Comparative effectiveness of treatments for patellofemoral pain: a living systematic review with network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the comparative effectiveness of all treatments for patellofemoral pain (PFP). DESIGN: Living systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA). DATA SOURCES: Sensitive search in seven databases, three grey literature resources and four trial registers. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials evaluating any treatment for PFP with outcomes 'any improvement', and pain intensity. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias with Risk of Bias Tool V.2. We used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation to appraise the strength of the evidence. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: 'Any improvement' measured with a Global Rating of Change Scale. RESULTS: Twenty-two trials (with forty-eight treatment arms) were included, of which approximately 10 (45%) were at high risk of bias for the primary outcome. Most comparisons had a low to very low strength of the evidence. All treatments were better than wait and see for any improvement at 3 months (education (OR 9.6, 95% credible interval (CrI): 2.2 to 48.8); exercise (OR 13.0, 95% CrI: 2.4 to 83.5); education+orthosis (OR 16.5, 95% CrI: 4.9 to 65.8); education+exercise+patellar taping/mobilisations (OR 25.2, 95% CrI: 5.7 to 130.3) and education+exercise+patellar taping/mobilisations+orthosis (OR 38.8, 95% CrI: 7.3 to 236.9)). Education+exercise+patellar taping/mobilisations, with (OR 4.0, 95% CrI: 1.5 to 11.8) or without orthosis (OR 2.6, 95% CrI: 1.7 to 4.2), were superior to education alone. At 12 months, education or education+any combination yielded similar improvement rates. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION: Education combined with a physical treatment (exercise, orthoses or patellar taping/mobilisation) is most likely to be effective at 3 months. At 12 months, education appears comparable to education with a physical treatment. There was insufficient evidence to recommend a specific type of physical treatment over another. All treatments in our NMA were superior to wait and see at 3 months, and we recommend avoiding a wait-and-see approach. PROSPERO REGISTERATION NUMBER: PROSPERO registration CRD42018079502.

Which treatment is most effective for patients with patellofemoral pain? A protocol for a living systematic review including network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Patellofemoral pain (PFP) affects 1 in every 14 adults. Many treatments for PFP have been evaluated, but the comparative effectiveness of all available treatments has never been examined. Network meta-analysis is the only design to study the comparative effectiveness of all available treatments in one synthesis. This protocol describes the methods for a systematic review including network meta-analysis to assess which treatment is most likely to be effective for patients with PFP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome measures of this network meta-analysis are the global rating of change scale at 6-12 weeks, 13-52 weeks and >52 weeks. The secondary outcome measures are patient-rated pain scales at 6-12 weeks, 13-52 weeks and >52 weeks. Completed published and unpublished randomised controlled trials with full-text reports are eligible for inclusion. We will search Embase, PubMed (including MEDLINE), CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, OpenGrey, WorldCat, conference Proceedings and multiple trial registers for relevant reports. Two researchers will appraise the study eligibility and perform data extraction. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool V.2.0.Bayesian network meta-analyses will be constructed for global rating of change scale and patient-rated pain. Consistency between direct and indirect comparisons will be assessed. Between study variability will be explored, and a threshold analysis for the credibility of the network meta-analyses' conclusions will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required, as this study will be based on published data. The study commenced at 1 February 2018, and its expected completion date is 15 January 2019. Full publication of the work will be sought in an international peer-reviewed journal, as well as translational articles to disseminate the work to clinical practitioners. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018079502.

A Method for Developing Standard Patient Education Program.

In Denmark, patients being treated on Haematology Outpatients Departments get instructed to self-manage their blood sample collection from Central Venous Catheter (CVC). However, this is a complex and risky procedure, which can jeopardize patient safety. The aim of the study was to suggest a method for developing standard digital patient education programs for patients in self-administration of blood samples drawn from CVC. The Design Science Research Paradigm was used to develop a digital patient education program, called PAVIOSY, to increase patient safety during execution of the blood sample collection procedure by using videos for teaching as well as procedural support. A step-by-step guide was developed and used as basis for making the videos. Quality assurance through evaluation with a nurse was conducted on both the step-by-step guide and the videos. The quality assurance evaluation of the videos showed; 1) Errors due to the order of the procedure can be determined by reviewing the videos despite that the guide was followed. 2) Videos can be used to identify errors - important for patient safety - in the procedure, which are not identifiable in a written script. To ensure correct clinical content of the educational patient system, health professionals must be engaged early in the development of content and design phase.