Clemonssteenberg4506

To assess the sensitivity, specificity, and validity of the Predicting Recurrent Instability of the Shoulder (PRIS) tool in people with a first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation.

Prospective cohort study.

People with first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation (n = 85), aged 16 to 40 years, were recruited within 12 weeks of their shoulder dislocation and followed prospectively for 1 year post injury. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of the PRIS tool.

Of the 75 participants available for 1-year follow-up, 57 (76%) did not have recurrent shoulder instability. With the PRIS tool cut point set at 0.895, the tool's sensitivity was 39% (95% confidence interval [CI] 17.3%, 64.3%) and its specificity was 95% (95% CI 85.4%, 98.9%). The area under the curve was 0.69 (95% CI 0.55, 0.84;

= .01). The PRIS tool correctly identified 54 of the 57 (95%) who did not have recurrent instability (accuracy, 81%; 95% CI 70.7%, 89.4%). Negative and positive predictive values were 83% (95% CI 77.2%, 87.7%) and 70% (95% CI 40.2%, 89.0%), respectively.

The PRIS tool can predict those who will not have further shoulder instability in the year following first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation. Navoximod datasheet The PRIS tool cannot accurately predict those who will have recurrent shoulder instability.

.

The PRIS tool can predict those who will not have further shoulder instability in the year following first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation. The PRIS tool cannot accurately predict those who will have recurrent shoulder instability. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(8)431-437. doi10.2519/jospt.2020.9284.A previous Evidence in Practice article explained why a specific and answerable research question is important for clinicians and researchers. Determining whether a study aims to answer a descriptive, predictive, or causal question should be one of the first things a reader does when reading an article. Any type of question can be relevant and useful to support evidence-based practice, but only if the question is well defined, matched to the right study design, and reported correctly. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(8)468-469. doi10.2519/jospt.2020.0703.

To find out which interventions enhance pain self-efficacy in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain and to evaluate the reporting of interventions designed to enhance pain self-efficacy.

Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis.

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception up to September 2019.

Randomized controlled trials evaluating pain self-efficacy as a primary or secondary outcome in chronic musculoskeletal pain.

We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence, respectively.

Sixty randomized controlled trials were included (12 415 participants). There was a small effect of multicomponent, psychological, and exercise interventions improving pain self-efficacy at follow-ups of 0 to 3 months, a small effect of exercise and multicomponent interventions enh people with chronic musculoskeletal pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(8)418-430. doi10.2519/jospt.2020.9319.

Repeated purposeful heading in soccer has come under increased scrutiny as concerns surrounding the association with long-term neurodegenerative disorders in retired players continue to grow. Although a causal link between heading and brain health has not been established, the "precautionary principle" supports the notion that soccer governing bodies and associations should consider implementing pragmatic strategies that can reduce head impact during purposeful heading in youth soccer while this relationship is being investigated. This Viewpoint discusses the current evidence to support low-risk head impact reduction strategies during purposeful heading to protect young, developing players, and how such strategies could be implemented now while research and debate continue on this topic.

.

Repeated purposeful heading in soccer has come under increased scrutiny as concerns surrounding the association with long-term neurodegenerative disorders in retired players continue to grow. Although a causal link between heading and brain health has not been established, the "precautionary principle" supports the notion that soccer governing bodies and associations should consider implementing pragmatic strategies that can reduce head impact during purposeful heading in youth soccer while this relationship is being investigated. This Viewpoint discusses the current evidence to support low-risk head impact reduction strategies during purposeful heading to protect young, developing players, and how such strategies could be implemented now while research and debate continue on this topic. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(8)415-417. doi10.2519/jospt.2020.0608.A 17-year-old adolescent boy was referred by an orthopaedic physician to physical therapy for chronic left shoulder pain and a clinical diagnosis of labral tear. The physician ordered current radiographs, which were noncontributory. Findings during physical therapy examination warranted referral back to the physician, with a request for magnetic resonance imaging. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed a soft tissue abnormality in the infraclavicular and subcoracoid spaces. The patient was referred to orthopaedic oncology, where biopsy confirmed a desmoid tumor. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(8)467. doi10.2519/jospt.2020.9596.

The increased number of deaths in the community happening as a result of COVID-19 has caused primary healthcare services to change their traditional service delivery in a short timeframe. Services are quickly adapting to new challenges in the practical delivery of end-of-life care to patients in the community including through virtual consultations and in the provision of timely symptom control.

To synthesise existing evidence related to the delivery of palliative and end-of-life care by primary healthcare professionals in epidemics and pandemics.

Rapid systematic review using modified systematic review methods, with narrative synthesis of the evidence.

Searches were carried out in Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science on 7th March 2020.

Only five studies met the inclusion criteria, highlighting a striking lack of evidence base for the response of primary healthcare services in palliative care during epidemics and pandemics. All were observational studies. Findings were synthesised using a pandemic response framework according to 'systems' (community providers feeling disadvantaged in terms of receiving timely information and protocols), 'space' (recognised need for more care in the community), 'staff' (training needs and resilience) and 'stuff' (other aspects of managing care in pandemics including personal protective equipment, cleaning care settings and access to investigations).