1

Similar documents
Template 1 for summarising studies addressing prognostic questions

Prognostic Factors for Return to Work, Sickness Benefits, and Transitions Between These States: A 4-year Follow-up After Work-Related Rehabilitation

Author's response to reviews

Variable selection should be blinded to the outcome

Functional Tools Pain and Activity Questionnaire

Title: Prognostic factors for non-success in patients with sciatica and disc herniation

The number of subjects per variable required in linear regression analyses

Supplemental Material. Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to Present

GATE CAT Intervention RCT/Cohort Studies

The Efficacy of the Back School

CAN WE PREDICT SURGERY FOR SCIATICA?

Statistical analysis of longitudinal studies: how to evaluate changes in risk factor and outcome?

Predictors of drug sensitive tuberculosis treatment outcomes among hospitalised

THE IMPORTANCE OF COMORBIDITY TO CANCER CARE AND STATISTICS AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY PRESENTATION COPYRIGHT NOTICE

The Effect of Vocational Rehabilitation on Return-to-Work Rates in Adults with Stroke

Review of the Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Interventions, Strategies, Programmes and Policies to reduce the number of employees who take

The influence of employment social support for risk and prognosis in nonspecific back pain: a systematic review and critical synthesis

From Confounders to Suspected Risk: The Role of Psychosocial Factors Michael Feuerstein, Ph.D., MPH

Jones and Bartlett Publishers, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION

Flexion and Rotation of the Trunk and Lifting at Work Are Risk Factors for Low Back Pain

FACTORS AFFECTING WORK STATUS OF EMPLOYEES WITH CHRONIC BACK PAIN IN SOUTH AFRICA

MINDFULNESS-BASED INTERVENTIONS IN EPILEPSY

University of Groningen. Common mental disorders Norder, Giny

The psychosocial work environment:

O ccupational disability due to low back pain (LBP) is

Aetiology versus Prediction - correct for Confounding? Friedo Dekker ERA-EDTA Registry / LUMC

DBC Method and Evidence

a) The date a loss of earnings has occurred, or b) The date of an audiogram which shows evidence of noise-induced hearing loss.

International Journal of Medical and Exercise Science (Multidisciplinary, Peer Reviewed and Indexed Journal)

Factors Associated With Work Ability in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Cervical Radiculopathy

Treatment disparities for patients diagnosed with metastatic bladder cancer in California

Prediction of healthcare utilization following an episode of physical therapy for musculoskeletal pain

Title:Prediction of poor outcomes six months following total knee arthroplasty in patients awaiting surgery

[mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, keyword

A case-control study of Naval rehabilitation patients assessing levels of psychological strain, susceptibility factors and workplace stressors.

Author's response to reviews

GSK Medicine: Study Number: Title: Rationale: Study Period: Objectives: Indication: Study Investigators/Centers: Research Methods: Data Source

Clinical Study Synopsis

Smoking among shift workers: more than a confounding factor

ClinicalTrials.gov "Basic Results" Data Element Definitions (DRAFT)

Cover Page. The handle holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation

Can screening instruments accurately determine poor outcome risk in adults with recent onset low back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

MODEL SELECTION STRATEGIES. Tony Panzarella

Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Al-Azhar Faculty of Medicine, Nasr city, Cairo, Egypt 2

Systematic reviews of prediction modeling studies: planning, critical appraisal and data collection

Sustained employability in cancer survivors: a behavioural approach

General practice. Role of mechanical and psychosocial factors in the onset of forearm pain: prospective population based study.

Mental Health in Workplaces in Taipei

Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) and Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC), 6100 Leslie Street, Toronto, ON M2H 3J1, Canada.

The Somatic Pre-Occupation and Coping Questionnaire WSIB Plenary Feb. 9, 2010

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

Evaluating Scientific Journal Articles. Tufts CTSI s Mission & Purpose. Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute

Evidence Based Medicine

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1576/10

Designing and Analyzing RCTs. David L. Streiner, Ph.D.

Pain Psychology: Disclosure Slide. Learning Objectives. Bio-psychosocial Model 8/12/2014. What we won t cover (today) What influences chronic pain?

