Agreement between physical therapists and radiologists of stratifying patients with shoulder pain into new treatment related categories using ultrasound; an exploratory study.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic overview of the literature and an agreement study. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to explore the inter-professional agreement of diagnostic musculoskeletal ultrasound (DMUS) between physical therapists (PT) and radiologists, using a new classification strategy based upon the therapeutic consequences in patients with shoulder pain. BACKGROUND: DMUS is frequently used by PTs, although the agreement regarding traditional diagnostic labels between PTs and radiologists is only fair. Nevertheless, DMUS could be useful when used as a stratifying-tool. METHODS: First, a systematic overview of current evidence was performed to assess which traditional diagnostic labels could be recoded into new treatment related categories (referral to secondary care, corticosteroid injections, physical therapy, watchful waiting). Next, kappa values were calculated for these categories between PTs and radiologists. RESULTS: Only three categories were extracted, as none of the traditional diagnostic labels were classified into the 'corticosteroid injection' category. Overall, we found moderate agreement to stratify patients into treatment related categories and substantial agreement for the category 'referral to secondary care'. Both categories 'watchful waiting' and 'indication for physical therapy' showed moderate agreement between the two professions. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the agreement between radiologists and PTs is moderate to substantial when labelling is based on treatment consequences. DMUS might be able to help the PT to guide treatment, especially for the category 'referral to secondary care' as this showed the highest agreement. However, as this is just an explorative study, more research is needed, to validate and assess the consequences of this stratification classification for clinical care.

Inter-professional agreement of ultrasound-based diagnoses in patients with shoulder pain between physical therapists and radiologists in the Netherlands.

STUDY DESIGN: Reliability study. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the interrater-reliability of the interpretation of diagnostic ultrasound in patients with shoulder pain between physical therapists and radiologists. BACKGROUND: Although physical therapists in The Netherlands increasingly use diagnostic ultrasound in clinical practice, there is no evidence available on its reliability. METHODS: A cohort study included patients with shoulder pain from primary care physiotherapy. Patients followed the usual diagnostic pathway of which diagnostic ultrasound could be a part. Patients that received diagnostic ultrasound also visited a radiologist within one week for a second one. Patients and radiologists were blinded for the diagnostic ultrasound diagnosis of the physical therapists. Agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics. Subgroup analysis was performed on education and experience. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients were enrolled and 13 physical therapists and 9 radiologists performed diagnostic ultrasound. We found substantial agreement (0.63 K) between physical therapists and radiologists on the assessment of full thickness tears. The overall kappa of all four diagnostic categories was 0.36, indicating fair agreement. The more experienced and highly trained physical therapists showed moderate agreement (0.43 K) compared to only slight agreement (0.17 and 0.09 K) from the less experienced and trained physical therapists with radiologists. CONCLUSION: The reliability between physical therapists and radiologist on diagnostic ultrasound of shoulder patients in primary care is borderline substantial (Kappa = 0.63) for full thickness tears only. This level of reliability is relatively low when compared with the high reliability between radiologists. More experience and training of physical therapists may increase the reliability of diagnostic ultrasound.

International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) and Oswestry macroscopic cartilage evaluation scores validated for use in Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI) and microfracture.

OBJECTIVE: For young patients with cartilage defects, the emergence of clinically applicable cell therapy for biological joint reconstruction is an appealing prospect. Acceptation of this method as a means of standard care requires proof of being reproducible, having long-lasting mechanical integrity, and having a good clinical outcome. This study evaluates the reliability of the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) score and the Oswestry Arthroscopy Score (OAS) in the assessment of regenerative cartilage repair. METHOD: A total of 101 macroscopic images of cartilage repair were made during arthroscopy 12 months post-treatment of either Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI) or microfracture. These images were examined by seven independent observers with differing levels of experience. The ICRS and OAS scores were randomly presented twice at a 4-week interval. All observers stated their predicted outcome according to actual treatment and defect size. RESULTS: ICRS and OAS scores showed both good inter- and intra observer reliability (0.62 and 0.56 for ICRS; 0.73 and 0.65 for OAS, respectively). Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was satisfactory for research purposes (0.79 and 0.74, respectively). Correlation (equivalence concordance) between both scoring systems was excellent (r=0.94). All observers were inconsistent in predicting actual treatment. Test-re test reliability of estimated defect size and its correlation to true defect size were poor. These results were also applicable to the sub-analyses of the experience of the observer and the quality of imaging. CONCLUSION: The ICRS and OAS are reliable and relevant scores that are now both validated for macroscopic evaluation of cartilage repair as a research tool.