.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">New conceptual model of neck pain: linking onset, course, and care: The Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">epidemiology</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">neck pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008/02/15/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">33</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">S14 - S23</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Study Design. Iterative discussion and consensus by a multidisciplinary task force scientific secretariat reviewing scientific evidence on neck pain and its associated disorders., Objective. To provide an integrated model for linking the epidemiology of neck pain with its management and consequences, and to help organize and interpret existing knowledge, and to highlight gaps in the current literature., Summary of Background Data. The wide variability of scientific and clinical approaches to neck pain described in the literature requires a unified conceptual model for appropriate interpretation of the research evidence., Methods. The 12-member Scientific Secretariat of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders critically reviewed and eventually accepted as scientifically admissible a total of 552 scientific papers. The group met face-to-face on 18 occasions and had frequent additional telephone conference meetings over a 6-year period to discuss and interpret this literature and to agree on a conceptual model, which would accommodate findings. Models and definitions published in the scientific literature were discussed and repeatedly modified until the model and case definitions presented here were finally approved by the group., Results. Our new conceptual model is centered on the person with neck pain or who is at risk for neck pain. Neck pain is viewed as an episodic occurrence over a lifetime with variable recovery between episodes. The model outlines the options available to individuals who are dealing with neck pain, along with factors that determine options, choices, and consequences. The short- and long-term impacts of neck pain are also considered. Finally, the model includes a 5-axis classification of neck pain studies based on how subjects were recruited into each study., Conclusion. The Scientific Secretariat found the conceptual model helpful in interpreting the available scientific evidence. We believe it can assist people with neck pain, researchers, clinicians, and policy makers in framing their questions and decisions., (C) 2008 Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4S</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DB - Journals@Ovid AN - 00007632-200802151-00006 IN - From the *Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Canada; Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare in BC, Canada; +Department of Public Health Sciences, John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii at Mnoa, HI; ++Department of Public Health Sciences, and the Alberta Centre for Injury Control and Research, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Canada; [S]Department of Neurology, University of California, Irvine, CA; [P]Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA; [//]Departments of Public Health Sciences and Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Canada; Division of Health Care and Outcomes Research, Toronto Western Research Institute, Toronto, Canada; Institute for Work &amp; Health, Toronto, Canada; **Centre of Research Expertise in Improved Disability Outcomes (CREIDO), University Health Network Rehabilitation Solutions, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Canada; ++Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, CA; ++++Orthopaedic Spine Center and Spinal Surgery Service, Stanford University Hospital and Clinics, CA; [S][S]Endocrinology, Analgesia and Inflammation, Merck &amp; Co. Rahway, NJ; [P][P]Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; [//][//]Institute for Work &amp; Health, Toronto, Canada; ***Centre of Research Expertise in Improved Disability Outcomes (CREIDO), University Health Network Rehabilitation Solutions, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Canada; +++Division of Health Care and Outcomes Research, Toronto Western Research Institute, Toronto, Canada; ++++++Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden; [S][S][S]Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, Canada; Institute for Work and Health, Toronto, Canada; ****Departments of Orthopaedics and Environmental Medicine and Program of Ergonomics and Biomechanics, School of Medicine and Graduate School of Arts and Science, New York University, New York NY; and ++++Occupational and Industrial Orthopaedic Center (OIOC), New York University Medical Center, New York</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health &amp; function&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carragee,E.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hurwitz,E.L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cheng,I.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carroll,L.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nordin,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guzman,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Peloso,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Holm,L.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cote,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hogg-Johnson,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van der Velde,G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cassidy,J.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Haldeman,S.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Treatment of neck pain: injections and surgical interventions: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">neck pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">outcome</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008/02/15/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18204388</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">33</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">S153 - S169</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDY DESIGN: Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: To identify, critically appraise, and synthesize literature from 1980 through 2006 on surgical interventions for neck pain alone or with radicular pain in the absence of serious pathologic disease. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There have been no comprehensive systematic literature or evidence-based reviews published on this topic. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline for literature published from 1980 to 2006 on percutaneous and open surgical interventions for neck pain. Publications on the topic were also solicited from experts in the field. Consensus decisions were made about the scientific merit of each article; those judged to have adequate internal validity were included in our Best Evidence Synthesis. RESULTS: Of the 31,878 articles screened, 1203 studies were relevant to the Neck Pain Task Force mandate and of these, 31 regarding treatment by surgery or injections were accepted as scientifically admissible. Radiofrequency neurotomy, cervical facet injections, cervical fusion and cervical arthroplasty for neck pain without radiculopathy are not supported by current evidence. We found there is support for short-term symptomatic improvement of radicular symptoms with epidural corticosteroids. It is not clear from the evidence that long-term outcomes are improved with the surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy compared to nonoperative measures. However, relatively rapid and substantial symptomatic relief after surgical treatment seems to be reliably achieved. It is not evident that one open surgical technique is clearly superior to others for radiculopathy. Cervical foramenal or epidural injections are associated with relatively frequent minor adverse events (5%-20%); however, serious adverse events are very uncommon (&lt;1%). After open surgical procedures on the cervical spine, potentially serious acute complications are seen in approximately 4% of patients. CONCLUSION: Surgical treatment and limited injection procedures for cervical radicular symptoms may be reasonably considered in patients with severe impairments. Percutaneous and open surgical treatment for neck pain alone, without radicular symptoms or clear serious pathology, seems to lack scientific support</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4 Suppl</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20080121 IS - 1528-1159 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't PT - Review RN - 0 (Anesthetics, Local) RN - 0 (Steroids) SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Buchbinder,R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gross,D.P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Werner,E.L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hayden,J.A.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Understanding the characteristics of effective mass media campaigns for back pain and methodological challenges in evaluating their effects</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">social marketing</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008/01/01/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">33</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">74 - 80</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDY DESIGN: Workshop at the Low Back Pain Forum VIII: Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain held in Amsterdam in June 2006. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the workshop was to 1) describe and compare characteristics and outcomes of back pain media campaigns that have taken place internationally; 2) examine general theories of health behavior change from the mass media literature to determine whether it is possible to develop a theoretical framework to explain the observed outcomes; 3) describe the outcome of discussion and expert consensus around lessons learned from these campaigns that may inform the planning and evaluation of future campaigns; and 4) identify priorities for future research. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Mass media campaigns designed to alter societal views about back pain have now been performed in several countries. Although these types of campaigns are an established strategy for delivering preventive health messages, there is limited empirical understanding of the characteristics of effective (or ineffective) health campaigns. METHODS: We reviewed the content and outcome of back pain mass media campaigns conducted in Australia, Norway, and Canada using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group data collection checklist. We also reviewed models of health behavior change that could be used to guide the design, planning, and evaluation of future campaigns. The draft article was reviewed by a group of international back pain experts before forming the basis for discussion at the workshop. Expert comments and those of workshop participants were synthesized and incorporated into the final manuscript. RESULTS: The outcome of discussion and expert consensus around lessons learned from these campaigns are described. CONCLUSION: Our article may help to inform the planning and evaluation of future campaigns and identify priorities for future research</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20071231 IS - 1528-1159 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/regulation-incentives&quot;&gt;regulation and incentives&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Imamura,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dryden,T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Irvin,E.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with massage</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008/01//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18164460</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">121 - 133</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven to be very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing amongst available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to CLBP, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue of The Spine Journal, titled Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain without surgery. Articles in this special focus issue were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20071231 IS - 1529-9430 (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Review SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ammendolia,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Imamura,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Irvin,E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Tulder,M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with needle acupuncture</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">guidelines</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008/01//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18164464</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">160 - 172</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven to be very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing among available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to CLBP, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue to The Spine Journal, titled Evidence-Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this special focus issue were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20071231 IS - 1529-9430 (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Review SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kulkarni,A.V.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Badwall,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guyatt,G.H.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Attitudes towards fibromyalgia: a survey of Canadian chiropractic, naturopathic, physical therapy and occupational therapy students</style></title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BMC Complement Altern.Med</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chiropractic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">recovery of function</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18513441</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">24</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND: The frequent use of chiropractic, naturopathic, and physical and occupational therapy by patients with fibromyalgia has been emphasized repeatedly, but little is known about the attitudes of these therapists towards this challenging condition. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional survey to 385 senior Canadian chiropractic, naturopathic, physical and occupational therapy students in their final year of studies, that inquired about attitudes towards the diagnosis and management of fibromyalgia. RESULTS: 336 students completed the survey (response rate 87%). While they disagreed about the etiology (primarily psychological 28%, physiological 23%, psychological and physiological 15%, unsure 34%), the majority (58%) reported that fibromyalgia was difficult to manage. Respondants were also conflicted in whether treatment should prioritize symptom relief (65%) or functional gains (85%), with the majority (58%) wanting to do both. The majority of respondents (57%) agreed that there was effective treatment for fibromyalgia and that they possessed the required clinical skills to manage patients (55%). Chiropractic students were most skeptical in regards to fibromyalgia as a useful diagnostic entity, and most likely to endorse a psychological etiology. In our regression model, only training in naturopathic medicine (unstandardized regression coefficient = 0.33; 95% confidence interval = 0.11 to 0.56) and the belief that effective therapies existed (unstandardized regression coefficient = 0.42; 95% confidence interval = 0.30 to 0.54) were associated with greater confidence in managing patients with fibromyalgia. CONCLUSION: The majority of senior Canadian chiropractic, naturopathic, physical and occupational therapy students, and in particular those with naturopathic training, believe that effective treatment for fibromyalgia exists and that they possess the clinical skillset to effectively manage this disorder. The majority place high priority on both symptom relief and functional gains when treating fibromyalgia</style></abstract><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20080611 IS - 1472-6882 (Electronic) IS - 1472-6882 (Linking) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bassler,D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Karanicolas,P.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guyatt,G.H.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evidence-based medicine targets the individual patient. Part 1: how clinicians can use study results to determine optimal individual care. [editorial]</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evid Based Med</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18667659</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">13</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">101 - 102</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">reprinted from APC Journal Club</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bassler,D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Busse,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Karanicolas,P.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guyatt,G.H.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evidence-based medicine targets the individual patient. Part 2: Guides and tools for individual decision-making. [editorial]</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ACP Journal Club</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18836101</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">13</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">130 - 131</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reprinted from APC Journal Club</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Yousefi-Nooraie,R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Schonstein,E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heidari,K.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rashidian,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pennick,V.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Akbari-Kamrani,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Irani,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Shakiba,B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mortaz,Hejri S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mortaz,Hejri S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jonaidi,A.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Low level laser therapy for nonspecific low-back pain</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CD005107</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND: Low-back pain (LBP) is a major health problem and a major cause of medical expenses and disablement. Low level laser therapy (LLLT) can be used to treat musculoskeletal disorders such as back pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of LLLT in patients with non-specific LBP. