治疗急性外伤性肩关节前脱位的建议与理疗计划:ARTISAN RCT。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health technology assessment Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.3310/CMYW9226
Rebecca Kearney, David Ellard, Helen Parsons, Aminul Haque, James Mason, Henry Nwankwo, Helen Bradley, Steve Drew, Chetan Modi, Howard Bush, David Torgerson, Martin Underwood
{"title":"治疗急性外伤性肩关节前脱位的建议与理疗计划:ARTISAN RCT。","authors":"Rebecca Kearney, David Ellard, Helen Parsons, Aminul Haque, James Mason, Henry Nwankwo, Helen Bradley, Steve Drew, Chetan Modi, Howard Bush, David Torgerson, Martin Underwood","doi":"10.3310/CMYW9226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The extra benefit of a programme of physiotherapy in addition to advice alone, following first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation, is uncertain. We compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a single session of advice with a single session of advice and a programme of physiotherapy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The primary objective was to quantify and draw inferences about observed differences in the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score between the trial treatment groups 6 months post randomisation, in adults with a first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Forty-one hospitals in the UK NHS.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Adults with a radiologically confirmed first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation, being managed non-operatively. People with neurovascular complications or bilateral dislocations, and those unable to adhere to trial procedures or unable to attend physiotherapy within 6 weeks of injury, or who had previously been randomised, were excluded.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>All participants received the same initial shoulder examination followed by advice to aid self-management, lasting up to 1 hour and administered by a physiotherapist (control). Participants randomised to receive an additional programme of physiotherapy were offered sessions lasting for up to 30 minutes, over a maximum duration of 4 months from the date of randomisation (intervention).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome measure was the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score. This is a self-completed outcome measure containing 12 questions (0-4 points each), with possible scores from 0 (worst function) to 48 (best function). Measurements were collected at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months by postal questionnaire; 6 months was the primary outcome time point. The primary health outcome for economic evaluation was the quality-adjusted life-year, in accordance with National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between 14 November 2018 and 14 March 2022, 482 participants were randomised to advice (<i>n</i> = 240) or advice and a programme of physiotherapy (<i>n</i> = 242). Participants were 34% female, with a mean age of 45 years, and treatment arms were balanced at baseline. There was not a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome between advice only and advice plus a programme of physiotherapy at 6 months for the primary intention-to-treat adjusted analysis (favours physiotherapy: 1.5, 95% confidence interval -0.3 to 3.5) or at earlier 3-month and 6-week time points on the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (0-48; higher scores indicate better function). The probability of physiotherapy being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 0.95.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found little difference in the primary outcome or other secondary outcomes. Advice with additional physiotherapy sessions was found likely to be cost-effective. However, small imprecise incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years raise questions on whether it is the best use of scarce physiotherapy resources given current service demands.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Loss to follow-up was 27%; however, the observed standard deviation was much smaller than anticipated. These changes in parameters reduced the number of participants required to observe the planned target difference of four points. Our post hoc sensitivity analysis, accounting for missing data, gives similar results.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>Further research should be directed towards optimising self-management strategies.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as ISRCTN63184243.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/167/56) and is published in full in <i>Health Technology Assessment</i>; Vol. 28, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":12898,"journal":{"name":"Health technology assessment","volume":"28 22","pages":"1-94"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11089447/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advice only versus advice and a physiotherapy programme for acute traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation: the ARTISAN RCT.\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca Kearney, David Ellard, Helen Parsons, Aminul Haque, James Mason, Henry Nwankwo, Helen Bradley, Steve Drew, Chetan Modi, Howard Bush, David Torgerson, Martin Underwood\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/CMYW9226\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The extra benefit of a programme of physiotherapy in addition to advice alone, following first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation, is uncertain. We compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a single session of advice with a single session of advice and a programme of physiotherapy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The primary objective was to quantify and draw inferences about observed differences in the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score between the trial treatment groups 6 months post randomisation, in adults with a first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Forty-one hospitals in the UK NHS.