Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (1488) (remove)
Language
- German (1110)
- English (367)
- Portuguese (7)
- French (1)
- Multiple languages (1)
- Dutch (1)
- Russian (1)
Keywords
- Nachhaltigkeit (8)
- Logistik (6)
- Danube (4)
- Electroporation (4)
- Evaluation (4)
- Lemnaceae (4)
- Neurodynamik (4)
- Nutritional footprint (4)
- Physiotherapie (4)
- Sustainability (4)
Institute
Vor zehn Jahren haben erste Unternehmen damit begonnen, ihre Käuferschaft nach dem "Pay-what-you-want"-Prinzip entscheiden zu lassen, wieviel sie für eine in Anspruch genommene Leistung zahlen will. Parallel dazu hat die Verhaltensökonomik in Laborexperimenten oder Feldversuchen bestätigt, dass Menschen bereit sind, solche Angebote nicht vollständig zu ihrem Vorteil zu nutzen, sondern Preise größer als null zu zahlen, die in manchen Fällen sogar kostendeckend sind. Unternehmen gehen jedoch vor allem dann mit Pay What You Want ein hohes Verlustrisiko ein, wenn sie hochpreisige Waren anbieten und sich ein Teil ihrer Käuferschaft opportunistisch verhält, so wie es das Modell des Homo oeconomicus vorhersagt. Wir zeigen, dass es in der Realität nur in Ausnahmefällen gelingt, ein vollständiges Geschäftsmodell auf "Pay-What-You-Want"-Basis langfristig erfolgreich zu etablieren. Wesentlich besser eignet sich Pay What You Want als Bezahloption für einen Teil des Angebots eines Unternehmens oder als Marketinginstrument.
Identification of differences in clinical presentation and underlying pain mechanisms may assist the classification of patients with neck–arm pain which is important for the provision of targeted best evidence based management. The aim of this study was to: (i) assess the inter-examiner agreement in using specific systems to classify patients with cervical radiculopathy and patients with non-specific neck–arm pain associated with heightened nerve mechanosensitivity (NSNAP); (ii) assess the agreement between two clinical examiners and two clinical experts in classifying these patients, and (iii) assess the diagnostic accuracy of the two clinical examiners. Forty patients with unilateral neck–arm pain were examined by two clinicians and classified into (i) cervical radiculopathy, (ii) NSNAP, (iii) other. The classifications were compared to those made independently by two experts, based on a review of patients' clinical assessment notes. The experts' opinion was used as the reference criterion to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical examiners in classifying each patient group. There was an 80% agreement between clinical examiners, and between experts and 70%–80% between clinical examiners and experts in classifying patients with cervical radiculopathy (kappa between 0.41 and 0.61). Agreement was 72.5%–80% in classifying patients with NSNAP (kappa between 0.43 and 0.52). Clinical examiners' diagnostic accuracy was high (radiculopathy: sensitivity 79%–84%; specificity 76%–81%; NSNAP: sensitivity 78%–100%; specificity 71%–81%). Compared to expert opinion, clinicians were able to identify patients with cervical radiculopathy and patients with NSNAP in 80% of cases, our data supporting the reliability of these classification systems.
Background: The painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q) has been used as a tool to characterize sensory abnormalities in patients with persistent pain. This study investigated whether the self-reported sensory descriptors of patients with painful cervical radiculopathy (CxRAD) and patients with fibromyalgia (FM), as characterized by responses to verbal sensory descriptors from PD-Q (sensitivity to light touch, cold, heat, slight pressure, feeling of numbness in the main area of pain), were associated with the corresponding sensory parameters as demonstrated by quantitative sensory testing (QST).
Methods: Twenty-three patients with CxRAD (eight women, 46.3 ± 9.6 years) and 22 patients with FM (20 women, 46.1 ± 11.5 years) completed the PD-Q. Standardized QST of dynamic mechanical allodynia, cold and heat pain thresholds, pressure pain thresholds, mechanical and vibration detection thresholds, was recorded from the maximal pain area. Comparative QST data from 31 age-matched healthy controls (HCs; 15 women) were obtained.