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 2), MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, AMED and PEDro from their start to November 2007 with no language restrictions. We screened references in the included studies and in reviews and conducted citation tracking of identified RCTs and reviews using Science Citation Index. We also contacted content experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) investigating LLLT to treat non-specific low-back pain were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed methodological quality using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group and extracted data. Studies were qualitatively and quantitatively analysed according to Cochrane Back Review Group guideline. MAIN RESULTS: Seven heterogeneous English language RCTs with reasonable quality were included.Three small studies (168 people) separately showed statistically significant but clinically unimportant pain relief for LLLT versus sham therapy for sub-acute and chronic low-back pain at short-term and intermediate-term follow-up (up to six months). One study (56 people) showed that LLLT was more effective than sham at reducing disability in the short term. Three studies (102 people) reported that LLLT plus exercise were not better than exercise, with or without sham in the short-term in reducing pain or disability. Two studies (90 people) reported that LLLT was not more effective than exercise, with or without sham in reducing pain or disability in the short term.Two small trials (151 people) independently found that the relapse rate in the LLLT group was significantly lower than in the control group at the six-month follow-up.No side effects were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the heterogeneity of the populations, interventions and comparison groups, we conclude that there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusions on the clinical effect of LLLT for low-back pain.There is a need for further methodologically rigorous RCTs to evaluate the effects of LLLT compared to other treatments, different lengths of treatment, wavelengths and dosages</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20080421 IS - 1469-493X (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hurwitz,E.L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carragee,E.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van der Velde,G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carroll,L.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nordin,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guzman,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Peloso,P.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Holm,L.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cote,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hogg-Johnson,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cassidy,J.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Haldeman,S.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Treatment of neck pain: noninvasive interventions: Results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">neck pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">whiplash injuries</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">33</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">S123 - S152</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">0362-2436</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDY DESIGN. Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE. To identify, critically appraise, and synthesize literature from 1980 through 2006 on noninvasive interventions for neck pain and its associated disorders. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. No comprehensive systematic literature reviews have been published on interventions for neck pain and its associated disorders in the past decade. METHODS. We systematically searched Medline and screened for relevance literature published from 1980 through 2006 on the use, effectiveness, and safety of noninvasive interventions for neck pain and associated disorders. Consensus decisions were made about the scientific merit of each article; those judged to have adequate internal validity were included in our best evidence synthesis. RESULTS. Of the 359 invasive and noninvasive intervention articles deemed relevant, 170 (47%) were accepted as scientifically admissible, and 139 of these related to noninvasive interventions (including health care utilization, costs, and safety). For whiplash-associated disorders, there is evidence that educational videos, mobilization, and exercises appear more beneficial than usual care or physical modalities. For other neck pain, the evidence suggests that manual and supervised exercise interventions, low-level laser therapy, and perhaps acupuncture are more effective than no treatment, sham, or alternative interventions; however, none of the active treatments was clearly superior to any other in either the short- or long-term. For both whiplash-associated disorders and other neck pain without radicular symptoms, interventions that focused on regaining function as soon as possible are relatively more effective than interventions that do not have such a focus. CONCLUSION. Our best evidence synthesis suggests that therapies involving manual therapy and exercise are more effective than alternative strategies for patients with neck pain; this was also true of therapies which include educational interventions addressing self-efficacy. Future efforts should focus on the study of noninvasive interventions for patients with radicular symptoms and on the design and evaluation of neck pain prevention strategies. copyright 2008 Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4 S SUPPL.</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DB - EMBASE UI - 2008045608 IN - (Hurwitz) Department of Public Health Sciences, John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Honolulu, HI, United States. (Carragee) Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine. (Carragee) Orthopaedic Spine Center, Spinal Surgery Service, Stanford University Hospital and Clinics. Stanford, CA, United States. (Van Der Velde) Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto. (Van Der Velde, Cote, Hogg-Johnson) Institute for Work and Health. (Van Der Velde, Cote, Cassidy) Centre of Research Excellence in Improved Disability Outcomes (CREIDO), University Health Network Rehabilitation Solutions, Toronto Western Hospital. (Van Der Velde, Cote, Cassidy) Division of Health Care and Outcomes Research, Toronto Western Research Institute. Toronto, ON, Canada. (Carroll) Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Alberta. AB, Canada. (Nordin) Department of Orthopaedics and Environmental Medicine, Graduate School of Arts and Science, New York University. (Nordin) Occupational and Industrial Orthopaedic Center (OIOC), New York University Medical Center. New York, NY, United States. (Guzman) Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, BC, Canada. (Guzman) Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare in British Columbia. Canada. (Peloso) Endocrinology, Analgesia and Inflammation, Merck and Co.. Rahway, NJ, United States. (Holm) Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet. Stockholm, Sweden. (Cote, Cassidy) Departments of Public Health Sciences and Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto. (Hogg-Johnson) Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto. Canada. (Haldeman) Department of Neurology, University of California. Irvine, CA, United States. (Haldeman) Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California. Los Angeles, CA, United States. (Hurwitz) Department of Public Health Sciences, John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii at Manoa. 1960 East-West Road, Honolulu, HI 96822, United States CP - United States LG - English PT - Journal: Article EM - 200806</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Keller,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hayden,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Tulder,M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Effect sizes of non-surgical treatments of non-specific low-back pain</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">European Spine Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">rehabilitation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007/11//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17619914</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">16</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1776 - 1788</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Numerous randomized trials have been published investigating the effectiveness of treatments for non-specific low-back pain (LBP) either by trials comparing interventions with a no-treatment group or comparing different interventions. In trials comparing two interventions, often no differences are found and it raises questions about the basic benefit of each treatment. To estimate the effect sizes of treatments for non-specific LBP compared to no-treatment comparison groups, we searched for randomized controlled trials from systematic reviews of treatment of non-specific LBP in the latest issue of the Cochrane Library, issue 2, 2005 and available databases until December 2005. Extracted data were effect sizes estimated as Standardized Mean Differences (SMD) and Relative Risk (RR) or data enabling calculation of effect sizes. For acute LBP, the effect size of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and manipulation were only modest (ES: 0.51 and 0.40, respectively) and there was no effect of exercise (ES: 0.07). For chronic LBP, acupuncture, behavioral therapy, exercise therapy, and NSAIDs had the largest effect sizes (SMD: 0.61, 0.57, and 0.52, and RR: 0.61, respectively), all with only a modest effect. Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation and manipulation had small effect sizes (SMD: 0.22 and 0.35, respectively). As a conclusion, the effect of treatments for LBP is only small to moderate. Therefore, there is a dire need for developing more effective interventions</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20071109 IS - 0940-6719 (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Meta-Analysis SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health &amp; function&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ammendolia,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cote,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hogg-Johnson,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Do chiropractors adhere to guidelines for back radiographs? A study of chiropractic teaching clinics in Canada</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chiropractic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">guidelines</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">utilization</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007/10/15/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18090093</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">32</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2509 - 2514</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDY DESIGN: Clinical cohort. OBJECTIVES: To measure the adherence to 3 radiography guidelines for low back pain in chiropractic teaching clinics. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Evidence-based guidelines for low back pain suggest that plain radiography should be restricted to patients with suspected serious disease. Among primary healthcare providers who can request radiographs, chiropractors are thought to have utilization rates that exceed what is recommended by practice guidelines. It is uncertain whether this gap between evidence and practice begins in undergraduate training. METHODS: We screened 1241 consecutive patients with a new episode of low back pain who presented to any of the 6 out-patient teaching clinics of the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College between January 2004 and September 2004. We collected information about red flags and radiography recommendations from patients and chiropractic trainees using self-administered questionnaires. Radiography recommendations were compared with criteria used in 3 radiography guidelines. Adherence was measured as the proportion of patients without red flags who were not recommended for radiography. RESULTS: Of the 503 eligible patients, 448 (89.1%) agreed to participate in the study. Radiography was recommended for 12.3% of patients. According to the selected radiography guidelines, the proportion of patients with red flags ranged from 45.3% to 70.5%. The proportion of patients without red flags who were not recommended for radiography ranged from 89.4% (95% confidence interval, 85.5%-93.2%) to 94.7% (95% confidence interval, 90.9%-98.5%) for the selected guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest a strong adherence to radiography guidelines for patients with a new episode of low back pain who presented to chiropractic teaching clinics. Although a high proportion of patients had red flags, radiography utilization was lower than rates reported in previous studies suggesting that adherence to guidelines may help prevent unnecessary radiography</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">22</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20071219 IS - 1528-1159 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ward,S.E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Laughren,J.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Escott,B.G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Elliot-Gibson,V.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bogoch,E.R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beaton,D.E.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Program with a dedicated coordinator improved chart documentation of osteoporosis after fragility fracture</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Osteoporosis International</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">upper extremity</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007/08//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17333450</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">18</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1127 - 1136</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">SUMMARY: Post-fracture osteoporosis care is becoming recognized as essential by the orthopaedic community, but programs and systems are needed to ensure that this care is routinely provided. Chart documentation related to OP, which is valuable for continuity of care, increased significantly following establishment of an osteoporosis program with a dedicated coordinator. INTRODUCTION: Post-fracture osteoporosis (OP) care has been repeatedly reported to be inadequate. Through a coordinator-based program, we addressed OP care for more than 95% of fragility fracture patients (1), but we do not know if documentation by orthopaedic surgeons improved. The literature suggests that chart documentation, though underestimating true care, is an indicator of the salient aspects of a condition. Thus chart documentation could be used to reflect an emerging recognition of OP as an important issue to be addressed in the orthopaedic management of the fragility fracture. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if there was an increased documentation of OP by orthopaedic surgeons before and after introduction of a coordinator-based program where the coordinator was known to address OP in 95% of cases. METHODS: Chart audits were conducted to quantify OP documentation for patients treated after program initiation compared with age-, sex-, and fracture type-matched controls who presented prior to program implementation. Documentation rates were compared using chi(2) tests. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify patient characteristics associated with OP-related documentation. RESULTS: After program implementation, chart documentation of OP diagnosis (unadjusted OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.4), of referral for OP follow-up (unadjusted OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.5-6.1), and of initiation of OP management (unadjusted OR 8.2, 95% CI 4.0-16.5) by orthopaedic surgeons was more likely. Being in the post-implementation group was stronger than any patient factors in predicting OP charting. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians working in a clinic with a coordinator-based OP program were more likely to document OP-related care in patients' medical charts. We believe this in turn reflected increased attention to OP by physicians in the orthopaedic management of fragility fractures</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20070628 IS - 0937-941X (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Tulder,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Malmivaara,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hayden,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Koes,B.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Statistical significance versus clinical importance: trials on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain as example</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">statistics</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007/07/15/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17632400</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">32</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1785 - 1790</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDY DESIGN: Critical appraisal of the literature. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess if results of back pain trials are statistically significant and clinically important. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There seems to be a discrepancy between conclusions reported by authors and actual results of randomized controlled trials. Little attention has been paid to the problem of over-reporting of conclusions. METHODS: All 43 trials of the Cochrane review on exercise therapy for low back pain were included. Descriptive analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Eighteen trials reported positive conclusions in favor of exercise. Only six of the 43 studies showed both clinically important and statistically significant differences in favor of the exercise groups on function, and 4 on pain. CONCLUSION: It seems that many conclusions of studies of exercise therapy for chronic low back pain have been based on statistical significance of results rather than on clinical importance and, consequently, may have been too positive. Authors of trials should report not only statistical significance of results but also clinical importance</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">16</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20070716 IS - 1528-1159 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Meta-Analysis PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health &amp; function&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sjolund,B.H.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Igniting the spark</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pain</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007/07//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17521812</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">130</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1 - 3</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1-2</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20070605 IS - 1872-6623 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Comment PT - Editorial SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cote,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hogg-Johnson,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cassidy,J.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carroll,L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frank,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Early aggressive care and delayed recovery from whiplash: isolated finding or reproducible result</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arthritis and Rheumatism</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cohort studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">recovery of function</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">whiplash injuries</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007/06/15/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17530688</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">57</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">861 - 868</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: To test the reproducibility of the finding that early intensive care for whiplash injuries is associated with delayed recovery. METHODS: We analyzed data from a cohort study of 1,693 Saskatchewan adults who sustained whiplash injuries between July 1, 1994 and December 31, 1994. We investigated 8 initial patterns of care that integrated type of provider (general practitioners, chiropractors, and specialists) and number of visits (low versus high utilization). Cox models were used to estimate the association between patterns of care and time to recovery while controlling for injury severity and other confounders. RESULTS: Patients in the low-utilization general practitioner group and those in the general medical group had the fastest recovery even after controlling for important prognostic factors. Compared with the low-utilization general practitioner group, the 1-year rate of recovery in the high-utilization chiropractic group was 25% slower (adjusted hazard rate ratio [HRR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.54-1.04), in the low-utilization general practitioner plus chiropractic group the rate was 26% slower (HRR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.93), and in the high-utilization general practitioner plus chiropractic combined group the rate was 36% slower (HRR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.83). CONCLUSION: The observation that intensive health care utilization early after a whiplash injury is associated with slower recovery was reproduced in an independent cohort of patients. The results add to the body of evidence suggesting that early aggressive treatment of whiplash injuries does not promote faster recovery. In particular, the combination of chiropractic and general practitioner care significantly reduces the rate of recovery</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20070614 IS - 0004-3591 (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - AIM SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health &amp; function&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Yang,X.