Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33061316›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020

Clinical Characteristics and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Primary Care Physiotherapy in Patients with Whiplash-Associated Disorders: A Longitudinal Observational Study.

Rob A B Oostendorp, J W Hans Elvers, Emiel van Trijffel, Geert M Rutten, Gwendolyne G M Scholten-Peeters, Marcel Heijmans, Erik Hendriks, Emilia Mikolajewska, Margot De Kooning, Marjan Laekeman and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 10 institutions in 5 countries.

Rob A B OostendorpScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6697-0817
J W Hans ElversDepartment of Public Health and Research, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0423-1829
Emiel van TrijffelDepartment of Master Education, SOMT University of Physiotherapy, Amersfoort, the Netherlands.
Geert M RuttenInstitute of Health Studies, Faculty of Health and Social Studies, HAN University of Applied Science, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Gwendolyne G M Scholten-PeetersDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioral and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4409-9554
Marcel HeijmansPractice Physiotherapy and Manual Therapy, Heeswijk-Dinther, the Netherlands.
Erik HendriksDepartment of Epidemiology, Center of Evidence Based Physiotherapy, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Emilia MikolajewskaDepartment of Physiotherapy, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-2769-3068
Margot De KooningPain in Motion International Research Group, Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-5194-7400
Marjan LaekemanDepartment of Nursing Sciences, Ph.D.-Kolleg, Faculty of Health, University Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8466-3404
Jo NijsPain in Motion International Research Group, Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-4976-6563
Nathalie RousselDepartment of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Sciences (MOVANT), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7409-878X
Han SamwelRevalis Pain Rehabilitation Centre, S Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.
Vrije Universiteit Brussel · BEHAN University of Applied Sciences · NLMaastricht University · NLNicolaus Copernicus University · PLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL's Heeren Loo · NLTolbrug Specialistische Revalidatie · NLUniversity of Antwerp · BEVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLWitten/Herdecke University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhiplash-associated disorders (WADs) constitute a state of health characterized by a wide diversity of symptoms as a result of impairments of functions, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) seem appropriate when describing and evaluating the health status of patients with WAD.

aimTo measure the use of PROMs and PROs as quality indicators in clinical reasoning, and to analyze and evaluate pre- and post-treatment 'pain intensity' and 'functioning', and for 'perceived improvement' in patients with WAD in primary care physiotherapy practice by year of referral, with the phase after accident and prognostic health profile embedded in the clinical reasoning process. MATERIALS AND

methodsData were collected over a period of 10 years. Pain intensity, functioning, and perceived improvement were measured using the Visual Analogue Scale for Pain (VAS-P), the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the Global Perceived Effect scale (GPE). Pre- and post-treatment mean differences were tested for statistical significance and compared to minimal clinically important differences (MCID). Effect sizes were expressed as Cohen's d. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to explore independent associations of year of referral, phase after the accident, and the patient's prognostic health profile with post-treatment pain intensity and functioning.

resultsA consecutive sample of 523 patients was included. Pre- and post-treatment mean differences on VAS-P and NDI were statistically significant (

conclusionThe PROMs and PROs pain intensity, functioning and perceived improvement were integrated as quality indicators in the physiotherapy clinical reasoning process for patients with WAD. Significant differences in pain intensity and functioning were found but were unrelated to year of referral, phase after whiplash-related injury or prognostic health profile. The MCID VAS-P scores did not differ depending on experienced pain.

Indexed as

neck painpatient-reported outcomes measuresphysiotherapyroutinely collected datawhiplash-Associated Disorders

Identifiers

PMID33061316
PMCPMC7532902
OpenAlexW3088541722

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.