Meta-Analysis. Zifei Liu. Biological and Agricultural Engineering

Sleep evaluation scales and questionnaires (Lomeli, H.A. et al, 2008) Abstract

CRITICALLY APPRAISED PAPER (CAP)

Hands on. Preventing work-related upper limb disorders in hand-intensive healthcare occupations

Measurement issues in the assessment of psychosocial stressors at work

Appendix G: Methodology checklist: the QUADAS tool for studies of diagnostic test accuracy 1

GENDER & SCIATICA. Accepted for publication by Pain (in press 2008)

Help! Statistics! Missing data. An introduction

Design of a randomized controlled trial on the effects of Counseling of mental health

Chapter V Depression and Women with Spinal Cord Injury

The use of employment/vocational rehabilitation services for persons with HIV/AIDS and substance abuse: A potential health benefit Presenters:

Predicting Workplace Violence: An EAP s Perspective Insights from the Warren Shepell Research Group

Influence of social relationships on obesity prevalence and management

Preventing delayed recovery by adopting a biopsychosocial approach

International Journal of Current Research and Academic Review ISSN: Special Issue-5 (April-2018) Journal home page:

Biases in clinical research. Seungho Ryu, MD, PhD Kanguk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS RIO GRANDE VALLEY Rehabilitation Counseling (MS) Program Requirements

Hydro One Networks Inc. 483 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2P5. July 7, Attention: Consultation Secretariat

Workshop: Cochrane Rehabilitation 05th May Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health.

Comparison And Application Of Methods To Address Confounding By Indication In Non- Randomized Clinical Studies

Risk-Assessment Instruments for Pain Populations

Aalborg Universitet. Statistical analysis plan Riis, Allan; Karran, E. L. ; Jørgensen, Anette; Holst, S.; Rolving, N. Publication date: 2017

Satisfaction and Compliance in Rehabilitation Medicine

BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT OF PAIN MEDICAL STABILITY QUICK SCREEN. Test Manual

Early Intervention and Psychological Injury

Observational Study Designs. Review. Today. Measures of disease occurrence. Cohort Studies

Lumbar total disc replacement

Recent developments for combining evidence within evidence streams: bias-adjusted meta-analysis

unchanged; and the proportion with severe decreased from 7% to 4%; the proportion with mild pain decreased (48% to 32%;

Help-seeking behaviour for emotional or behavioural problems. among Australian adolescents: the role of socio-demographic

A new measure of acute physiological derangement for patients with exacerbations of obstructive airways disease: The COPD and Asthma Physiology Score

Study inclusion/exclusion criteria clearly reported, description of selection process (e.g. consecutive patients with...)

Part 8 Logistic Regression

IC ARTICLE MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS

Ward/Unit/Team managers to carry out an occupational skin disease risk assessment for their area

The Dynamic Effects of Obesity on the Wages of Young Workers

Comparison of imputation and modelling methods in the analysis of a physical activity trial with missing outcomes

Bränström et al. BMC Public Health 2013, 13:478

Worker s Compensation Form

Are neck flexion, neck rotation, and sitting at work risk factors for neck pain? Results of a prospective cohort study

BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL FACTORS: WITH AN EMPHASIS ON PSYCHOSOCIAL

Title: Associations of sitting time and occupation with metabolic syndrome in South Korean adults: a cross-sectional study

Guidelines for Writing and Reviewing an Informed Consent Manuscript From the Editors of Clinical Research in Practice: The Journal of Team Hippocrates

Importance of factors contributing to work-related stress: comparison of four metrics