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cote,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cassidy,J.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carroll,L.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Association between body mass index and recovery from whiplash injuries: a cohort study</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">American Journal of Epidemiology</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">AJE</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">prognosis</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">risk factors</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">whiplash injuries</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007/05/01/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17289775</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">165</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1063 - 1069</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">It is hypothesized that excess weight is a risk factor for delayed recovery from neck pain, such as from whiplash injuries. However, the association between obesity and recovery from whiplash injury has not been studied. The authors examined the association between body mass index and time to recovery from whiplash injuries in a population-based cohort study of traffic injuries in Saskatchewan, Canada. The cohort included 4,395 individuals who made an insurance claim to Saskatchewan Government Insurance and were treated for whiplash injury between July 1, 1994, and December 31, 1995. Of those, 87.7% had recovered by November 1, 1997. No association was found between baseline body mass index and time to recovery. Compared with individuals with normal weight, those who were underweight (hazard rate ratio = 0.88, 95% confidence interval: 0.73, 1.06), overweight (hazard rate ratio = 1.01, 95% confidence interval: 0.94, 1.09), and obese (hazard rate ratio = 0.99, 95% confidence interval: 0.90, 1.08) had similar rates of recovery, even after adjustment for other factors. The results do not support the hypothesis that individuals who are overweight or obese have a worse prognosis for whiplash</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20070411 IS - 0002-9262 (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guzman,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jones,D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cassidy,J.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Loisel,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frank,J.W.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Key factors in back disability prevention: what influences the choice of priorities</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">disability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">prevention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">qualitative</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007/04/20/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17450060</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">32</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">E281 - E289</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDY DESIGN: Survey, subgroup analysis, Q-analysis, and analysis of e-mail exchanges. OBJECTIVE: To assess what influences the choice of priorities for interventions to prevent back-related disability. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Back-related disability results from interaction of physical, psychological, occupational, and social factors. However, opinions differ on which factors should be targeted by interventions aimed at preventing disability. METHODS: A Delphi panel (14 researchers and 19 occupational health stakeholders) attempted to reach consensus about the relative impact and modifiability of 32 factors involved in back-related disability. Data gathered during the panel were analyzed using 4 methods: (1) a survey asking panel members what influenced their rankings, (2) subgroup analysis to compare differences in rankings according to members' backgrounds and affiliations, (3) Q-analysis to identify views shared by members, and (4) qualitative analysis of e-mail exchanges during the panel process. RESULTS: Besides research evidence about a factor, we found that the greatest influence was the personal experience of panel members, which included diverse views about the nature of back disability, expectations about how interventions would be implemented, the typical workers or patients seen by them, and their values and principles. The member's educational background and current affiliation played a lesser role in their choice of priorities. The choice of priorities was also influenced by difficulties in separating the impact of a factor from its modifiability, whether the panel member considered occupational or nonoccupational disability, and the intricate linkages between the factors. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests the choice of priorities is primarily influenced by different views about disability and other components of personal experience. Secondary influences included process difficulties in making a choice. The person's background and affiliation had a weak association with the views and choice of priorities</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20070423 IS - 1528-1159 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van der Velde,G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Tulder,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cote,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hogg-Johnson,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aker,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cassidy,J.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carragee,E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carroll,L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guzman,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Haldeman,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Holm,L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hurwitz,E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nordin,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Peloso,P.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sensitivity of review results to methods used to appraise and incorporate trial quality into data synthesis</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007/04/01/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17414916</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">32</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">796 - 806</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether results and conclusions on the effectiveness of exercise for workers with neck pain vary with the Cochrane Back Review Group Guidelines and best-evidence synthesis review methods. To identify methodologic weaknesses associated with these review methods that may impact on the validity of their results. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Cochrane Back Review Group Guidelines and best-evidence synthesis have different approaches to appraising trial quality and incorporating quality into data synthesis. The impact of different review methods on the reproducibility and validity of review results is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases, without language restrictions. Twelve trials were selected. Two review methods were used to appraise trial quality and to incorporate quality into data synthesis. As recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group Guidelines, trials were assigned quality scores using a scale. Results of all 12 trials were stratified into levels of evidence according to their scores. Based on these results, no treatment recommendation could be formulated. Best-evidence synthesis critically appraised methodology; trials were accepted on the strength of their scientific merit or rejected due to risk of bias. According to the 4 trials accepted for best-evidence synthesis, workers should be activated with exercise given its beneficial effect on patient-perceived recovery. Both the Cochrane Back Review Group Guidelines and best-evidence synthesis reviews were found to have weaknesses associated with their methods. CONCLUSIONS: Review results and conclusions are sensitive to methods for appraising trial quality and incorporating quality into data synthesis when the evidence consists largely of low-quality trials. Both the Cochrane Back Review Group Guidelines and best-evidence synthesis methods were found to have strengths and methodologic weaknesses that healthcare decision-makers should be aware of when interpreting systematic reviews</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20070406 IS - 1528-1159 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't PT - Review SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health &amp; function&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cassidy,J.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carroll,L.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cote,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frank,J.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Does multidisciplinary rehabilitation benefit whiplash recovery?: results of a population-based incidence cohort study</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cohort studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">neck pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">rehabilitation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">whiplash injuries</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007/01/01/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17202903</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">32</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">126 - 131</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDY DESIGN: Population-based, incidence cohort. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a government policy of funding community and hospital-based fitness training and multidisciplinary rehabilitation for whiplash. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although insurance benefits commonly include rehabilitation for whiplash, its effectiveness is unknown. METHODS: All Saskatchewan adults treated for whiplash (n = 6,021) over a 2-year period were followed up at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Recovery was defined by self-report of improvement. Recovery times were compared between those attending fitness training at health clubs (n = 833), multidisciplinary outpatient rehabilitation (n = 468), and multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation (n = 135) to those receiving usual insured individual care. RESULTS: Recovery was 32% slower in those receiving fitness training within 69 days of injury (P = 0.001) and 19% slower when received within 119 days of injury (P = 0.041). Recovery was 50% slower in those receiving outpatient rehabilitation within 119 days of injury (P = 0.001). Attending inpatient rehabilitation did not influence recovery rates during the follow up (P = 0.131). Multivariable adjustment for important prognostic factors did not change these results. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support the effectiveness of a population-based program of fitness training and multidisciplinary rehabilitation for whiplash. Rehabilitation programs should be tested in randomized trials before being recommended to injured populations</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20070104 IS - 1528-1159 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Comparative Study PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health &amp; function&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gagnier,J.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Tulder,M.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Berman,B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Herbal medicine for low back pain: a Cochrane review</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">guidelines</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">outcome</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007/01/01/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17202897</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">32</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">82 - 92</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of herbal medicine compared with placebo, no intervention, or &quot;standard/accepted/conventional treatments&quot; for nonspecific low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Low back pain is a common condition and a substantial economic burden in industrialized societies. A large proportion of patients with chronic low back pain use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and/or visit CAM practitioners. Several herbal medicines have been purported for use in low back pain. METHODS: The following databases were searched: Medline (1966 to April 2003), Embase (1980 to April 2003), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 1, 2003), and Cochrane Complementary Medicine (CM) field Trials Register. Additionally, reference lists in review articles, guidelines, and in the retrieved trials were checked. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), using adults (&gt;18 years of age) suffering from acute, subacute, or chronic nonspecific low back pain. Types of interventions included herbal medicines defined as a plant that is used for medicinal purposes in any form. Primary outcome measures were pain and function. Two reviewers (J.J.G. and M.W.T.) conducted electronic searches in all databases. One reviewer (J.J.G.) contacted content experts and acquired relevant citations. Authors, title, subject headings, publication type, and abstract of the isolated studies were downloaded or a hard copy was retrieved. Methodologic quality and clinical relevance were assessed separately by two individuals (J.J.G. and M.W.T.). Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Ten trials were included in this review. Two high-quality trials utilizing Harpagophytum procumbens (Devil's claw) found strong evidence for short-term improvements in pain and rescue medication for daily doses standardized to 50 mg or 100 mg harpagoside with another high-quality trial demonstrating relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib. Two moderate-quality trials utilizing Salix alba (White willow bark) found moderate evidence for short-term improvements in pain and rescue medication for daily doses standardized to 120 mg or 240 mg salicin with an additional trial demonstrating relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib. Three low-quality trials using Capsicum frutescens (Cayenne) using various topical preparations found moderate evidence for favorable results against placebo and one trial found equivalence to a homeopathic ointment. CONCLUSIONS: Harpagophytum procumbens, Salix alba, and Capsicum frutescens seem to reduce pain more than placebo. Additional trials testing these herbal medicines against standard treatments will clarify their equivalence in terms of efficacy. The quality of reporting in these trials was generally poor; thus, trialists should refer to the CONSORT statement in reporting clinical trials of herbal medicines</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20070104 IS - 1528-1159 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't PT - Review RN - 0 (Plant Extracts) SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Culyer,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">McCabe,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Briggs,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Claxton,K.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Buxton,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Akehurst,R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sculpher,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brazier,J.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Health Services Research &amp; Policy</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">economics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">policy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">regulation</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007/01//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17244400</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">56 - 58</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">There has been much speculation about whether the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has, or ought to have, a 'threshold' figure for the cost of an additional quality-adjusted life-year above which a technology will not be recommended for use. We argue that it is not constitutionally appropriate for NICE to set such a threshold, which is properly the business of parliament. Instead, the task for NICE is as a 'threshold-searcher' - to seek to identify an optimal threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, at the ruling rate of expenditure, that is consistent with the aim of the health service to maximize population health. This will involve the identification of technologies currently made available by the National Health Service that have incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the threshold, and alternative uses for those resources in the shape of technologies not currently provided that fall below the threshold</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20070124 IS - 1355-8196 (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article SB - H</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alamgir,H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tompa,E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Demers,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Koehoorn,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ostry,A.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Accuracy of injury coding in a Canadian workers compensation system</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Occupational Health and Safety - Australia and New Zealand</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">benefits</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">claim</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">compensation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">data collection</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">workers</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">workers compensation</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">23</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">349 - 355</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IWH REF ID#37882</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/compensation-benefits&quot;&gt;compensation &amp; benefits&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>5</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mustard,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tompa,E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Etches,J.</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Picot,W.G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Saunders,R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sweetman,A.