Results: Patients with CxRAD demonstrated a match between their self-reported descriptors and QST parameters for all sensory parameters except for sensitivity to light touch, and these matches were statistically significant compared with HC data (p ≤ 0.006). The FM group demonstrated discrepancies between the PD-Q and QST sensory phenotypes for all sensory descriptors, indicating that the self-reported sensory descriptors did not consistently match the QST parameters (p = ≤0.017).
Conclusion: Clinicians and researchers should be cautious about relying on PD-Q as a stand-alone screening tool to determine sensory abnormalities in patients with FM.
Neuropathischer Schmerz
(2014)
Neuropathische Schmerzen entstehen durch eine Läsion oder Erkrankung des somatosensorischen Nervensystems. Davon sind ca. 7 – 8 % der Normalbevölkerung betroffen. Patienten mit neuropathischen Schmerzen leiden unter erheblichen Einschränkungen ihrer Lebensqualität und die daraus resultierenden staatlichen Gesundheitskosten sind extrem hoch.
Die frühe Identifikation vorhandener neuropathischer Schmerzen ist ausschlaggebend für eine gezielte Schmerztherapie und Vorbeugung einer Chronifizierung des Krankheitszustandes. Das klinische Bild ist vielfältig, und die Diagnostik kann in der klinischen Praxis eine Herausforderung darstellen.
Der Schwerpunkt dieses Artikels liegt in der Untersuchung und Diagnosestellung neuropathischer Schmerzen.
In der Corona-Pandemie ist es für nahezu alle Organisationen – von der Behörde, über die Unternehmung, bis hin zur Hochschule – zur Aufgabe geworden, den „richtigen“ Umgang mit der Krise zu finden. Was effektives Krisenmanagement ausmacht, soll deshalb vor dem Hintergrund des aktuellen Standes der Fachdiskussion beleuchtet und für eine Selbstreflexion aufbereitet werden, wie sie im Rahmen eines dualen Studiengangs eingeübt und im Sinne einer persönlichen Kompetenzentwicklung vertieft werden kann.
Hintergrund: In Deutschland gibt es in der physiotherapeutischen Praxis bisher lediglich 2 Fragebögen, die ellenbogenspezifische Beschwerden aus
der Patientenperspektive erfassen und einen therapeutischen Erfolg messen.
Ziel: Das Ziel dieser Studie war daher die Übersetzung des englischen „Oxford Elbow Score“ (OES)
ins Deutsche.
Methode: Der OES wurde anhand von 2 Leitlinien
zur kulturellen Adaption ins Deutsche übersetzt.
Es wurden 2 unabhängige Vorwärtsübersetzungen
erstellt und miteinander verglichen. Anschließend
erfolgten 2 unabhängige Rückwärtsübersetzungen,
gefolgt von einem Review. Der daraus resultierende
Fragebogen wurde in 2 Testphasen mit jeweils 5
Probanden qualitativ auf seine Verständlichkeit
und kulturelle Stimmigkeit überprüft.
Ergebnisse: Der OES wurde in die deutsche Version
der „Oxford Ellenbogen Bewertung“ (OEB) übersetzt und adaptiert. Nach der 1. Pilotphase wurden
kleinere Änderungen am Fragebogen vorgenommen. Die Überprüfung in der 2. Testphase machte
weitere Änderungen überflüssig.
Schlussfolgerung: Eine autorisierte Version des OES
konnte erfolgreich ins Deutsche übersetzt werden.
Deren Gütekriterien werden in einer nachfolgenden Studie untersucht.
