Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of multimodal care for the management of soft tissue injuries of the shoulder. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1990 to 2015. Two independent reviewers critically appraised studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. We used best evidence synthesis to synthesize evidence from studies with low risk of bias. RESULTS: We screened 5885 articles, and 19 were eligible for critical appraisal. Ten randomized controlled trials had low risk of bias. For persistent subacromial impingement syndrome, multimodal care leads to similar outcomes as sham therapy, radial extracorporeal shock-wave therapy, or surgery. For subacromial impingement syndrome, multimodal care may be associated with small and nonclinically important improvement in pain and function compared with corticosteroid injections. For rotator cuff tendinitis, dietary-based multimodal care may be more effective than conventional multimodal care (exercise, soft tissue and manual therapy, and placebo tablets). For nonspecific shoulder pain, multimodal care may be more effective than wait list or usual care by a general practitioner, but it leads to similar outcomes as exercise or corticosteroid injections. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that combining multiple interventions into 1 program of care does not lead to superior outcomes for patients with subacromial impingement syndrome or nonspecific shoulder pain. One randomized controlled trial suggested that dietary-based multimodal care (dietary advice, acupuncture, and enzyme tablets) may provide better outcomes over conventional multimodal care. However, these results need to be replicated.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal disorders of the elbow, forearm, wrist and hand are associated with pain, functional impairment and decreased productivity in the general population. Combining several interventions in a multimodal program of care is reflective of current clinical practice; however there is limited evidence to support its effectiveness. The purpose of our review was to investigate the effectiveness of multimodal care for the management of musculoskeletal disorders of the elbow, forearm, wrist and hand on self-rated recovery, functional recovery, or clinical outcomes in adults or children. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature and best evidence synthesis. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1990 to March 2015. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies were eligible. Random pairs of independent reviewers screened studies for relevance and critically appraised relevant studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Studies with a low risk of bias were synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles. RESULTS: We screened 5989 articles, and critically appraised eleven articles. Of those, seven had a low risk of bias; one addressed carpal tunnel syndrome and six addressed lateral epicondylitis. Our search did not identify any low risk of bias studies examining the effectiveness of multimodal care for the management of other musculoskeletal disorders of the elbow, forearm, wrist or hand. The evidence suggests that multimodal care for the management of lateral epicondylitis may include education, exercise (strengthening, stretching, occupational exercise), manual therapy (manipulation) and soft tissue therapy (massage). The evidence does not support the use of multimodal care for the management of carpal tunnel syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence on the effectiveness of multimodal care for musculoskeletal disorders of the elbow, forearm, wrist and hand is limited. The available evidence suggests that there may be a role for multimodal care in the management of patients with persistent lateral epicondylitis. Future research is needed to examine the effectiveness of multimodal care and guide clinical practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014009093.

BACKGROUND: Exercise is a key component of rehabilitation for soft tissue injuries of the shoulder; however its effectiveness remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: Determine the effectiveness of exercise for shoulder pain. METHODS: We searched seven databases from 1990 to 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort and case control studies comparing exercise to other interventions for shoulder pain. We critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria. We synthesized findings from scientifically admissible studies using best-evidence synthesis methodology. RESULTS: We retrieved 4853 articles. Eleven RCTs were appraised and five had a low risk of bias. Four studies addressed subacromial impingement syndrome. One study addressed nonspecific shoulder pain. For variable duration subacromial impingement syndrome: 1) supervised strengthening leads to greater short-term improvement in pain and disability over wait listing; and 2) supervised and home-based strengthening and stretching leads to greater short-term improvement in pain and disability compared to no treatment. For persistent subacromial impingement syndrome: 1) supervised and home-based strengthening leads to similar outcomes as surgery; and 2) home-based heavy load eccentric training does not add benefits to home-based rotator cuff strengthening and physiotherapy. For variable duration low-grade nonspecific shoulder pain, supervised strengthening and stretching leads to similar short-term outcomes as corticosteroid injections or multimodal care. CONCLUSION: The evidence suggests that supervised and home-based progressive shoulder strengthening and stretching are effective for the management of subacromial impingement syndrome. For low-grade nonspecific shoulder pain, supervised strengthening and stretching are equally effective to corticosteroid injections or multimodal care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42013003928.