</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The effects of deficits in health status in childhood and adolescence on human capital development in early adulthood</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fulfilling potential, creating success : perspectives on human capital development</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">determinants of health</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">population health</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">socioeconomic factors</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">McGill-Queen's University Press</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Montreal</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">13 - 36</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9781553391272</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">See Ref # 29429 IWH Working Paper #318</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pennick,V.E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Young,G.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Interventions for preventing and treating pelvic and back pain in pregnancy</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">absenteeism</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">prevention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">work</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17443503</style></url></web-urls></urls><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CD001139</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND: More than two-thirds of pregnant women experience back pain and almost one-fifth experience pelvic pain. The pain increases with advancing pregnancy and interferes with work, daily activities and sleep. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for preventing and treating back and pelvic pain in pregnancy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Review Group's Trials Register (February 2006). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of any treatment to prevent or reduce the incidence or severity of back or pelvic pain in pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We found no studies dealing specifically with prevention of back or pelvic pain. We included eight studies (1305 participants) that examined the effects of adding various pregnancy-specific exercises, physiotherapy, acupuncture and pillows to usual prenatal care.For women with low-back pain, participating in strengthening exercises, sitting pelvic tilt exercises (standardised mean difference (SMD) -5.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.40 to -4.27), and water gymnastics reduced pain intensity and back pain-related sick leave (relative risk (RR) 0.40; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.92) better than usual prenatal care alone.The specially-designed Ozzlo pillow was more effective than a regular one in relieving back pain (RR 1.84; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.55), but is no longer commercially available. Both acupuncture and stabilising exercises relieved pelvic pain more than usual prenatal care. Acupuncture gave more relief from evening pain than exercises. For women with both pelvic and back pain, in one study, acupuncture was more effective than physiotherapy in reducing the intensity of their pain; stretching exercises resulted in more total pain relief (60%) than usual care (11%); and 60% of those who received acupuncture reported less intense pain, compared to 14% of those receiving usual prenatal care. Women who received usual prenatal care reported more use of analgesics, physical modalities and sacroiliac belts. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All but one study had moderate to high potential for bias, so results must be viewed cautiously. Adding pregnancy-specific exercises, physiotherapy or acupuncture to usual prenatal care appears to relieve back or pelvic pain more than usual prenatal care alone, although the effects are small. We do not know if they actually prevent pain from starting in the first place. Water gymnastics appear to help women stay at work. Acupuncture shows better results compared to physiotherapy</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20070419 IS - 1469-493X (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Review SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Martimo,K.P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verbeek,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Karppinen,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kuijer,P.P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Viikari-Juntura,E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Takala,E.P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jauhiainen,M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Manual material handling advice and assistive devices for preventing and treating back pain in workers</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">absenteeism</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cohort studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">disability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">prevention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">workers</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17636814</style></url></web-urls></urls><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CD005958</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND: Training and assistive devices are considered major interventions to prevent back pain among workers exposed to manual material handling (MMH). OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of MMH advice and training and the provision of assistive devices in preventing and treating back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE to November 2005, EMBASE to August 2005, and CENTRAL, the Back Group's Trials Register, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc, Science Citation Index, and PsychLIT to September 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies with a concurrent control group, aimed at changing human behaviour in MMH and measuring back pain, back pain-related disability or sickness absence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality using the criteria recommended by the Back Review Group for RCTs and MINORS for the cohort studies. One author of an original study supplied additional data for the review.The results and conclusions are based on the primary analysis of RCTs. We conducted a secondary analysis with cohort studies. We compared and contrasted the conclusions from the primary and secondary analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (17,720 employees) and five cohort studies (772 employees). All studies focused on prevention of back pain. Two RCTs and all cohort studies met the majority of the quality criteria and were labeled high quality.We summarized the strength of the evidence with a qualitative analysis since the lack of data precluded a statistical analysis.There is moderate evidence that MMH advice and training are no more effective at preventing back pain or back pain-related disability than no intervention (four studies) or minor advice (one study). There is limited evidence that MMH advice and training are no more effective than physical exercise or back belt use in preventing back pain (three studies), and that MMH advice plus assistive devices are not more effective than MMH advice alone (one study) or no intervention (one study) in preventing back pain or related disability.The results of the cohort studies were similar to the randomised studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited to moderate evidence that MMH advice and training with or without assistive devices do not prevent back pain, back pain-related disability or reduce sick leave when compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. There is no evidence available for the effectiveness of MMH advice and training or MMH assistive devices for treating back pain</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20070719 IS - 1469-493X (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Meta-Analysis PT - Review SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/preventing-msds&quot;&gt;Preventing MSDs&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Deshpande,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mailis-Gagnon,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Atlas,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Turk,D.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Opioids for chronic low-back pain</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17636781</style></url></web-urls></urls><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CD004959</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND: The use of opioids in the long-term management of chronic low-back pain (LBP) appears to be increasing. Despite this trend, the benefits and risks of these medications remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of opioids in adults with chronic LBP. SEARCH STRATEGY: We electronically searched CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO to May 2006; MEDLINE and EMBASE to May 2007. We supplemented our search by reviewing references in relevant systematic reviews and identified trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials assessing the use of opioids (as monotherapy or in combination with other therapies) for longer than four weeks, in adults with chronic LBP. Studies were included if they compared non-injectable opioids to other treatments. Comparisons between opioids were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data onto a pre-designed form. Results were statistically pooled using RevMan 4.2. We reported on pain and function using standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and on side effects using absolute risk difference (RD) with 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials. Three compared tramadol to placebo. Pooled results revealed that tramadol was more effective than placebo for pain relief, SMD 0.71 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.02), and improving function, SMD 0.17 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.30). The two most common side effects of tramadol were headaches, RD 9% (95% CI 6% to 12%) and nausea, RD 3% (95% CI 0% to 6%). One trial comparing opioids to another analgesic (naproxen) found opioids were statistically significant for relieving pain but not improving function. When re-calculated, the results were not statistically significant for either pain relief (SMD -0.58; 95% CI -1.42 to 0.26) or improving function (SMD -0.06; 95% CI -0.88 to 0.76) . AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite concerns surrounding the use of opioids for long-term management of chronic LBP, there remain few high-quality trials assessing their efficacy. The trials in this review, although achieving high internal validity scores, were characterized by a lack of generalizability, inadequate description of study populations, poor intention-to treat analysis, and limited interpretation of functional improvement. Based on our results, the benefits of opioids in clinical practice for the long-term management of chronic LBP remains questionable. Therefore, further high-quality studies that more closely simulate clinical practice are needed to assess the usefulness, and potential risks, of opioids for individuals with chronic LBP</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20070719 IS - 1469-493X (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Meta-Analysis PT - Review RN - 0 (Analgesics, Opioid) RN - 0 (Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal) RN - 22204-53-1 (Naproxen) RN - 27203-92-5 (Tramadol) RN - 57-27-2 (Morphine) SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Culyer,A.J.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bogus conflict between efficiency and vertical equity</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Health Economics</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">economics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006/11//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16929485</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">15</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1155 - 1158</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20061023 IS - 1057-9230 (Print) LA - eng PT - Editorial PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gagnier,J.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Boon,H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rochon,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Moher,D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Barnes,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Recommendations for reporting randomized controlled trials of herbal interventions: Explanation and elaboration</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Clinical Epidemiology</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Clin Epidemiol</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">outcome</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">policy</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006/11//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17027423</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">59</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1134 - 1149</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Controlled trials that use randomized allocation are the best tool to control for bias and confounding in trials testing clinical interventions. Investigators must be sure to include information that is required by the reader to judge the validity and implications of the findings in the reports of these trials. In part, complete reporting of trials will allow clinicians to modify their clinical practice to reflect current evidence toward the improvement of clinical outcomes. The consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to assist investigators, authors, reviewers, and editors on the necessary information to be included in reports of controlled clinical trials. The CONSORT statement is applicable to any intervention, including herbal medicinal products. Controlled trials of herbal interventions do not adequately report the information suggested in CONSORT. Recently, reporting recommendations were developed in which several CONSORT items were elaborated to become relevant and complete for randomized controlled trials of herbal medicines. We expect that these recommendations will lead to more complete and accurate reporting of herbal trials. We wrote this explanatory document to outline the rationale for each recommendation and to assist authors in using them by providing the CONSORT items and the associated elaboration, together with examples of good reporting and empirical evidence, where available, for each. These recommendations for the reporting of herbal medicinal products presented here are open to revision as more evidence accumulates and critical comments are collected</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20061009 IS - 0895-4356 (Print) LA - eng PT - Guideline PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vliet Vlieland,T.P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Li,L.C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">MacKay,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Badley,E.M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Current topics on models of care in the management of inflammatory arthritis</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Rheumatology</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J.Rheumatol.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006/09//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16960952</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">33</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1900 - 1903</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">While there is strong evidence supporting a multidisciplinary team approach in arthritis management, access and use are hindered by limited human and financial resources. To safeguard the provision of comprehensive care throughout the disease trajectory, alternative care models are being developed. Three promising arthritis care models include the use of information technology and telemedicine, patient initiated care, and extended roles of health professionals. Future research projects should focus on: (1) the cost-effectiveness of information technology for exchange of patient-based data and education and management support; (2) the characteristics and needs of patients who can versus those who cannot self-manage; (3) strategies to improve access to care for patients with early arthritis, such as extending roles of health professionals to include triage; and (4) further structuring and standardizing rheumatology training of nursing and allied health professionals</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20060908 IS - 0315-162X (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Li,L.C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Setting priorities in arthritis care: Care III Conference</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Rheumatology</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J.Rheumatol.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">knowledge transfer</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006/09//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16960949</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">33</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1891 - 1894</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The disparity between supply and demand in arthritis services can lead to delays in diagnosis and access to effective treatments. The focus of 2005 CARE III Conference was to develop a research agenda to improve care for people with arthritis. Topics included models of care, nonpharmacological/nonsurgical interventions for arthritis, and issues around study design, outcome measures and knowledge translation and exchange. Seven priority areas emerged from the discussion: (1) Develop new, innovative arthritis care strategies; (2) Adapt and implement effective service models to address local needs; (3) Understand factors related to successful team care; (4) Match patients' needs with appropriate care models; (5) Design new or improve outcome measures for participation and quality of life; (6) Foster partnerships in sharing research evidence; and (7) Address needs for training and quality assurance</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20060908 IS - 0315-162X (Print) LA - eng PT - Congresses PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kennedy,C.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Manno,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hogg-Johnson,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Haines,T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hurley,L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">McKenzie,D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beaton,D.E.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Prognosis in soft tissue disorders of the shoulder: predicting both change in disability and level of disability after treatment</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Physical Therapy</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">disability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">outcome</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">physiotherapy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">prognosis</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">recovery of function</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">shoulder pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">soft-tissue injuries</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">upper extremity</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006/07//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16813480 ; http://ptjournal.apta.org/cgi/content/full/86/7/1013</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">86</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1013 - 1032</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Clinicians often are faced with questions about prognosis and outcome of shoulder disorders. The purpose of this study was to identify predictors of both change in disability and level of disability following physical therapy treatment. SUBJECTS: The subjects were consecutive patients (n=361) who were receiving physical therapy for soft tissue shoulder disorders. METHODS: Clinical response to physical therapy, which was measured using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) measure, was assessed over 12 weeks. The 28 independent baseline predictors included demographics, disorder-related and disability measures, medication use, clinical findings, and expectations for recovery. Multiple linear regression techniques were used. RESULTS: Predictors of greater disability at discharge were: higher initial disability, therapist prediction of restricted activities at discharge, workers' compensation claim, older age, and being female. Predictors of greater improvement in disability were: shoulder surgery, higher pain intensity, shorter duration of symptoms, younger age, and poorer general physical health (measured using the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey [SF-36]). