17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Clinical and cost-effectiveness of progressive exercise compared with best practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, for the treatment of rotator cuff disorders: protocol for a 2x2 factorial randomised controlled trial (the GRASP trial)

      protocol

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Shoulder pain is very common, with around 70% of cases due to disorders of the rotator cuff. Despite widespread provision of physiotherapy, there is uncertainty about which type of exercise and delivery mechanisms are associated with best outcomes. There is also uncertainty around the long-term benefits and harms of corticosteroid injection therapy, which is often used in addition to physiotherapy. The Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain trial will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of individually tailored, progressive exercise compared with best practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder.

          Methods and analysis

          We are conducting a large multicentre randomised controlled trial (2×2 factorial design). We will recruit adults ≥18 years with a new episode of shoulder pain attributable to a rotator cuff disorder as per British Elbow and Shoulder Society guidelines, not currently receiving physiotherapy or being considered for surgery, from at least eight UK National Health Service primary care-based musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services. Participants (n=704) will be randomised (centralised computer-generated 1:1:1:1 allocation ratio) to one of four interventions: (1) progressive exercise (≤6 physiotherapy sessions); (2) best practice advice (one physiotherapy session); (3) corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (≤6 sessions) or (4) corticosteroid injection then best practice advice (one session). The primary outcome is the mean difference in Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) total score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are: pain and function SPADI subdomains; health-related quality of life (Five-Level version of the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L); sleep disturbance; return to activity; global impression of change; health resource use; out-of-pocket expenses; work disability. A parallel within-trial economic evaluation will be conducted. The primary analysis will be intention to treat.

          Ethics and dissemination

          Research Ethics Committee approval (REC: 16/SC/0508) has been obtained. Results of the main trial and secondary outcomes will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

          Trial registration number

          ISRCTN16539266; EudraCT number: 2016-002991-28.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          EuroQol: the current state of play.

          R. Brooks (1996)
          The EuroQol Group first met in 1987 to test the feasibility of jointly developing a standardised non-disease-specific instrument for describing and valuing health-related quality of life. From the outset the Group has been multi-country, multi-centre, and multi-disciplinary. The EuroQol instrument is intended to complement other forms of quality of life measures, and it has been purposefully developed to generate a cardinal index of health, thus giving it considerable potential for use in economic evaluation. Considerable effort has been invested by the Group in the development and valuation aspects of health status measurement. Earlier work was reported upon in 1990; this paper is a second 'corporate' effort detailing subsequent developments. The concepts underlying the EuroQol framework are explored with particular reference to the generic nature of the instrument. The valuation task is reviewed and some evidence on the methodological requirements for measurement is presented. A number of special issues of considerable interest and concern to the Group are discussed: the modelling of data, the duration of health states and the problems surrounding the state 'dead'. An outline of some of the applications of the EuroQol instrument is presented and a brief commentary on the Group's ongoing programme of work concludes the paper.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.

            This paper reports on the findings of a study to derive a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36 for use in economic evaluation. The SF-36 was revised into a six-dimensional health state classification called the SF-6D. A sample of 249 states defined by the SF-6D have been valued by a representative sample of 611 members of the UK general population, using standard gamble. Models are estimated for predicting health state valuations for all 18,000 states defined by the SF-6D. The econometric modelling had to cope with the hierarchical nature of the data and its skewed distribution. The recommended models have produced significant coefficients for levels of the SF-6D, which are robust across model specification. However, there are concerns with some inconsistent estimates and over prediction of the value of the poorest health states. These problems must be weighed against the rich descriptive ability of the SF-6D, and the potential application of these models to existing and future SF-36 data set.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide.

              Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2017
                17 July 2017
                : 7
                : 7
                : e018004
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentNuffield Department of Orthopaedics , Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [2 ] Medical School, University of Exeter , Exeter, UK
                [3 ] Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust , Stanmore, Middlesex, UK
                [4 ] departmentPrimary Care and Health Sciences , Keele University , Keele, UK
                [5 ] Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust , Oxford, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr. Sally Hopewell; sally.hopewell@ 123456csm.ox.ac.uk
                Article
                bmjopen-2017-018004
                10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018004
                5683303
                28716796
                886a03eb-e79f-4490-adbd-2900f81e789f
                © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 01 June 2017
                : 05 June 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme;
                Categories
                Rehabilitation Medicine
                Protocol
                1506
                1727
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                rehabilitation medicine,primary care,pain management,musculoskeletal disorders
                Medicine
                rehabilitation medicine, primary care, pain management, musculoskeletal disorders

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content68

                Cited by11

                Most referenced authors732