RESUMO
PURPOSE: To explore patient experiences of rotator cuff-related shoulder pain, and their views on the role and value of diagnostic shoulder imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 patients with shoulder pain exploring the impact and management of their shoulder condition, reasons for and experiences of diagnostic imaging, and feelings about and responses to diagnostic imaging findings. Framework analysis was used to analyse the dataset. RESULTS: Five themes were identified [1]: Lived experience and beliefs about pain and movement [2]; Contextualisation of imaging findings by health professionals is more important than the imaging report [3]; Factors influencing whether and when to have imaging [4]; Imaging can identify the actual problem and guide treatment; and [5] Treatment responses and treatment decision making. CONCLUSION: Patients commonly believe imaging is needed to formulate a diagnosis. There was minimal concern about potential indirect harms that could arise (e.g., inappropriate diagnosis leading to unnecessary treatments). The context of the diagnostic imaging reports (i.e., what needed to be done) was perceived as more important than the exact meaning of the imaging findings. Patients felt that the diagnostic imaging confirmed their existing biomedical beliefs, and these beliefs were not challenged by their healthcare professionals.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONPatients with shoulder pain may believe imaging is necessary for diagnosis and defining treatment yet do not consider potential indirect harms (e.g., unnecessary treatment for findings that are not relevant).Health professionals should ensure patients are aware of imaging limitations and harms and facilitate shared decision-making about whether to have imaging.Health professionals also have an important role in the appropriate contextualisation of imaging findings (i.e., they do not necessarily relate to pain nor guide treatment).
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The management of distal radial fractures is guided by the interpretation of radiographic findings. The aim of this investigation was to determine the intra- and inter-observer reliability of eight traditionally reported anatomic radiographic parameters in adults with an acute distal radius fracture. METHODS: Five observers participated. All were routinely involved in making treatment decisions based on distal radius fracture radiographs. Observers performed independent repeated measurements on 30 radiographs for eight anatomical parameters: dorsal shift (mm), intra-articular gap (mm), intra-articular step (mm), palmar tilt (degrees), radial angle (degrees), radial height (mm), radial shift (mm), ulnar variance (mm). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and the magnitude of retest errors were calculated. RESULTS: Measurement reliability was summarised as high (ICC > 0.80), moderate (0.60-0.80) or low (<0.60). Intra-observer reliability was high for dorsal shift and palmar tilt; moderate for radial angle, radial height, ulnar variance and radial shift; and low for intra-articular gap and step. Inter-observer reliability was high for palmar tilt; moderate for dorsal shift, ulnar variance, radial angle and radial height; and low for radial shift, intra-articular gap and step. Error magnitude (95 % confidence interval) was within 1-2 mm for intra-articular gap and step, 2-4 mm for ulnar variance, 4-6 mm for radial shift, dorsal shift and radial height, and 6-8° for radial angle and palmar tilt. CONCLUSIONS: Based on previous reports of critical values for palmar tilt, ulnar variance and radial angle, error margins appear small enough for measurements to be useful in guiding treatment decisions. Our findings indicate that clinicians cannot reliably measure values ≤1 mm for intra-articular gap and step when interpreting radiographic parameters using the standardised methods investigated in this study. As a guide for treatment selection, palmar tilt, ulnar variance and radial angle measurements may be useful, but intra-articular gap and step appear unreliable.