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic factors differ depending on the format of the outcome. Only age was significant in both models</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20060703 IS - 0031-9023 (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article SB - AIM SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health &amp; function&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Claxton,K.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Culyer,A.J.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wickedness or folly? The ethics of NICE's decisions</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Medical Ethics</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">economics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">policy</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006/07//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16816034</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">32</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">373 - 377</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A rebuttal is provided to each of the arguments adduced by John Harris, an Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, in two editorials in the journal in support of the view that National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's procedures and methods for making recommendations about healthcare procedures for use in the National Health Service in England and Wales are the product of &quot;wickedness or folly or more likely both&quot;, &quot;ethically illiterate as well as socially divisive&quot;, responsible for the &quot;perversion of science as well as of morality&quot; and are &quot;contrary to basic morality and contrary to human rights&quot;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20060703 IS - 0306-6800 (Print) LA - eng PT - Comment PT - Journal Article PT - Review SB - E SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Manuel,D.G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kwong,K.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tanuseputro,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lim,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mustard,C.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Anderson,G.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ardal,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alter,D.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Laupacis,A.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Effectiveness and efficiency of different guidelines on statin treatment for preventing deaths from coronary heart disease: modelling study</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">British Medical Journal</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BMJ</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">epidemiology</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">guidelines</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health outcome measures</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">measurement</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006/06/17/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16737980</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">332</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1419</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: To examine the potential effectiveness and efficiency of different guidelines for statin treatment to reduce deaths from coronary heart disease in the Canadian population. DESIGN: Modelled outcomes of screening and treatment recommendations of six national or international guidelines--from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, joint British societies, and European societies. SETTING: Canada. DATA SOURCES: Details for 6760 men and women aged 20-74 years from the Canadian Heart Health Survey (weighted sample of 12,300,000 people) that included physical measurements including a lipid profile. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of people recommended for treatment with statins, the potential number of deaths from coronary heart disease avoided, and the number needed to treat to avoid one coronary heart disease death with five years of statin treatment if the recommendations from each guideline were fully implemented. RESULTS: When applied to the Canadian population, the Australian and British guidelines were the most effective, potentially avoiding the most deaths over five years (&gt; 15,000 deaths). The New Zealand guideline was the most efficient, potentially avoiding almost as many deaths (14,700) while recommending treatment to the fewest number of people (12.9% of people v 17.3% with the Australian and British guidelines). If their &quot;optional&quot; recommendations are included, the US guidelines recommended treating about twice as many people as the New Zealand guidelines (24.5% of the population, an additional 1.4 million people) with almost no increase in the number of deaths avoided. CONCLUSIONS: By focusing recommendations on people with the highest risk of coronary heart disease, the Canadian, US, and European societies guidelines could improve either their effectiveness (in terms of hundreds of avoided deaths) or efficiency (in terms of thousands of fewer people recommended treatment) in the Canadian population</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7555</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20060616 IS - 1468-5833 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Comparative Study PT - Journal Article PT - Multicenter Study PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't RN - 0 (Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors) RN - 0 (Lipids) SB - AIM SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Li,L.C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Maetzel,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Davis,A.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lineker,S.C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Coyte,P.C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Primary therapist model for patients referred for rheumatoid arthritis rehabilitation: a cost-effectiveness analysis</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arthritis and Rheumatism</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cost</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">economics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health outcome measures</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">rehabilitation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">statistics</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006/06/15/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16739183</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">55</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">402 - 410</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICE) of services from a primary therapist compared with traditional physical therapists and/or occupational therapists for managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA), from the societal perspective. METHODS: Patients with RA were randomly assigned to the primary therapist model (PTM) or traditional treatment model (TTM) for approximately 6 weeks of rehabilitation treatment. Health outcomes were expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), measured with the EuroQol instrument at baseline, 6 weeks, and 6 months. Direct and indirect costs, including visits to health professionals, use of investigative tests, hospital visits, use of medications, purchases of adaptive aids, and productivity losses incurred by patients and their caregivers, were collected monthly. RESULTS: Of 144 consenting patients, 111 remained in the study after the baseline assessment: 63 PTM (87.3% women, mean age 54.2 years, disease duration 10.6 years) and 48 TTM (79.2% women, mean age 56.8 years, disease duration 13.2 years). From a societal perspective, PTM generated higher QALYs (mean +/- SD 0.068 +/- 0.22) and resulted in a higher mean cost ($6,848 Canadian, interquartile range [IQR] $1,984-$9,320) compared with TTM (mean +/- SD QALY -0.017 +/- 0.24; mean costs $6,266, IQR $1,938-$10,194) in 6 months, although differences were not statistically significant. The estimated ICE ratio was $13,700 per QALY gained (95% nonparametric confidence interval -$73,500, $230,000). CONCLUSION: The PTM has potential to be an alternative to traditional physical/occupational therapy, although it is premature to recommend widespread use of this model in other regions. Further research should focus on strategies to reduce costs of the model and assess the long-term economic consequences in managing RA and other rheumatologic conditions</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20060619 IS - 0004-3591 (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Randomized Controlled Trial PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - AIM SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Clarke,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Tulder,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Blomberg,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">de Vet,H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van der Heijden,G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bronfort,G.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Traction for low back pain with or without sciatica: an updated systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane collaboration</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006/06/15/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16778694</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">31</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1591 - 1599</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To determine if traction is more effective than reference treatments, placebo/sham traction, or no treatment for low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Various types of traction are used in the treatment of LBP, often in conjunction with other treatments. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to November 2004, and screened the latest issue of the Cochrane Library (2004, issue 4) and references in relevant reviews and our personal files. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving any type of traction for the treatment of acute (less than 4 weeks duration), subacute (4-12 weeks), or chronic (more than 12 weeks) nonspecific LBP with or without sciatica. Sets of 2 reviewers independently performed study selection, methodological quality assessment, and data extraction. Because available studies did not provide sufficient data for statistical pooling, we performed a qualitative &quot;levels of evidence&quot; analysis, systematically estimating the strength of the cumulative evidence on the difference/lack of difference observed in trial outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 24 RCTs (2177 patients) were included. There were 5 trials considered high quality. For mixed groups of patients with LBP with and without sciatica, we found: (1) strong evidence that there is no statistically significant difference in short or long-term outcomes between traction as a single treatment, (continuous or intermittent) and placebo, sham, or no treatment; (2) moderate evidence that traction as a single treatment is no more effective than other treatments; and (3) limited evidence that adding traction to a standard physiotherapy program does not result in significantly different outcomes. For LBP with sciatica, we found conflicting evidence in several of the comparisons: autotraction compared to placebo, sham, or no treatment; other forms of traction compared to other treatments; and different forms of traction. In the remaining comparisons, there were no statistically significant differences; level of evidence is moderate regarding continuous or intermittent traction compared to placebo, sham, or no treatment, and is limited regarding different forms of traction. CONCLUSION: Based on the current evidence, intermittent or continuous traction as a single treatment for LBP cannot be recommended for mixed groups of patients with LBP with and without sciatica. Neither can traction be recommended for patients with sciatica because of inconsistent results and methodological problems in most of the studies involved. However, because high-quality studies within the field are scarce, because many are underpowered, and because traction often is supplied in combination with other treatment modalities, the literature allows no firm negative conclusion that traction, in a generalized sense, is not an effective treatment for patients with LBP</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">14</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20060616 IS - 1528-1159 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Evaluation Studies PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't PT - Review SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sandoval,J.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mailis-Gagnon,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tunks,E.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Opioids for chronic noncancer pain: a meta-analysis of effectiveness and side effects</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">outcome</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006/05/23/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16717269</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">174</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1589 - 1594</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND: Chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) is a major health problem, for which opioids provide one treatment option. However, evidence is needed about side effects, efficacy, and risk of misuse or addiction. METHODS: This meta-analysis was carried out with these objectives: to compare the efficacy of opioids for CNCP with other drugs and placebo; to identify types of CNCP that respond better to opioids; and to determine the most common side effects of opioids. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (up to May 2005) and reference lists for randomized controlled trials of any opioid administered by oral or transdermal routes or rectal suppositories for CNCP (defined as pain for longer than 6 mo). Extracted outcomes included pain, function or side effects. Methodological quality was assessed with the Jadad instrument; analyses were conducted with Revman 4.2.7. RESULTS: Included were 41 randomized trials involving 6019 patients: 80% of the patients had nociceptive pain (osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or back pain); 12%, neuropathic pain (postherpetic neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy or phantom limb pain); 7%, fibromyalgia; and 1%, mixed pain. The methodological quality of 87% of the studies was high. The opioids studied were classified as weak (tramadol, propoxyphene, codeine) or strong (morphine, oxycodone). Average duration of treatment was 5 (range 1-16) weeks. Dropout rates averaged 33% in the opioid groups and 38% in the placebo groups. Opioids were more effective than placebo for both pain and functional outcomes in patients with nociceptive or neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. Strong, but not weak, opioids were significantly superior to naproxen and nortriptyline, and only for pain relief. Among the side effects of opioids, only constipation and nausea were clinically and statistically significant. INTERPRETATION: Weak and strong opioids outperformed placebo for pain and function in all types of CNCP. Other drugs produced better functional outcomes than opioids, whereas for pain relief they were outperformed only by strong opioids. Despite the relative shortness of the trials, more than one-third of the participants abandoned treatment</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20060523 IS - 1488-2329 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Comparative Study PT - Journal Article PT - Meta-Analysis PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't RN - 0 (Analgesics, Opioid) RN - 0 (Placebos) SB - AIM SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kennedy,C.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Haines,T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beaton,D.E.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Eight predictive factors associated with response patterns during physiotherapy for soft tissue shoulder disorders were identified</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Clinical Epidemiology</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Clin Epidemiol</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">outcome</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">physiotherapy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">recovery of function</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">shoulder pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">soft-tissue injuries</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">upper extremity</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006/05//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16632137</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">59</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">485 - 496</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Combining information on initial and final state with information on speed of response may reflect the clinical reality of the course of recovery from soft tissue shoulder disorders. The purpose was to identify baseline factors that predict patterns of response to physiotherapy. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort of consecutive clients (n=361) with soft tissue shoulder disorders attending physiotherapy. A previous study identified four typical patterns of response such that each individual was assigned to one of four clusters (dependent outcome). Independent predictors (n=28) included demographics, disorder-related and disability measures, treatment factors, clinical findings, and expectations for recovery. Multivariable multinomial logistic regression techniques were used. RESULTS: Predictors differentiating patterns of response were: Age (by decade), duration of current shoulder problem, worker's compensation claim, client's global rating of problem, Physical Component Score (SF-36), Mental Component Score (SF-36), over the counter medication use, and therapist prediction of client to return to usual activity. CONCLUSION: Using a clinically sensible outcome, we have identified several predictors that can be used by clinicians in clinical decision making</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20060424 IS - 0895-4356 (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health &amp; function&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Breen,A.C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Tulder,M.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Koes,B.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jensen,I.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reardon,R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bronfort,G.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mono-disciplinary or multidisciplinary back pain guidelines? How can we achieve a common message in primary care?