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Adults with a radiologically confirmed first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation, being managed non-operatively. People with neurovascular complications or bilateral dislocations, and those unable to adhere to trial procedures or unable to attend physiotherapy within 6 weeks of injury, or who had previously been randomised, were excluded.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>All participants received the same initial shoulder examination followed by advice to aid self-management, lasting up to 1 hour and administered by a physiotherapist (control). Participants randomised to receive an additional programme of physiotherapy were offered sessions lasting for up to 30 minutes, over a maximum duration of 4 months from the date of randomisation (intervention).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome measure was the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score. This is a self-completed outcome measure containing 12 questions (0-4 points each), with possible scores from 0 (worst function) to 48 (best function). Measurements were collected at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months by postal questionnaire; 6 months was the primary outcome time point. The primary health outcome for economic evaluation was the quality-adjusted life-year, in accordance with National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between 14 November 2018 and 14 March 2022, 482 participants were randomised to advice (<i>n</i> = 240) or advice and a programme of physiotherapy (<i>n</i> = 242). Participants were 34% female, with a mean age of 45 years, and treatment arms were balanced at baseline. There was not a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome between advice only and advice plus a programme of physiotherapy at 6 months for the primary intention-to-treat adjusted analysis (favours physiotherapy: 1.5, 95% confidence interval -0.3 to 3.5) or at earlier 3-month and 6-week time points on the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (0-48; higher scores indicate better function). The probability of physiotherapy being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 0.95.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found little difference in the primary outcome or other secondary outcomes. Advice with additional physiotherapy sessions was found likely to be cost-effective. However, small imprecise incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years raise questions on whether it is the best use of scarce physiotherapy resources given current service demands.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Loss to follow-up was 27%; however, the observed standard deviation was much smaller than anticipated. These changes in parameters reduced the number of participants required to observe the planned target difference of four points. Our post hoc sensitivity analysis, accounting for missing data, gives similar results.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>Further research should be directed towards optimising self-management strategies.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as ISRCTN63184243.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/167/56) and is published in full in <i>Health Technology Assessment</i>; Vol. 28, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12898,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health technology assessment\",\"volume\":\"28 22\",\"pages\":\"1-94\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11089447/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health technology assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/CMYW9226\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/CMYW9226","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:首次外伤性肩关节脱位后,除了单纯的建议外,物理治疗计划的额外益处尚不确定。我们比较了单次建议与单次建议和物理治疗计划的临床和成本效益:主要目的是对首次外伤性肩关节脱位的成人患者在随机分配后6个月的牛津肩关节不稳定性评分进行量化,并推断出试验治疗组之间的观察差异:设计:务实、多中心、优越性、随机对照试验,内含定性研究:地点:英国国家医疗服务体系的41家医院:经放射学确诊为首次外伤性肩关节前脱位、正在接受非手术治疗的成年人。排除患有神经血管并发症或双侧脱位者、无法遵守试验程序者、无法在受伤后6周内接受物理治疗者或之前接受过随机治疗者:所有参与者均接受相同的初步肩部检查,然后由物理治疗师提供最长1小时的自我管理建议(对照组)。被随机选中接受额外理疗项目的参与者将接受最长30分钟的理疗,疗程自随机选中之日起最长不超过4个月(干预):主要结果测量指标为牛津肩关节不稳定性评分。这是一项自填式结果测量,包含 12 个问题(每个问题 0-4 分),得分范围从 0(功能最差)到 48(功能最佳)。在 6 周、3 个月、6 个月和 12 个月时通过邮寄问卷进行测量;6 个月是主要结果时间点。根据美国国家健康与护理卓越研究所指南,经济评估的主要健康结果是质量调整生命年:2018年11月14日至2022年3月14日期间,482名参与者被随机分配到建议(n = 240)或建议和物理治疗计划(n = 242)。参与者中34%为女性,平均年龄为45岁,治疗组基线平衡。在6个月的主要意向治疗调整分析中,仅提供建议与提供建议并辅以物理治疗方案之间的主要结果差异无统计学意义(物理治疗更有利:1.5,95%置信区间-0.3至3.5),在3个月和6周的牛津肩关节不稳定性评分(0-48分;分数越高,功能越好)中,两者之间的差异也无统计学意义。在30,000英镑的支付意愿阈值下,物理治疗具有成本效益的概率为0.95:我们发现在主要结果和其他次要结果方面差异不大。额外物理治疗的建议可能具有成本效益。然而,不精确的增量成本和质量调整生命年较小,这不禁让人怀疑在当前服务需求的情况下,这是否是对稀缺物理治疗资源的最佳利用:局限性:随访损失率为 27%;然而,观察到的标准偏差比预期的要小得多。这些参数的变化减少了观察到四点目标差异所需的参与者人数。我们对缺失数据进行了事后敏感性分析,得出了类似的结果:进一步的研究应着眼于优化自我管理策略:研究注册:本研究注册为 ISRCTN63184243:该奖项由美国国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)健康技术评估项目资助(NIHR奖项编号:16/167/56),全文发表于《健康技术评估》第28卷第22期。如需了解更多奖项信息,请访问 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Advice only versus advice and a physiotherapy programme for acute traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation: the ARTISAN RCT.