Background: Lumbar discectomy is considered a safe, efficacious and cost-effective treatment for selected cases of patients with leg pain associated with the presence of a disc protrusion. But despite technically successful surgery, 30 % of patients complain of persistent pain on long-term follow up. Identification of possible predictors for a negative outcome is important, in the search for appropriate pre- and/or post-operative care and prevention of persistent disability. There is some evidence in the literature that quantitative sensory testing (QST) measures may play a role in prediction of patients’ pain persistency, however, this has never been investigated in patients undergoing lumbar discectomy.
Objective: The aim of this study is to determine the predictive value of QST parameters, in combination with previously documented predictor variables such as medical/psychological/cognitive behavioural factors, in patients with lumbar radiculopathy and/or radicular pain, for predicting patients’ clinical outcome after lumbar discectomy.
Method: Participants with radiculopathy and/or radicular pain and confirmed imaging diagnosis of nerve root compression will be recruited from the elective surgery waitlist at one hospital. All participants will undergo lumbar discectomy performed by one neurosurgeon. A standardized QST protocol comprising all of the somatosensory sub-modalities that are mediated by different primary afferents (C-, Aδ-, Aβ-) will be performed prior to surgery. QST will be conducted in the patients’ main pain area and contralateral side, in the affected dermatome and at a remote control site. The presence of other predictor variables will be captured by questionnaires. Follow-up at 3 months will include QST and measurements of pain intensity, pain descriptors, functional status, health related quality of life, return to work and health care utilisation. A further 1-year follow-up will include the same measurements except QST.
Results/Conclusions: Identification of new predictor variables may assist in the development of pre-surgical screening methods and in targeted pre- and/or post-operative patient care, with the potential to improve patients’ functional status, quality of life, work capacity whilst also reducing health care costs associated with persistent disability
Objectives
The aims of the present study were to provide back pain (BP) point prevalence data from inpatients at an Australian tertiary hospital on one day, and compare this with Australian non-hospitalized population prevalence data; to collect data around the development of BP throughout hospital admission; and to analyse the association between BP and past history of BP, gender, age, admission specialty and hospital length of stay (LOS).
Methods
This was a single-site, prospective, observational study of hospitalized inpatients on one day during 2016, with a subsequent survey over the following 11 days (unless discharge or death occurred sooner).
Results
Data were collected from 343 patients (75% of the hospitalized cohort). A third of patients (n = 108) reported BP on admission, and almost a fifth (n = 63) developed new BP during their hospitalization. Patients who described BP at any time during their hospital stay had a higher chance of having had a history of BP, with odds increasing after adjustment for age and gender (odds ratio 5.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0 to 11.6; p < 0.001). After adjusting for age and gender, those experiencing BP had a significantly longer LOS (median 13 days; CI 10.8 to 15.3) than those who did not (median 10 days; CI 8.4 to 11.6; p = 0.034).
Conclusions
Hospital LOS for patients who complained of BP at any time during their admission was 3 days longer than those who had no BP, and a history of BP predicted a higher likelihood of BP during admission. Screening of patients on admission to identify any history of BP, and application of a package of care including early mobilization and analgesia may prevent the onset of BP and reduce LOS.
Characterisation of pain in people with hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsy
(2017)
Hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsy (HNPP) has historically been considered a pain-free condition, though some people with HNPP also complain of pain. This study characterised persistent pain in people with HNPP. Participants provided cross-sectional demographic data, information on the presence of neurological and persistent pain symptoms, and the degree to which these interfered with daily life. The painDETECT and Central Sensitization Inventory questionnaires were used to indicate potential neuropathic, central sensitisation and musculoskeletal (nociceptive) pain mechanisms. Additionally, participants were asked if they thought that pain was related to/part of HNPP. 32/43 (74%) subjects with HNPP had persistent pain and experience this pain in the last week. Of those with pain, 24 (75%) were likely to have neuropathic pain and 27 (84%) were likely to have central sensitisation. All 32 participants felt that their pain could be related to/part of their HNPP. Significant negative impact of the pain was common. Pain characterisation identified neuropathic pain and/or central sensitisation as common, potential underlying processes. Pain may plausibly be directly related to the underlying pathophysiology of HNPP. Further consideration of including pain as a primary symptom of HNPP is warranted.