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">European Spine Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">guidelines</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">knowledge transfer</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006/05//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15931509</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">15</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">641 - 647</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Description of a workshop entitled &quot;Sharing Guidelines for Low Back Pain Between Primary Health Care Providers: Toward a Common Message in Primary Care&quot; that was held at the Fifth International Forum on Low Back Pain in Primary Care in Canada in May 2002. Despite a considerable degree of acceptance of current evidence-based guidelines, in practice, primary health care providers still do not share a common message. The objective of the workshop was to describe the outcomes of a workshop on the sharing of guidelines in primary care. The Fifth International Forum on Low Back Pain Research in Primary Care focused on relations between stakeholders in the primary care management of back pain. Participants in this workshop contributed to an open discussion on &quot;how and why&quot; evidence-based guidelines about back pain do or do not work in practice. Ways to minimise the factors that inhibit implementation were discussed in the light of whether guidelines are mono-disciplinary or multidisciplinary. Examples of potential issues for debate were contained in introductory presentations. The prospects for improving implementation and reducing barriers, and the priorities for future research, were then considered by an international group of researchers. This paper summarises the conclusions of three researcher subgroups that focused on the sharing of guidelines under the headings of: (1) the content, (2) the development process, and (3) implementation. How to share the evidence and make it meaningful to practice stakeholders is the main challenge of guideline implementation. There is a need to consider the balance between the strength of evidence in multidisciplinary guidelines and the utility/feasibility of mono-disciplinary guidelines. The usefulness of both mono-disciplinary and multidisciplinary guidelines was agreed on. However, in order to achieve consistent messages, mono-disciplinary guidelines should have a multidisciplinary parent. In other words, guidelines should be developed and monitored by a multidisciplinary team, but may be transferred to practice by mono-disciplinary messengers. Despite general agreement that multi-faceted interventions are most effective for implementing guidelines, the feasibility of doing this in busy clinical settings is questioned. Research is needed from local implementation pilots and quality monitoring studies to understand how to develop and deliver the contextual understanding required. This relates to processes of care as well as outcomes, and to social factors and policymaking as well as health care interventions. We commend these considerations to all who are interested in the challenges of achieving better-integrated, evidence-based care for people with back pain</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20060516 IS - 0940-6719 (Print) LA - eng PT - Consensus Development Conference PT - Journal Article SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Manuel,D.G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lim,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tanuseputro,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Anderson,G.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alter,D.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Laupacis,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mustard,C.A.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Revisiting Rose: strategies for reducing coronary heart disease</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">British Medical Journal</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BMJ</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">prevention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">risk factors</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006/03/18/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16543339</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">332</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">659 - 662</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7542</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20060317 IS - 1468-5833 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't PT - Review RN - 0 (Anticholesteremic Agents) RN - 0 (Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors) SB - AIM SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Li,L.C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Davis,A.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lineker,S.C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Coyte,P.C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Effectiveness of the primary therapist model for rheumatoid arthritis rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arthritis and Rheumatism</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">epidemiology</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health outcome measures</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">physiotherapy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">rehabilitation</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006/02/15/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16463410</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">55</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">42 - 52</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: To compare the primary therapist model (PTM), provided by a single rheumatology-trained primary therapist, with the traditional treatment model (TTM), provided by a physical therapy (PT) and/or occupational therapy (OT) generalist, for treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Eligible patients were adults requiring rehabilitation treatment who had not received PT/OT in the past 2 years. Participants were randomized to the PTM or TTM group. The primary outcome was defined as the proportion of clinical responders who experienced a &gt; or =20% improvement in 2 of the following measures from baseline to 6 months: Health Assessment Questionnaire, pain visual analog scale, and Arthritis Community Research and Evaluation Unit RA Knowledge Questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 144 consenting patients, 33 (10 PTM participants, 23 TTM participants) dropped out without completing any followup assessment, leaving 111 for analysis (63 PTM participants, 48 TTM participants). The majority were women (PTM 87.3%, TTM 79.2%), with a mean age of 54.2 years and 56.8 years for the PTM and TTM groups, respectively. Average disease duration was 10.6 years and 13.2 years for each group, respectively. At 6 months, 44.4% of patients in the PTM group were clinical responders versus 18.8% in the TTM group (chi(2) = 8.09, P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Compared with the TTM, the PTM was associated with better outcomes in patients with RA. The results, however, should be interpreted with caution due to the high dropout rate in the TTM group</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20060213 IS - 0004-3591 (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Randomized Controlled Trial PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - AIM SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Claxton,K.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sculpher,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Culyer,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">McCabe,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Briggs,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Akehurst,R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Buxton,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brazier,J.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Discounting and cost-effectiveness in NICE - stepping back to sort out a confusion</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Health Economics</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">economics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006/01//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16365910</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">15</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1 - 4</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brouwer and colleagues [1] argue that the reasons for specifying an equal discount rate for health outcomes and costs in the recent guidance on methods of technology appraisal issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) [2] is both opaque and wrong. They argue that a lower rate should apply to health outcomes like QALYs. It is also claimed that the guidance on discounting represents a step backwards, that is both inconsistent with current theoretical insights and will prejudice the outcome of cost-effectiveness studies of preventive interventions.The reasoning behind the use of equal discount rates for costs and health outcomes is indeed not well developed in the published guidance. Nor does it reflect the debate that underpinned the guidance. We therefore welcome the opportunity to explain more completely the rationale in the minds of the principal authors of the current guidance</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20051226 IS - 1057-9230 (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tannenbaum,H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Davis,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Russell,A.S.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evidence-based approach to prescribing nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Third Canadian Consensus Conference</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Rheumatology</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J.Rheumatol.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">guidelines</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006/01//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16331802</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">33</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">140 - 157</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: To revisit our previous evidence-based recommendations on the appropriate prescription of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID) with particular emphasis on cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors (coxibs). METHODS: Needs assessments were conducted among Canadian physicians to determine their educational needs surrounding NSAID/coxibs. A survey of patients with arthritis was also conducted. Consensus participants reviewed articles relating to NSAID/coxibs in peer-reviewed journals between January 2000 and December 2004. At the consensus meeting, held January 21-23, 2005, participants discussed selected topics, after which recommendations were formulated and debated. Results. At the time of the meeting, it was agreed that emerging cardiovascular data were not clear enough to decide whether unanticipated cardiovascular events associated with coxibs represent a class effect or an effect of an individual drug. However, publications that appeared shortly after the meeting, as well as data presented at both the Joint Meeting of the Arthritis Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee of the US Food and Drug Administration, February 16-18, 2005, and Health Canada's Expert Advisory Panel on the Safety of Cox-2 Selective NSAID, June 9-10, 2005, clarified that all available coxibs do carry some degree of cardiovascular risk, denoting a class effect. Our consensus group made the following specific recommendations: (1) Patients should be fully informed about treatment options, including the need to balance between cardiovascular risks and gastrointestinal (GI) benefits of NSAID/coxibs. (2) Coxibs are as effective as nonselective NSAID and superior to acetaminophen for the symptoms of arthritis. Topical NSAID may also be beneficial. (3) Coxibs are associated with fewer severe GI complications than nonselective NSAID. A proton pump inhibitor (PPI) should be prescribed if an NSAID must be used in a patient at increased GI risk. (4) The renal/blood pressure (BP) impact of coxibs is similar to that of NSAID. (5) In individuals at risk, creatinine clearance and BP should be determined at baseline and shortly after treatment begins. (6) In the geriatric population, use of nonpharmacological therapies should be maximized, and special caution is required before prescribing oral NSAID/coxibs. (7) Patients taking rofecoxib have been shown to have an increased risk of cardiovascular events. Current data suggest that this increased cardiovascular risk may be an effect of the NSAID/coxib class. (8) Although the data are limited, coxibs may be more cost-effective for patients at high GI risk than nonselective NSAID plus proprietary PPI. CONCLUSION: Coxibs continue to be an option in the treatment armamentarium. Given the evolving cardiovascular information, physicians and patients should weigh the benefits and risks of NSAID/coxib treatment. This concern emphasizes the need to routinely reassess patients' risks. These recommendations, which were formulated according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, are intended to be used as guidelines to supplement, but not replace, the physician's judgment in clinical decision-making</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20060112 IS - 0315-162X (Print) LA - eng PT - Consensus Development Conference PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't RN - 0 (Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal) RN - 0 (Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors) SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Culyer,A.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lomas,J.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Deliberative processes and evidence-informed decision-making in health care - do they work and how might we know</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evidence and Policy</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">371</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">357</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>5</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Culyer,A.J.</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Morgan,S.</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evidence, economics and values in coverage decisions</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Toward a national pharmaceuticals strategy</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">economics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">policy</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Centre for Health Services and Policy Research UBC</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vancouver</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10 - 11</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>6</ref-type><contributors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Amick,B.C.,III</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Health economics: critical perspectives on the world health economy</style></title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evaluation studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Routledge</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Abingdon, UK</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/working-conditions-health&quot;&gt;working conditions &amp; health&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gagnier,J.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Tulder,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Berman,B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Herbal medicine for low back pain</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">data collection</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">economics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">guidelines</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">outcome</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16625605</style></url></web-urls></urls><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CD004504</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND: Low-back pain is a common condition and a substantial economic burden in industrialized societies. A large proportion of patients with chronic low-back pain use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), visit CAM practitioners, or both. Several herbal medicines have been purported for use in low-back pain. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of herbal medicine for non-specific low-back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field Trials Register (Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2005), EMBASE (1980 to July 2005); checked reference lists in review articles, guidelines and retrieved trials; and personally contacted individuals with expertise in this very specialized area. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials, examining adults (over 18 years of age) suffering from acute, sub-acute or chronic non-specific low-back pain. The interventions were herbal medicines, defined as plants that are used for medicinal purposes in any form. Primary outcome measures were pain and function. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors (JJG &amp; MVT) conducted the database searches. One author contacted content experts and acquired relevant citations. Full references and abstracts of the identified studies were downloaded. A hard copy was retrieved for final inclusion decisions. Methodological quality and clinical relevance were assessed separately by two individuals. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials were included in this review. Two high quality trials examining the effects of Harpagophytum Procumbens (Devil's Claw) found strong evidence that daily doses standardized to 50 mg or 100 mg harpagoside were better than placebo for short-term improvements in pain and rescue medication. Another high quality trial demonstrated relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib (Vioxx). Two trials examining the effects of Salix Alba (White Willow Bark) found moderate evidence that daily doses standardized to 120 mg or 240 mg salicin were better than placebo for short-term improvements in pain and rescue medication. An additional trial demonstrated relative equivalence to 12.5 mg per day of rofecoxib. Three low quality trials on Capsicum Frutescens (Cayenne), examining various topical preparations, found moderate evidence that Capsicum Frutescens produced more favourable results than placebo and one trial found equivalence to a homeopathic ointment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Harpagophytum Procumbens, Salix Alba and Capsicum Frutescens seem to reduce pain more than placebo. Additional trials testing these herbal medicines against standard treatments are needed. The quality of reporting in these trials was generally poor. Trialists should refer to the CONSORT statement extension for reporting trials of herbal medicine interventions</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20060420 IS - 1469-493X (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Meta-Analysis PT - Review RN - 0 (Benzyl Alcohols) RN - 0 (Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors) RN - 0 (Lactones) RN - 0 (Sulfones) RN - 0 (rofecoxib) RN - 138-52-3 (salicin) SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>5</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Culyer,A.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">NICE's use of cost-effectiveness as an exemplar of a deliberative process</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Health economics, policy and law</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">economics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">policy</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">299 - 318</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Culyer,T.