Transcription:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

1. 2. 34

35

Appendix I: Prognosis Search Strategy for Medline SR Prognosis of Chronic Low Back Pain Medline Search Strategy Final February 16, 2012 N=3792 Database: Ovid MEDLINE(R) <1946 to February Week 2 2012> Search Strategy: 1 cohort.ti,ab. (168950) 2 exp Cohort Studies/ (1144313) 3 course.ti,ab. (359205) 4 determinat$.ti,ab. (326376) 5 Follow-Up Studies/ (435786) 6 incidence/ (148914) 7 indicat$.ti,ab. (1860362) 8 Mortality/ (31493) 9 mortality.fs. (358253) 10 predict$.ti,ab. (689693) 11 prognos$.ti,ab. (292054) 12 Prognosis/ (313296) 13 risk/ (87169) 14 survival analysis/ (86277) 15 or/1-14 (4390268) 16 Back/ (3463) 17 back.ti,ab. (98696) 18 back ache?.ti,ab. (44) 19 backache?.ti,ab. (1829) 20 back pain?.ti,ab. (22760) 21 Back Pain/ (13581) 22 backpain?.ti,ab. (57) 23 Low Back Pain/ (11771) 24 lumbago.ti,ab. (987) 25 lumbar pain?.ti,ab. (943) 26 Sciatica/ (3934) 27 sciatica.ti,ab. (2812) 28 or/16-27 (114002) 29 Absenteeism/ (6621) 30 exp Disability Evaluation/ (33862) 31 employee?.ti,ab. (26955) 32 Employment/ (32908) 33 exp Employment/ (47717) 34 Occupational Diseases/ (69610) 35 Occupations/ (15947) 36 reemployment.ti,ab. (89) 37 re-employment.ti,ab. (112) 38 Rehabilitation, Vocational/ (8107) 39 (return$ adj2 work$).ti,ab. (6237) 40 (sick$ adj2 absence?).ti,ab. (1205) 41 Sick Leave/ (3082) 42 sick leave.ti,ab. (2636) 43 Work/ (7941) 44 worker?.ti,ab. (105032) 45 Workers' Compensation/ (6341) 46 absenteeism.ti,ab. (2996) 47 alternative work.ti,ab. (63) 48 (attendance adj2 work).ti,ab. (82) 49 (labo?r market adj2 reentry).ti,ab. (0) 50 (labo?r market adj2 re-entry).ti,ab. (0) 51 lost time.ti,ab. (372) 52 "lost time".ti,ab. (372) 53 lost workday?.ti,ab. (153) 54 (maintenance adj2 work).ti,ab. (144) 55 "maintenance at work".ti,ab. (0) 56 presenteeism.ti,ab. (244) 57 re-employ$.ti,ab. (140) 58 reemploy$.mp. (103) 59 second employer program$.ti,ab. (0) 60 sick$ list$.ti,ab. (399) 61 suitable employment.ti,ab. (19) 62 sustainable employment.ti,ab. (5) 63 (stay$ adj2 work$).ti,ab. (164) 64 time los$.ti,ab. (911) 65 "time on benefit".ti,ab. (1) 66 work$ participation.ti,ab. (328) 67 (work$ adj2 re-integrat$).ti,ab. (6) 68 work$ readiness.ti,ab. (56) 69 (work$ adj2 re-integrat$).ti,ab. (6) 70 (work$ adj2 reintegrat$).ti,ab. (59) 71 work role functioning.ti,ab. (9) 72 workability.ti,ab. (152) 73 or/29-72 (273646) 74 15 and 28 and 73 (3836) 75 limit 74 to journal article (3792) 36

Appendix II: Quality assessment form Quality Appraisal for: Prognostic Factors for return to work from chronic low back pain, a systematic review Title: Primary author: Year of publication: Study population 1 Should this article have been excluded already based on level 1a or level 1b exclusion criteria? Please state reason for exclusion in comments box. 2 Adequate description of inclusion and exclusion criteria : (Examples of important inclusion/exclusion criteria descriptions of the following, but not limited to: age, duration of symptoms, duration of sick leave, comorbidity,) + / += sufficient detail to understand why participants were included or excluded -=not sufficient detail to understand why participants were included or excluded 3 Recruitment setting described adequately: += sufficient information to understand where participants were recruited from (examples include but are not limited to: General practice, hospital, occupational setting) -=recruitment setting not described 4 Recruitment methods are adequately described: += the timeframe of recruitment and referral methods are adequately described -=Both timeframe and referral methods are not adequately described 5 The baseline study sample (i.e., individuals entering the study) is adequately described. Key characteristics include but are not limited or restricted to: age, gender, type of work, comorbidity, duration of sick leave)(study provides enough detail to compare between studies) + / + / + / += Participants entering study are adequately described in terms of key characteristics -= Participants entering study are not described in terms of key characteristics Response 6 Satisfactory response rate (number of subjects who enrol in study): + / /? += equal to or greater than 75% -= less than 75%?=unclear 7 Sufficient information on non-responders versus responders to determine if they are systematically different: positive if information presented about patient/disease characteristics of responders/non-responders or if there is no selective response. + / + = no important differences between responders and non-responders = differences between responders and non-responders Follow-up (extent and length) 8 Follow-up period sufficient in length: + / /? 37