Entrapment neuropathies are the most prevalent type of peripheral neuropathy and often a challenge to diagnose and treat. To a large extent, our current knowledge is based on empirical concepts and early (often biomechanical) studies. This Viewpoint will challenge some of the current beliefs with recent advances in both basic and clinical neurosciences.
Background and aims
In 2008, the International Association for the Study of Pain Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) proposed a clinical grading system to help identify patients with neuropathic pain (NeP). We previously applied this classification system, along with two NeP screening tools, the painDETECT (PD-Q) and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs pain scale (LANSS), to identify NeP in patients with neck/upper limb pain. Both screening tools failed to identify a large proportion of patients with clinically classified NeP, however a limitation of our study was the use of a single clinician performing the NeP classification. In 2016, the NeuPSIG grading system was updated with the aim of improving its clinical utility. We were interested in field testing of the revised grading system, in particular in the application of the grading system and the agreement of interpretation of clinical findings. The primary aim of the current study was to explore the application of the NeuPSIG revised grading system based on patient records and to establish the inter-rater agreement of detecting NeP. A secondary aim was to investigate the level of agreement in detecting NeP between the revised NeuPSIG grading system and the LANSS and PD-Q.
Methods
In this retrospective study, two expert clinicians (Specialist Pain Medicine Physician and Advanced Scope Physiotherapist) independently reviewed 152 patient case notes and classified them according to the revised grading system. The consensus of the expert clinicians’ clinical classification was used as “gold standard” to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the two NeP screening tools.
Results
The two clinicians agreed in classifying 117 out of 152 patients (ICC 0.794, 95% CI 0.716–850; κ 0.62, 95% CI 0.50–0.73), yielding a 77% agreement. Compared to the clinicians’ consensus, both LANSS and PD-Q demonstrated limited diagnostic accuracy in detecting NeP (LANSS sensitivity 24%, specificity 97%; PD-Q sensitivity 53%, specificity 67%).
Conclusions
The application of the revised NeP grading system was feasible in our retrospective analysis of patients with neck/upper limb pain. High inter-rater percentage agreement was demonstrated. The hierarchical order of classification may lead to false negative classification. We propose that in the absence of sensory changes or diagnostic tests in patients with neck/upper limb pain, classification of NeP may be further improved using a cluster of clinical findings that confirm a relevant nerve lesion/disease, such as reflex and motor changes. The diagnostic accuracy of LANSS and PD-Q in identifying NeP in patients with neck/upper limb pain remains limited. Clinical judgment remains crucial to diagnosing NeP in the clinical practice.
Implications
Our observations suggest that in view of the heterogeneity in patients with neck/upper limb pain, a considerable amount of expertise is required to interpret the revised grading system. While the application was feasible in our clinical setting, it is unclear if this will be feasible to apply in primary health care settings where early recognition and timely intervention is often most needed. The use of LANSS and PD-Q in the identification of NeP in patients with neck/upper limb pain remains questionable.
Introduction Development and implementation of appropriate health policy is essential to address the rising global burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The aim of this study was to evaluate existing health policies for integrated prevention/management of NCDs among Member States of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). We sought to describe policies’ aims and strategies to achieve those aims, and evaluate extent of integration of musculoskeletal conditions as a leading cause of global morbidity.
Methods Policies submitted by OECD Member States in response to a World Health Organization (WHO) NCD Capacity Survey were extracted from the WHO document clearing-house and analysed following a standard protocol. Policies were eligible for inclusion when they described an integrated approach to prevention/management of NCDs. Internal validity was evaluated using a standard instrument (sum score: 0–14; higher scores indicate better quality). Quantitative data were expressed as frequencies, while text data were content-analysed and meta-synthesised using standardised methods.