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal conditions account for the largest proportion of cases resulting in early separation from the US Navy. This study evaluates the impact of the Spine Team, a multidisciplinary care group that included physicians, physical therapists, and a clinical psychologist, for the treatment of active-duty service members with work-disabling, nonspecific low back pain at the Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA, USA. We compared the impact of the introduction of the Spine Team in limiting disability and attrition from work-disabling spine conditions with the experience of the Naval Medical Center, San Diego, CA, USA, where there is no comparable spine team. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Is a multidisciplinary spine team effective in limiting disability and attrition related to work-disabling spine conditions as compared with the current standard of care for US military active-duty service members? METHODS: This is a retrospective, pre-/post-study with a separate, concurrent control group using administratively collected data from two large military medical centers during the period 2007 to 2009. In this study, disability is expressed as the proportion of active-duty service members seeking treatment for a work-disabling spine condition that results in the assignment of a first-career limited-duty status. Attrition is expressed as the proportion of individuals assigned a first-career limited-duty status for a work-disabling spine condition who were referred to a Physical Evaluation Board. We analyzed 667 individuals assigned a first-career limited-duty for a work-disabling spine condition between 2007 and 2009 who received care at the Naval Medical Center Portsmouth or Naval Medical Center San Diego. RESULTS: Rates of first-career limited-duty assignments for spine conditions decreased from 2007 to 2009 at both sites, but limited-duty rates decreased to a greater extent at the intervention site (Naval Medical Center Portsmouth; from 8.5 per 100 spine cases in 2007 to 5.1 per 100 cases in 2009, p < 0.001) as compared with the control site (Naval Medical Center San Diego; 16.0 per 100 spine cases in 2007 and 14.1 per 100 cases in 2009, p = 0.38) after the Spine Team was implemented in 2008. The risk of disability was lower at Naval Medical Center Portsmouth as compared with Naval Medical Center San Diego for each of the 3 years studied (in 2007, the relative risk was 0.53 [95% confidence limit {CL}, 0.42-0.68; p < 0.001]) indicating a protective effect of Naval Medical Center Portsmouth in limiting disability (in 2008, it was 0.58 [95% CL, 0.45-0.73; p < 0.001] and in 2009 0.34 [95% CL, 0.27-0.47; p < 0.001]); the relative risk improved in 2009 after the introduction of the Spine Team at Naval Medical Center Portsmouth. There were no differences observed in rates of attrition from the period before the introduction of the Spine Team to after at Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, and no overall differences could be statistically detected between the two sites. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides suggestive evidence that a multi-disciplinary Spine Team may be effective in limiting disability. No conclusion can be drawn about the Spine Team's effectiveness in limiting attrition. Additional study is warranted to examine the effect of the timing of the introduction of multidisciplinary care for work-disabling spine conditions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of passive physical modalities compared to other interventions, placebo/sham interventions, or no intervention in improving self-rated recovery, functional recovery, clinical outcomes and/or administrative outcomes (eg, time of disability benefits) in adults and/or children with soft tissue injuries and neuropathies of the wrist and hand. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, accessed through Ovid Technologies, Inc, and CINAHL Plus with Full Text, accessed through EBSCO host, from 1990 to 2015. Our search strategies combined controlled vocabulary relevant to each database (eg, MeSH for MEDLINE) and text words relevant to our research question and the inclusion criteria. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies were eligible. Random pairs of independent reviewers screened studies for relevance and critically appraised relevant studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Studies with low risk of bias were synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles. RESULTS: We screened 6618 articles and critically appraised 11 studies. Of those, 7 had low risk of bias: 5 addressed carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and 2 addressed de Quervain disease. We found evidence that various types of night splints lead to similar outcomes for the management of CTS. The evidence suggests that a night wrist splint is less effective than surgery in the short term but not in the long term. Furthermore, a night wrist splint and needle electroacupuncture lead to similar outcomes immediately postintervention. Finally, low-level laser therapy and placebo low-level laser therapy lead to similar outcomes. The evidence suggests that kinesio tape or a thumb spica cast offers short-term benefit for the management of de Quervain disease. Our search did not identify any low risk of bias studies examining the effectiveness of passive physical modalities for the management of other soft tissue injuries or neuropathies of the wrist and hand. CONCLUSIONS: Different night orthoses provided similar outcomes for CTS. Night orthoses offer similar outcomes to electroacupuncture but are less effective than surgery in the short term. This review suggests that kinesio tape or a thumb spica cast may offer short-term benefit for the management of de Quervain disease.