Panken Guus, Verhagen Arianne P, Terwee Caroline B, Heymans Martijn W
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017 Aug;47(8):518-529. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2017.7142. Epub 2017 Jun 16.
Study Design Systematic review and validation study. Background Many prognostic models of knee pain outcomes have been developed for use in primary care. Variability among published studies with regard to patient population, outcome measures, and relevant prognostic factors hampers the generalizability and implementation of these models. Objectives To summarize existing prognostic models in patients with knee pain in a primary care setting and to develop and internally validate new summary prognostic models. Methods After a sensitive search strategy, 2 reviewers independently selected prognostic models for patients with nontraumatic knee pain and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. All predictors of the included studies were evaluated, summarized, and classified. The predictors assessed in multiple studies of sufficient quality are presented in this review. Using data from the Musculoskeletal System Study (BAS) cohort of patients with a new episode of knee pain, recruited consecutively by Dutch general medical practitioners (n = 372), we used predictors with a strong level of evidence to develop new prognostic models for each outcome measure and internally validated these models. Results Sixteen studies were eligible for inclusion. We considered 11 studies to be of sufficient quality. None of these studies validated their models. Five predictors with strong evidence were related to function and 6 to recovery, and were used to compose 2 prognostic models for patients with knee pain at 1 year. Running these new models in another data set showed explained variances (R) of 0.36 (function) and 0.33 (recovery). The area under the curve of the recovery model was 0.79. After internal validation, the adjusted R values of the models were 0.30 (function) and 0.20 (recovery), and the area under the curve was 0.73. Conclusion We developed 2 valid prognostic models for function and recovery for patients with nontraumatic knee pain, based on predictors with strong evidence. A longer duration of complaints predicted poorer function but did not adequately predict chance of recovery. Level of Evidence Prognosis, levels 1a and 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(8):518-529. Epub 16 Jun 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7142.
系统评价与验证性研究。背景:已经开发了许多用于初级保健的膝关节疼痛预后模型。已发表研究在患者人群、结局指标和相关预后因素方面存在差异,这妨碍了这些模型的推广和应用。目的:总结初级保健环境中膝关节疼痛患者的现有预后模型,并开发和内部验证新的综合预后模型。方法:经过敏感的检索策略,2名评审员独立选择非创伤性膝关节疼痛患者的预后模型,并评估纳入研究的方法学质量。对纳入研究的所有预测因素进行评估、总结和分类。本综述展示了在多项质量足够的研究中评估的预测因素。利用荷兰全科医生连续招募的膝关节疼痛新发患者肌肉骨骼系统研究(BAS)队列的数据(n = 372),我们使用证据强度高的预测因素为每个结局指标开发新的预后模型,并对这些模型进行内部验证。结果:16项研究符合纳入标准。我们认为11项研究质量足够。这些研究均未对其模型进行验证。有充分证据的5个预测因素与功能相关,6个与恢复相关,用于构建膝关节疼痛患者1年时的2个预后模型。在另一个数据集中运行这些新模型显示解释方差(R)分别为0.36(功能)和0.33(恢复)。恢复模型的曲线下面积为0.79。内部验证后,模型的调整R值分别为0.30(功能)和0.20(恢复),曲线下面积为0.73。结论:基于证据充分的预测因素,我们为非创伤性膝关节疼痛患者开发了2个功能和恢复方面的有效预后模型。较长的疼痛持续时间预示功能较差,但不能充分预测恢复的可能性。证据级别:预后,1a级和1b级。《矫形与运动物理治疗杂志》2017年;47(8):518 - 529。2017年6月16日在线发表。doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7142 。