Results After removal of duplicates and screening, 44 policies from 30 OECD Member States were included. Three key themes emerged to describe the general aims of included policies: system strengthening approaches; improved service delivery; and better population health. Whereas the policies of most countries covered cancer (83.3%), cardiovascular disease (76.6%), diabetes/endocrine disorders (76.6%), respiratory conditions (63.3%) and mental health conditions (63.3%), only half the countries included musculoskeletal health and pain (50.0%) as explicit foci. General strategies were outlined in 42 (95.5%) policies—all were relevant to musculoskeletal health in 12 policies, some relevant in 27 policies and none relevant in three policies. Three key themes described the strategies: general principles for people-centred NCD prevention/management; enhanced service delivery; and system strengthening approaches. Internal validity sum scores ranged from 0 to 13; mean: 7.6 (95% CI 6.5 to 8.7).
Conclusion Relative to other NCDs, musculoskeletal health did not feature as prominently, although many general prevention/management strategies were relevant to musculoskeletal health improvement.
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial.
Background
This study describes a low-cost and time-efficient clinical sensory test (CST) battery and evaluates its concurrent validity as a screening tool to detect somatosensory dysfunction as determined using quantitative sensory testing (QST).
Method
Three patient cohorts with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS, n = 76), non-specific neck and arm pain (NSNAP, n = 40) and lumbar radicular pain/radiculopathy (LR, n = 26) were included. The CST consisted of 13 tests, each corresponding to a QST parameter and evaluating a broad spectrum of sensory functions using thermal (coins, ice cube, hot test tube) and mechanical (cotton wool, von Frey hairs, tuning fork, toothpicks, thumb and eraser pressure) detection and pain thresholds testing both loss and gain of function. Agreement rate, statistical significance and strength of correlation (phi coefficient) between CST and QST parameters were calculated.
Results
Several CST parameters (cold, warm and mechanical detection thresholds as well as cold and pressure pain thresholds) were significantly correlated with QST, with a majority demonstrating >60% agreement rates and moderate to relatively strong correlations. However, agreement varied among cohorts. Gain of function parameters showed stronger agreement in the CTS and LR cohorts, whereas loss of function parameters had better agreement in the NSNAP cohort. Other CST parameters (16 mN von Frey tests, vibration detection, heat and mechanical pain thresholds, wind-up ratio) did not significantly correlate with QST.
Conclusion
Some of the tests in the CST could help detect somatosensory dysfunction as determined with QST. Parts of the CST could therefore be used as a low-cost screening tool in a clinical setting.
Significance
Quantitative sensory testing, albeit considered the gold standard to evaluate somatosensory dysfunction, requires expensive equipment, specialized examiner training and substantial time commitment which challenges its use in a clinical setting. Our study describes a CST as a low-cost and time-efficient alternative. Some of the CST tools (cold, warm, mechanical detection thresholds; pressure pain thresholds) significantly correlated with the respective QST parameters, suggesting that they may be useful in a clinical setting to detect sensory dysfunction.
Nervenschmerz ist nicht gleich Nervenschmerz. Um Patienten mit ausstrahlenden Schmerzen, bei denen die Nerven eine Rolle spielen könnten, adäquat zu therapieren, sind eine gründliche Untersuchung und ein fundiertes Clinical Reasoning unerlässlich. Nur dadurch entpuppen sich die beiden Patientinnen mit fast identischen Symptomen als sehr unterschiedlich.
Wir kennen neurodynamische Tests und Behandlungsmethoden, nutzen diese alltäglich in der Praxis und gehen auf Kurse, um mehr darüber zu lernen. Aber was verstehen wir tatsächlich darunter? Kommen wir in unserem Verständnis darüber auf einen gemeinsamen Nenner? Dieser Artikel gibt einen Einblick in die Thematik Neurodynamik. Bisherige Überzeugungen stehen dabei auf dem Prüfstand.