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Paying for performance: neither the end of the beginning nor the beginning of the end</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Healthcare Papers</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">economics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">policy</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16825855</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">34 - 38</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The extent of our ignorance about the effectiveness of incentives of various kinds on the behaviour of physicians and other healthcare professionals is alarming. The paper by Pink et al. illustrates some but by no means all of these lacunae. Not only is there a lack of reliable evidence about the immediate effects, but also the consequential effects for the health of patients or on quality of care in general are poorly understood. Some of the reasons for this are explored here, and a suggestion is made about how to improve matters in the future</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20060707 IS - 1488-917X (Print) LA - eng PT - Comment PT - Journal Article SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van der Velde,G.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Clinical decision analysis: an alternate, rigorous approach to making clinical decisions and developing treatment recommendations</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">neck pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005/12//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17549207 ; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1840032/?tool=pubmed</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">49</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">258 - 263</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20070605 IS - 0008-3194 (Print) LA - ENG PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health &amp; function&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sandoval,J.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mailis-Gagnon,A.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Oral methadone for chronic noncancer pain: a systematic literature review of reasons for administration, prescription patterns, effectiveness, and side effects</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Clinical Journal of Pain</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005/11//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16215336</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">21</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">503 - 512</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: To assess the indications, prescription patterns, effectiveness, and side effects of oral methadone for the treatment of chronic noncancer pain. METHODS: We conducted searches of several electronic databases, textbooks and reference lists for controlled or uncontrolled studies in humans. Effectiveness was assessed using a dichotomous classification of &quot;meaningful&quot; versus &quot;nonmeaningful&quot; outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-one papers (1 small randomized trial, 13 case reports, and 7 case series) involving 545 patients with multiple noncancer pain conditions were included. In half of the patients, no specific diagnosis was reported. Methadone was administered primarily when previous opioid treatment was ineffective or produced intolerable side effects. Starting dose ranged from 0.2 to 80 mg/day and maximum dose ranged from 20 to 930 mg/day. Pain outcomes were meaningful in 59% of the patients in the uncontrolled studies. The randomized trial demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in pain for methadone (20 mg/day) compared to placebo. Side effects were considered minor. DISCUSSION: Oral methadone is used for various noncancer pain syndromes, at different settings and with no prescription pattern that could be identifiable. Starting, maintenance, and maximum doses showed great variability. The figure of 59% effectiveness of methadone should be interpreted very cautiously, as it seems overrated due to the poor quality of the uncontrolled studies and their tendency to report positive results. The utilization of oral methadone for noncancer pain is based on primarily uncontrolled literature. Well-designed controlled trials may provide more accurate information on the drug's efficiency in pain syndromes and in particular neuropathic pain</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20051010 IS - 0749-8047 (Print) LA - eng PT - Comparative Study PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't PT - Review RN - 0 (Narcotics) RN - 76-99-3 (Methadone) SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cote,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hogg-Johnson,S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cassidy,J.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carroll,L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frank,J.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Initial patterns of clinical care and recovery from whiplash injuries: a population-based cohort study</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Archives of Internal Medicine</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cohort studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">whiplash injuries</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005/10/24/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16246992</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">165</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2257 - 2263</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND: Little is known about the most effective pattern of clinical care for acute whiplash. We designed a cohort study to determine whether patterns of early clinical care (involving visits to general practitioners, chiropractors, or specialists) were associated with different rates of recovery. METHODS: We studied 2486 Saskatchewan adults with whiplash injuries. We defined 8 initial patterns of care that integrated type of provider and number of visits. We used multivariable Cox models to estimate the association between patterns of care and time to recovery while controlling for injury severity and other confounders. RESULTS: There was an independent association between the type and intensity of initial clinical care and time to recovery. We found that patients in the low-utilization general practitioner group had the fastest recovery, even after controlling for injury severity and other confounders. Compared with this group, the high-utilization general practitioner group experienced a 1-year rate of recovery that was 27% slower (adjusted hazard rate ratio [HRR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.87); for the high-utilization chiropractic group it was 39% slower (HRR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.81); for the high-utilization general practitioner plus chiropractic combined group it was 28% slower (HRR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.91); and for those who consulted general practitioners and specialists, it was 31% slower (HRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: The type and intensity of clinical care initiated within the first month after the injury is associated with the rate of recovery from whiplash injuries. Our study does not support the hypothesis that early aggressive care promotes faster recovery</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">19</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20051025 IS - 0003-9926 (Print) LA - eng PT - Comparative Study PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - AIM SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health &amp; function&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Heymans,M.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Tulder,M.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Esmail,R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Koes,B.W.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Back schools for nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005/10/01/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16205340</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">30</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2153 - 2163</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review within the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of back schools for patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Since the introduction of the Swedish back school in 1969, back schools have frequently been used for treating patients with LBP. However, the content of back schools has changed and appears to vary widely today. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to November 2004 for relevant trials reported in English, Dutch, French, or German. We also screened references from relevant reviews and included trials. Randomized controlled trials that reported on any type of back school for nonspecific LBP were included. Four reviewers, blinded to authors, institution, and journal, independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the trials. We set the high-quality level, a priori, at a trial meeting six or more of 11 internal validity criteria. Because data were clinically and statistically too heterogeneous to perform a meta-analysis, we used a qualitative review (best evidence synthesis) to summarize the results. The evidence was classified into four levels (strong, moderate, limited, or no evidence), taking into account the methodologic quality of the studies. We also evaluated the clinical relevance of the studies. RESULTS: Nineteen randomized controlled trials (3,584 patients) were included in this updated review. Overall, the methodologic quality was low, with only six trials considered to be high-quality. It was not possible to perform relevant subgroup analyses for LBP with radiation versus LBP without radiation. The results indicate that there is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools have better short- and intermediate-term effects on pain and functional status than other treatments for patients with recurrent and chronic LBP. There is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools for chronic LBP in an occupational setting are more effective than other treatments and placebo or waiting list controls on pain, functional status, and return to work during short- and intermediate-term follow-up. In general, the clinical relevance of the studies was rated as insufficient. CONCLUSION: There is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools, in an occupational setting, reduce pain and improve function and return-to-work status, in the short- and intermediate-term, compared with exercises, manipulation, myofascial therapy, advice, placebo, or waiting list controls, for patients with chronic and recurrent LBP. However, future trials should improve methodologic quality and clinical relevance and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of back schools</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">19</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20051005 IS - 1528-1159 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Evaluation Studies PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't PT - Review SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wells,G.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Boers,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Shea,B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brooks,P.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Simon,L.S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Strand,C.V.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aletaha,D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Anderson,J.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bombardier,C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dougados,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Emery,P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Felson,D.T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fransen,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furst,D.E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hazes,J.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Johnson,K.R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kirwan,J.R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Landewe,R.B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lassere,M.N.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Michaud,K.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Suarez-Almazor,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Silman,A.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Smolen,J.S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van der Heijde,D.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Riel,P.L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wolfe,F.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tugwell,P.S.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Minimal disease activity for rheumatoid arthritis: a preliminary definition</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Rheumatology</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J.Rheumatol.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chronic disease</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health outcome measures</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005/10//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16206362</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">32</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016 - 2024</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Agreement on response criteria in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has allowed better standardization and interpretation of clinical trial reports. With recent advances in therapy, the proportion of patients achieving a satisfactory state of minimal disease activity (MDA) is becoming a more important measure with which to compare different treatment strategies. The threshold for MDA is between high disease activity and remission and, by definition, anyone in remission will also be in MDA. True remission is still rare in RA; in addition, the American College of Rheumatology definition is difficult to apply in the context of trials. Participants at OMERACT 6 in 2002 agreed on a conceptual definition of minimal disease activity (MDA): &quot;that state of disease activity deemed a useful target of treatment by both the patient and the physician, given current treatment possibilities and limitations.&quot; To prepare for a preliminary operational definition of MDA for use in clinical trials, we asked rheumatologists to assess 60 patient profiles describing real RA patients seen in routine clinical practice. Based on their responses, several candidate definitions for MDA were designed and discussed at the OMERACT 7 in 2004. Feedback from participants and additional on-site analyses in a cross-sectional database allowed the formulation of 2 preliminary, equivalent definitions of MDA: one based on the Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) index, and one based on meeting cutpoints in 5 out the 7 WHO/ILAR core set measures. Researchers applying these definitions first need to choose whether to use the DAS28 or the core set definition, because although each selects a similar proportion in a population, these are not always the same patients. In both MDA definitions, an initial decision node places all patients in MDA who have a tender joint count of 0 and a swollen joint count of 0, and an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) no greater than 10 mm. If this condition is not met: * The DAS28 definition places patients in MDA when DAS28 &lt; or = 2.85; * The core set definition places patients in MDA when they meet 5 of 7 criteria: (1) Pain (0-10) &lt; or = 2; (2) Swollen joint count (0-28) &lt; or = 1; (3) Tender joint count (0-28) &lt; or = 1; (4) Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ, 0-3) &lt; or = 0.5; (5) Physician global assessment of disease activity (0-10) &lt; or = 1.5; (6) Patient global assessment of disease activity (0-10) &lt; or = 2; (7) ESR &lt; or = 20. This set of 2 definitions gained approval of 73% of the attendees. These (and other) definitions will now be subject to further validation in other databases</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20051005 IS - 0315-162X (Print) LA - eng PT - Consensus Development Conference PT - Journal Article SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health &amp; function&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Anderson-Peacock,E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Blouin,J.S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bryans,R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Danis,N.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marcoux,H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Potter,B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ruegg,R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gross,Stein J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">White,E.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Chiropractic clinical practice guideline: evidence-based treatment of adult neck pain not due to whiplash</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chiropractic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">guidelines</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">neck pain</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005/09//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17549134</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">49</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">158 - 209</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: To provide an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the chiropractic cervical treatment of adults with acute or chronic neck pain not due to whiplash. This is a considerable health concern considered to be a priority by stakeholders, and about which the scientific information was poorly organized. OPTIONS: CERVICAL TREATMENTS: manipulation, mobilization, ischemic pressure, clinic- and home-based exercise, traction, education, low-power laser, massage, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, pillows, pulsed electromagnetic therapy, and ultrasound. OUTCOMES: The primary outcomes considered were improved (reduced and less intrusive) pain and improved (increased and easier) ranges of motion (ROM) of the adult cervical spine. EVIDENCE: An &quot;extraction&quot; team recorded evidence from articles found by literature search teams using 4 separate literature searches, and rated it using a Table adapted from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. The searches were 1) Treatment; August, 2003, using MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, MANTIS, ICL, The Cochrane Library (includes CENTRAL), and EBSCO, identified 182 articles. 2) Risk management (adverse events); October, 2004, identified 230 articles and 2 texts. 3) Risk management (dissection); September, 2003, identified 79 articles. 