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain is a common musculoskeletal condition in the general population. Passive physical modalities are commonly used to treat shoulder pain. However, previous systematic reviews reported conflicting results. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of passive physical modalities for the management of soft tissue injuries of the shoulder. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 1, 1990, to April 18, 2013. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort and case-control studies were eligible. Random pairs of independent reviewers screened 1,470 of 1,760 retrieved articles after removing 290 duplicates. Twenty-two articles were eligible for critical appraisal. Eligible studies were critically appraised using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Of those, 11 studies had a low risk of bias. DATA EXTRACTION: The lead author extracted data from low risk of bias studies and built evidence tables. A second reviewer independently checked the extracted data. DATA SYNTHESIS: The findings of studies with a low risk of bias were synthesized according to principles of best evidence synthesis. Pretensioned tape, ultrasound, and interferential current were found to be noneffective for managing shoulder pain. However, diathermy and corticosteroid injections led to similar outcomes. Low-level laser therapy provided short-term pain reduction for subacromial impingement syndrome. Extracorporeal shock-wave therapy was not effective for subacromial impingement syndrome but provided benefits for persistent shoulder calcific tendinitis. LIMITATIONS: Non-English studies were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Most passive physical modalities do not benefit patients with subacromial impingement syndrome. However, low-level laser therapy is more effective than placebo or ultrasound for subacromial impingement syndrome. Similarly, shock-wave therapy is more effective than sham therapy for persistent shoulder calcific tendinitis.

BACKGROUND: Detailed knowledge about the interrelationship between neck pain, back pain and psychological distress is important from a public health prospective, but missing due to lack of large population-based cohort studies. PURPOSE: The aims of the study were 1) to assess and compare the sex-specific recovery rate of spinal pain and psychological distress as single and comorbid conditions, and 2) to describe the interrelationships between these conditions at baseline (2002) and at follow-up five years later. In addition, 3) we explored the questions of spinal pain as a risk factor for onset of psychological distress and psychological distress as a risk factor for onset of spinal pain. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. STUDY POPULATION: General population in Stockholm county aged 18-84, n=19,774 OUTCOME MEASURES: Spinal pain (modified Nordic Pain Questionnaire) and psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire, GHQ-12). METHODS: A random sample of the population in Stockholm was approached with postal questionnaires at baseline and at follow-up. Authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests related to this study. The financial support: The Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research, The Swedish Naprapathic Association and the Scandinavian College of Naprapathic Manual Medicine. RESULTS: Comorbidity of spinal pain and distress was twice as common among women (11%) than among men (4%), (RR=2.4, 95% CI: 2.1-2.7). Women also more commonly had spinal pain without psychological distress (women 20%; men 14%) and psychological distress without spinal pain (15%;12%). Comorbidity makes recovery less probable (women 26%,;men 27%, than having single conditions of spinal pain(women 41%, men 44%), or psychological distress (women 49%, men 52%,) No statistical significant sex differences were seen. Twenty four percent of the women and 17% of the men with spinal pain without psychological distress at baseline had psychological distress at follow-up. Corresponding figures for spinal pain among participants with psychological distress without spinal pain at baseline were 24% and 20%. Spinal pain was a determinant of psychological distress (OR= 2.6, 95% CI: 2.3 - 2.9) and psychological distress was a determinant of spinal pain (OR= 2.0, 95% CI: 1.8 - 2.2). CONCLUSION: Spinal pain and psychological distress as comorbid and single conditions are common in the general population, especially among women. Comorbidity affects recovery negatively both in men and women. This study confirms the bi-directional association between spinal pain and psychological distress in the general population.

The performance of the new Bio-Rad Geenius HIV-1/2 confirmatory assay was compared with that of the Chiron RIBA HIV-1/HIV-2 strip immunoblot assay using 166 samples from HIV-1-, HIV-2-, or HIV-1/2-positive and HIV-negative individuals and two quality control panels. Our results indicate that the Geenius assay is a suitable alternative for confirmatory HIV testing.