+= follow up period is at least 12 months -=follow up period less than 12 months?=unclear 9 Proportion loss to follow up: + / /? += if drop-outs/loss to follow up less than 20% on the last moment of follow-up -= if drop-outs/loss to follow up greater than or equal to 20%?=unclear 10 Information completers versus loss to follow-up/drop-outs: + / += if demographic/clinical information (patient/disease characteristics such as age, sex and other potential prognostic predictors) was presented for completers and those lost to follow-up/drop-outs at the main moment of outcome measurement in sufficient detail to determine if they are systematically different or no drop-outs/loss to follow-up. -=if demographic/clinical information not presented for completers and those lost to follow up Outcome 11 Definition of main outcome is described: + / +=The method of outcome measurement used is clearly defined -= The method of outcome measurement used is not clearly defined Prognostic factors 12 Is the method of prognostic factor measurement used adequately valid and reliable to limit misclassification bias? + / +=The method of prognostic factor measurement used is adequately valid and reliable to limit misclassification bias (used standardized questionnaires or standard/objective measurements were used at baseline). -=standardized questionnaires or standard/ objective measures weren t used for measurement of prognostic factors 13 Assessment of Patient characteristics and potential clinical prognostic factor(s): (Examples include but are not limited to: age, sex, pain, functional status, duration of complaints, back complaints, physical workload) + / += If clinical prognostic factors were assessed -=If no clinical prognostic factors were assessed 14 Potential psychological prognostic factor(s): (Examples include but are not limited to: depression, somatisation, distress, fear & avoidance, coping strategies, psychosocial workrelated factors (social support, job decision latitude)) + / += If psychological prognostic factors were assessed -=If no psychological prognostic factors were assessed 38

15 Standardised assessment of potential social or workplace prognostic factor(s): (Examples include but are not limited to: social support, worker s compensation, workplace organization) + / += If social or workplace prognostic factors were assessed -=If no social or workplace prognostic factors were assessed 16 Did authors address potential issues surrounding missing data? + / += Methods for dealing with missing data were appropriate (used multiple imputation, complete case analysis or provided a description of cases with and without missing data). -= methods for dealing with missing data were not appropriate Data presentation 17 Frequencies given of main outcome measure (return to work): + / += frequency, percentage or mean, median (Inter Quartile Range) and standard deviation/ci are reported of the outcome measures -=above measures not reported 18 Frequencies of all prognostic factors: + / +=positive if frequency, percentage or mean, median (Inter Quartile Range) and standard deviation/ci are reported of all prognostic factors mentioned in the article -=above measures not reported 19 Appropriate analysis techniques: + / += if univariate crude estimates are provided or if hazard ratios, odds ratios, relative risks or relative risk ratios are presented. -= correlations are reported. 20 Multivariate prognostic model is presented: + / += attempt is made to determine a set of prognostic factors with the highest prognostic value. Positive if a manual forward stepwise procedure was used (p in <0.05; p out 0.10) -= case of an analysis based on an automated forward or stepwise procedure. 21 Sufficient numbers: +=positive if the number of events in the multivariate linear regression, logistic regression and survival analysis was at least ten times the number of independent variables in the analysis. Positive if the numbers as determined a priori by a sample size calculation were achieved. -=if the number of events is less than 10 times the number of independent variables for a multivariate linear regression.?=unclear 22 Goodness of fit: + / /? + / +=Goodness of fit was presented with either explained variance, % correctly classified, area under the curve or C-Statistic 39

-=Goodness of fit was not presented 23 Funding Source: += Funding source is unbiased (examples include: unfunded, government funded) -=Funding source is biased (examples include: insurance company, or funders involved in the treatment of patients.)?=unclear 24 Overall Assessment of article on a scale from 0 to 10 with 0 meaning that I do not trust the findings from this study at all to 10 meaning I trust the results from this study completely. I rate this study with 0 10 + / /? +/- References 1. Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE. Relaxing the rules of ten events per variable in logistic and cox regression. American Journal of Epidemiology; 165(6):710-718 2. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49: 1373 9. 3. Hayden J, Cote P, Bombardier C. Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:427-437. Point system: other than criteria 6 and 9 which are worth 2 points, all other criteria are worth 1 point. 40

Appendix A Examples Question Good Example (+) Bad Example (-) Q2. Adequate description of inclusion and exclusion criteria : (Examples of important inclusion/exclusion criteria descriptions of the following (but not limited to: age, duration of symptoms, duration of sick leave, comorbidity,) Q3. Recruitment setting described adequately: Q4: Recruitment methods are adequately described: Q5: The baseline study sample (i.e., individuals entering the study) is adequately described. Key characteristics include but are not limited or restricted to: age, gender, type of work, comorbidity, duration of sick leave) 41

42

43

44

45

46

47