4) Treatment update; a repeat of the treatment search for articles published between September, 2003 and November, 2004 inclusive identified 121 articles. VALUES: To enable the search of the literature, the authors (Guidelines Development Committee [GDC]) regarded chiropractic treatment as including elements of &quot;conservative&quot; care in the search strategies, but not in the consideration of the range of chiropractic practice. Also, knowledge based only on clinical experience was considered less valid and reliable than good-caliber evidence, but where the caliber of the relevant evidence was low or it was non-existent, unpublished clinical experience was considered to be equivalent to, or better than the published evidence. REPORTED BENEFITS, HARMS AND COSTS: The expected benefits from the recommendations include more rapid recovery from pain, impairment and disability (improved pain and ROM). The GDC identified evidence-based pain benefits from 10 unimodal treatments and more than 7 multimodal treatments. There were no pain benefits from magnets in necklaces, education or relaxation alone, occipital release alone, or head retraction-extension exercise combinations alone. The specificity of the studied treatments meant few studies could be generalized to more than a minority of patients. Adverse events were not addressed in most studies, but where they were, there were none or they were minor. The theoretic harm of vertebral artery dissection (VAD) was not reported, but an analysis suggested that 1 VAD may occur subsequent to 1 million cervical manipulations. Costs were not analyzed in this guideline, but it is the understanding of the GDC that recommendations limiting ineffective care and promoting a more rapid return of patients to full functional capacity will reduce patient costs, as well as increase patient safety and satisfaction. For simplicity, this version of the guideline includes primarily data synthesized across studies (evidence syntheses), whereas the technical and the interactive versions of this guideline (http://ccachiro.org/cpg) also include relevant data from individual studies (evidence extractions). RECOMMENDATIONS: The GDC developed treatment, risk-management and research recommendations using the available evidence. Treatment recommendations addressing 13 treatment modalities revolved around a decision algorithm comprising diagnosis (or assessment leading to diagnosis), treatment and reassessment. Several specific variations of modalities of treatment were not recommended. For adverse events not associated with a treatment modality, but that occur in the clinical setting, there was evidence to recommend reconsideration of treatment options or referral to the appropriate health services. For adverse events associated with a treatment modality, but not a known or observable risk factor, there was evidence to recommend heightened vigilance when a relevant treatment is planned or administered. For adverse events associated with a treatment modality and predicted by an observable risk factor, there was evidence to recommend absolute contraindications, and requirements for treatment modality modification or caution to minimize harm and maximize benefit. For managing the theoretic risk of dissection, there was evidence to recommend a systematic risk-management approach. For managing the theoretic risk of stroke, there was support to recommend minimal rotation in administering any modality of upper-cervical spine treatment, and to recommend caution in treating a patient with hyperhomocysteinemia, although the evidence was especially ambiguous in both of these areas. Research recommendations addressed the poor caliber of many of the studies; the GDC concluded that the scientific base for chiropractic cervical treatment of neck pain was not of sufficient quality or scope to &quot;cover&quot; current chiropractic practice comprehensively, although this should not suggest other disciplines are more evidence-based. VALIDATION: This guideline was authored by the 10 members of the GDC (Elizabeth Anderson-Peacock, Jean-Sebastien Blouin, Roland Bryans, Normand Danis, Andrea Furlan, Henri Marcoux, Brock Potter, Rick Ruegg, Janice Gross Stein, Eleanor White) based on the work of 3 literature search teams and an evidence extraction team, and in light of feedback from a commentator (Donald R Murphy), a 5-person review panel (Robert R Burton, Andrea Furlan, Richard Roy, Steven Silk, Roy Till), a 6-person Task Force (Grayden Bridge, H James Duncan, Wanda Lee MacPhee, Bruce Squires, Greg Stewart, Dean Wright), and 2 national profession-wide critiques of complete drafts. Two professional editors with extensive guidelines experience were contracted (Thor Eglington, Bruce P Squires). Key contributors to the guideline included individuals with specialties or expert knowledge in chiropractic, medicine, research processes, literature analysis processes, clinical practice guideline processes, protective association affairs, regulatory affairs, and the public interest. This guideline has been formally peer reviewed</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20070605 IS - 0008-3194 (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1><custom2><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Open Access</style></custom2></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Anderson,G.M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bronskill,S.E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mustard,C.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Culyer,A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alter,D.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Manuel,D.G.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Both clinical epidemiology and population health perspectives can define the role of health care in reducing health disparities</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Clinical Epidemiology</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Clin Epidemiol</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">population health</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">socioeconomic factors</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005/08//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16018910</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">58</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">757 - 762</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: To compare and contrast clinical epidemiology and population health perspectives on the role of health care in reducing socioeconomic disparities in health. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A review of concepts outlined in selected articles on population health and clinical epidemiology and a systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of therapeutic interventions for cardiovascular disease that contained analysis of outcomes by socioeconomic status. RESULTS: Population health has a focus on health disparities, particularly disparities related to socioeconomic status, and many of its proponents have a pessimistic view of the degree to which health care can reduce these disparities. Clinical epidemiology has a focus on the production of valid evidence on the impact of health care interventions; however, RCTs rarely report the impact of interventions across socioeconomic strata. Both population health and clinical epidemiology share the view that efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness are all important in defining the impact of health care on health disparities. CONCLUSION: Principles drawn from both population health and clinical epidemiology could be used to provide a clearer picture of the role that health care interventions can have on socioeconomic disparities in health and to identify implications for policy, research, and clinical practice</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20050715 IS - 0895-4356 (Print) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Review SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lisi,A.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Holmes,E.J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ammendolia,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">High-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulation for symptomatic lumbar disk disease: a systematic review of the literature</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Manipulative Physiol Ther</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chiropractic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">measurement</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">musculoskeletal disorders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">safety</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005/07//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16096043</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">28</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">429 - 442</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to review the evidence for high-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulation (HVLASM) for symptomatic lumbar disk disease (SLDD). METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Mantis were searched. Evidence-based operational definitions of SLDD, HVLASM, and outcomes measures were established. Articles were assessed using these inclusion criteria: (1) published in English, (2) measured at least one outcome in subjects with SLDD undergoing HVLASM, (3) descriptions were sufficiently clear to meet all 3 categories of our operational definitions. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were assessed by 2 independent reviewers and assigned quality ratings based on previously published guidelines. RESULTS: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, representing 203 total subjects. Of these, 172 subjects received HVLASM as active treatment, and 31 received other treatments as comparison subjects. Improvements in patient-based and physiological outcomes were reported among subjects receiving HVLASM; however, no conclusions regarding safety and effectiveness could be drawn from this review because the overall body of evidence uncovered was lacking in quality and quantity. CONCLUSION: HVLASM for SLDD has been reasonably described in the literature; however, the evidence is limited, and definitive conclusions on safety and effectiveness cannot be made at this time. The reviewed evidence supports the hypothesis that HVLASM may be effective in the treatment of SLDD and does not support the hypothesis that HVLASM is inherently unsafe in SLDD cases. It appears that patients with lumbar disk pathology do undergo manipulative treatment in practice. Consequently, this should be an area of research importance. More high-quality clinical trials using valid and reliable diagnostic criteria and outcomes measures are needed</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20050812 IS - 1532-6586 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Review SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ammendolia,C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Radiographic anomalies that may alter chiropractic intervention strategies found in a New Zealand population</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Manipulative Physiol Ther</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chiropractic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005/06//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15965417</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">28</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">375 - 376</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20050620 IS - 1532-6586 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Comment PT - Letter SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hayden,J.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Tulder,M.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Malmivaara,A.V.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Koes,B.W.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Meta-analysis: exercise therapy for nonspecific low back pain</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Annals of Internal Medicine</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">statistics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005/05/03/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15867409</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">142</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">765 - 775</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND: Exercise therapy is widely used as an intervention in low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of exercise therapy in adult nonspecific acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain versus no treatment and other conservative treatments. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases to October 2004; citation searches and bibliographic reviews of previous systematic reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials evaluating exercise therapy for adult nonspecific low back pain and measuring pain, function, return to work or absenteeism, and global improvement outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, quality, and outcomes at short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-up. DATA SYNTHESIS: 61 randomized, controlled trials (6390 participants) met inclusion criteria: acute (11 trials), subacute (6 trials), and chronic (43 trials) low back pain (1 trial was unclear). Evidence suggests that exercise therapy is effective in chronic back pain relative to comparisons at all follow-up periods. Pooled mean improvement (of 100 points) was 7.3 points (95% CI, 3.7 to 10.9 points) for pain and 2.5 points (CI, 1.0 to 3.9 points) for function at earliest follow-up. In studies investigating patients (people seeking care for back pain), mean improvement was 13.3 points (CI, 5.5 to 21.1 points) for pain and 6.9 points (CI, 2.2 to 11.7 points) for function, compared with studies where some participants had been recruited from a general population (for example, with advertisements). Some evidence suggests effectiveness of a graded-activity exercise program in subacute low back pain in occupational settings, although the evidence for other types of exercise therapy in other populations is inconsistent. In acute low back pain, exercise therapy and other programs were equally effective (pain, 0.03 point [CI, -1.3 to 1.4 points]). LIMITATIONS: Limitations of the literature, including low-quality studies with heterogeneous outcome measures inconsistent and poor reporting, and possibility of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise therapy seems to be slightly effective at decreasing pain and improving function in adults with chronic low back pain, particularly in health care populations. In subacute low back pain populations, some evidence suggests that a graded-activity program improves absenteeism outcomes, although evidence for other types of exercise is unclear. In acute low back pain populations, exercise therapy is as effective as either no treatment or other conservative treatments</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20050503 IS - 1539-3704 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Meta-Analysis PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't SB - AIM SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/measuring-health-function&quot;&gt;measuring health &amp; function&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hayden,J.A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Tulder,M.W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tomlinson,G.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Systematic review: strategies for using exercise therapy to improve outcomes in chronic low back pain</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Annals of Internal Medicine</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">back pain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">clinical trials</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systematic review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">treatment</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005/05/03/</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15867410</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">142</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">776 - 785</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BACKGROUND: Exercise therapy encompasses a heterogeneous group of interventions. There continues to be uncertainty about the most effective exercise approach in chronic low back pain. PURPOSE: To identify particular exercise intervention characteristics that decrease pain and improve function in adults with nonspecific chronic low back pain. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases to October 2004 and citation searches and bibliographic reviews of previous systematic reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials evaluating exercise therapy in populations with chronic (&gt;12 weeks duration) low back pain. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data on exercise intervention characteristics: program design (individually designed or standard program), delivery type (independent home exercises, group, or individual supervision), dose or intensity (hours of intervention time), and inclusion of additional conservative interventions. DATA SYNTHESIS: 43 trials of 72 exercise treatment and 31 comparison groups were included. Bayesian multivariable random-effects meta-regression found improved pain scores for individually designed programs (5.4 points [95% credible interval (CrI), 1.3 to 9.5 points]), supervised home exercise (6.1 points [CrI, -0.2 to 12.4 points]), group (4.8 points [CrI, 0.2 to 9.4 points]), and individually supervised programs (5.9 points [CrI, 2.1 to 9.8 points]) compared with home exercises only. High-dose exercise programs fared better than low-dose exercise programs (1.8 points [CrI, -2.1 to 5.5 points]). Interventions that included additional conservative care were better (5.1 points [CrI, 1.8 to 8.4 points]). A model including these most effective intervention characteristics would be expected to demonstrate important improvement in pain (18.1 points [CrI, 11.1 to 25.0 points] compared with no treatment and 13.0 points [CrI, 6.0 to 19.9 points] compared with other conservative treatment) and small improvement in function (5.5 points [CrI, 0.5 to 10.5 points] compared with no treatment and 2.7 points [CrI, -1.7 to 7.1 points] compared with other conservative treatment). Stretching and strengthening demonstrated the largest improvement over comparisons. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of the literature, including low-quality studies with heterogeneous outcome measures and inconsistent and poor reporting; publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise therapy that consists of individually designed programs, including stretching or strengthening, and is delivered with supervision may improve pain and function in chronic nonspecific low back pain. Strategies should be used to encourage adherence. Future studies should test this multivariable model and further assess specific patient-level characteristics and exercise types</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20050503 IS - 1539-3704 (Electronic) LA - eng PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't PT - Review SB - AIM SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kiefer,L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frank,J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Di Ruggiero,E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dobbins,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Manuel,D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gully,P.R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mowat,D.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fostering evidence-based decision-making in Canada: examining the need for a Canadian population and public health evidence centre and research network</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Canadian Journal of Public Health</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Can.J.Public Health</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evidence-based practice</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">knowledge transfer</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">population health</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005/05//</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15913085</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">96</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">I1 - 40</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DA - 20050525 IS - 0008-4263 (Print) LA - eng LA - fre PT - Journal Article PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't PT - Review SB - IM</style></notes><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/working-conditions-health&quot;&gt;working conditions &amp; health&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;/biblio/custom1/clinical-treatment&quot;&gt;clinical treatment&lt;/a&gt;</style></custom1></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Furlan,A.D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">van Tulder,M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cherkin,D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tsukayama,H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lao,L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Koes,B.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Berman,B.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain: an updated systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spine.</style></alt-title></titles><key