Background: The extra benefit of a programme of physiotherapy in addition to advice alone, following first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation, is uncertain. We compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a single session of advice with a single session of advice and a programme of physiotherapy.

Objective: The primary objective was to quantify and draw inferences about observed differences in the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score between the trial treatment groups 6 months post randomisation, in adults with a first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation.

Design: A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study.

Setting: Forty-one hospitals in the UK NHS.

Participants: Adults with a radiologically confirmed first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation, being managed non-operatively. People with neurovascular complications or bilateral dislocations, and those unable to adhere to trial procedures or unable to attend physiotherapy within 6 weeks of injury, or who had previously been randomised, were excluded.

Interventions: All participants received the same initial shoulder examination followed by advice to aid self-management, lasting up to 1 hour and administered by a physiotherapist (control). Participants randomised to receive an additional programme of physiotherapy were offered sessions lasting for up to 30 minutes, over a maximum duration of 4 months from the date of randomisation (intervention).

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score. This is a self-completed outcome measure containing 12 questions (0-4 points each), with possible scores from 0 (worst function) to 48 (best function). Measurements were collected at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months by postal questionnaire; 6 months was the primary outcome time point. The primary health outcome for economic evaluation was the quality-adjusted life-year, in accordance with National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidelines.

Results: Between 14 November 2018 and 14 March 2022, 482 participants were randomised to advice (n = 240) or advice and a programme of physiotherapy (n = 242). Participants were 34% female, with a mean age of 45 years, and treatment arms were balanced at baseline. There was not a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome between advice only and advice plus a programme of physiotherapy at 6 months for the primary intention-to-treat adjusted analysis (favours physiotherapy: 1.5, 95% confidence interval -0.3 to 3.5) or at earlier 3-month and 6-week time points on the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (0-48; higher scores indicate better function). The probability of physiotherapy being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 0.95.

Conclusions: We found little difference in the primary outcome or other secondary outcomes. Advice with additional physiotherapy sessions was found likely to be cost-effective. However, small imprecise incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years raise questions on whether it is the best use of scarce physiotherapy resources given current service demands.

Limitations: Loss to follow-up was 27%; however, the observed standard deviation was much smaller than anticipated. These changes in parameters reduced the number of participants required to observe the planned target difference of four points. Our post hoc sensitivity analysis, accounting for missing data, gives similar results.

Future work: Further research should be directed towards optimising self-management strategies.

Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN63184243.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/167/56) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health technology assessment
Health technology assessment 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publishes research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
期刊最新文献
Early high-dose cryoprecipitate to reduce mortality in adult patients with traumatic haemorrhage: the CRYOSTAT-2 RCT with cost-effectiveness analysis. Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care tests for acute respiratory infection: a systematic review of reviews. The effect of two speech and language approaches on speech problems in people with Parkinson's disease: the PD COMM RCT. Alitretinoin versus phototherapy as the first-line treatment in adults with severe chronic hand eczema: the ALPHA RCT. Transperineal biopsy devices in people with suspected prostate cancer - a systematic review and economic evaluation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1