Treatment of myofascial trigger points in common shoulder disorders by physical therapy: A randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN75722066]

Background  

Shoulder disorders are a common health problem in western societies. Several treatment protocols have been developed for the clinical management of persons with shoulder pain. However available evidence does not support any protocol as being superior over others. Systematic reviews provide some evidence that certain physical therapy interventions (i.e. supervised exercises and mobilisation) are effective in particular shoulder disorders (i.e. rotator cuff disorders, mixed shoulder disorders and adhesive capsulitis), but there is an ongoing need for high quality trials of physical therapy interventions. Usually, physical therapy consists of active exercises intended to strengthen the shoulder muscles as stabilizers of the glenohumeral joint or perform mobilisations to improve restricted mobility of the glenohumeral or adjacent joints (shoulder girdle). It is generally accepted that a-traumatic shoulder problems are the result of impingement of the subacromial structures, such as the bursa or rotator cuff tendons. Myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) in shoulder muscles may also lead to a complex of symptoms that are often seen in patients diagnosed with subacromial impingement or rotator cuff tendinopathy. Little is known about the treatment of MTrPs in patients with shoulder disorders.     

General and specific cognitive deficits in schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: It is controversial whether the cognitive deficit in schizophrenia is better characterized as generalized or as reflecting relatively independent deficits in different cognitive domains. The issue has implications for assessment practice, intervention design, and the exploration of schizophrenia genetics. METHODS: We used a specialized structural equation modeling approach, single common factor analysis, to explore the relative importance of generalized versus independent cognitive deficits in schizophrenia. Eighteen subtest scores from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III and the Wechsler Memory Scale-III were included in the analysis. We analyzed these data for 97 schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder outpatients and 87 healthy control subjects. RESULTS: Approximately two thirds of the overall effect of a schizophrenia diagnosis on cognitive performance was mediated through a single common factor. The Wechsler subtest scores showed almost uniformly strong relationships with this factor. The independent associations of group status with the subtest scores were smaller in magnitude and only selectively significant. CONCLUSIONS: The relatively greater magnitude of illness effects mediated through the common factor in this analysis, compared with the specific, independent effects, suggests that a generalized cognitive deficit is a core feature of schizophrenia.     

Evaluation of specialists'' outreach clinics in general practice in England: process and acceptability to patients, specialists, and general practitioners.

OBJECTIVES: The wider study aimed to evaluate specialists' outreach clinics in relation to their costs, processes, and effectiveness, including patients' and professionals' attitudes. The data on processes and attitudes are presented here. DESIGN: Self administered questionnaires were drawn up for patients, their general practitioners (GPs) and specialists, and managers in the practice. Information was sought from hospital trusts. The study formed a pilot phase prior to a wider evaluation. SETTING: Nine outreach clinics in general practices in England, each with a hospital outpatient department as a control clinic were studied. SUBJECTS: The specialties included were ear, nose, and throat surgery; rheumatology; and gynaecology. The subjects were the patients who attended either the outreach clinics or hospital outpatients clinics during the study period, the outreach patients' GPs, the outreach patients' and outpatients' specialists, the managers in the practices, and the NHS trusts which employed the specialists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Process items included waiting lists, waiting times in clinics, number of follow up visits, investigations and procedures performed, treatment, health status, patients' and specialists' travelling times, and patients' and doctors' attitudes to, and satisfaction with, the clinic. RESULTS: There was no difference in the health status of patients in relation to the clinic site (ie, outreach and hospital outpatients' clinics) at baseline, and all but one of the specialists said there were no differences in casemix between their outreach and outpatients' clinics. Patients preferred, and were more satisfied with, care in specialists' outreach clinics in general practice, in comparison with outpatients' clinics. The outreach clinics were rated as more convenient than outpatients' clinics in relation to journey times; those outreach patients in work lost less time away from work than outpatients' clinic patients due to the clinic attendance. Length of time on the waiting list was significantly reduced for gynaecology patients; waiting times in clinics were lower for outreach patients than outpatients across all specialties. In addition, outreach patients were more likely to be first rather than follow up attenders; rheumatology outreach patients were more likely than hospital outpatients to receive therapy. GPs' referrals to hospital outpatients' clinics were greatly reduced by the availability of outreach clinics. Both specialists and GPs saw the main advantages of outreach clinics in relation to the greater convenience and better access to care for patients. Few of the specialists and GPs in the outreach practices held formal training and education sessions in the outreach clinic, although over half of the GPs felt that their skills/expertise had broadened as a result of the outreach clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The processes of care (waiting times, patient satisfaction, convenience to patients, follow up attendances) were better in outreach than in outpatients' clinics. However, waiting lists were only significantly reduced for gynaecology patients, despite both GPs and consultants reporting reduced waiting lists for patients as one of the main advantages of outreach. Whether these improvements merit the increased cost to the specialists (in terms of their increased travelling times and time spent away from their hospital base) and whether the development of what is, in effect, two standards of care between practices with and without outreach can be stemmed and the standard of care raised in all practices (eg, by sharing outreach clinics between GPs in an area) remain the subject of debate. As the data were based on the pilot study, the results should be viewed with some caution, although statistical power was adequate for comparisons of sites if not specialties.     

Comparison of Health and Safety Executive and Cumbrian birth cohort studies of risk of leukaemia/non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in relation to paternal preconceptional irradiation.

In 1993, a case-control study by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) assessed the risk of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (LNHL) among children of fathers employed at the Sellafield nuclear installation in relation to paternal preconceptional irradiation (PPI). It concluded that the statistical association between risk of LNHL and PPI was confined to children born in the village of Seascale, where the dose-response was extremely high and very significant. In contrast, in 2002, a Cumbrian birth cohort study, investigating largely the same cases, concluded that this statistical association was not significantly different among children born inside and outside Seascale and estimated the dose-response inside Seascale to be much lower. This review makes a detailed comparison of the two studies, considering their design, data and analyses. The differences between their findings are due to: (i) differences in the distribution of offspring-years which are differential with respect to dose category and Seascale birth status, (ii) a non-Seascale high-dose case included in the Cumbrian but not the HSE study, (iii) differences between analyses using categorical and continuous PPI dose and (iv) the presence of Seascale controls with PPI over 200 mSv in the Cumbrian but not the HSE study.