Biomedical subjects

Erik J M Hendriks

Publications and source records attributed to Erik J M Hendriks.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2007

Evidence-based analysis of physical therapy in Parkinson's disease with recommendations for practice and research.

Physical therapy is often prescribed in Parkinson's disease. To facilitate the uniformity and efficacy of this intervention, we analyzed current evidence and developed practice recommendations. We carried out an evidence-based literature review. The results were supplemented with clinical expertise and patient values and translated into practice recommendations, developed according to international standards for guideline development. A systematic literature search yielded 6 systematic reviews and 23 randomized controlled trials of moderate methodological quality with sufficient data. Six specific core areas for physical therapy were identified: transfers, posture, reaching and grasping, balance, gait, and physical capacity. We extracted four specific treatment recommendations that were based on evidence from more than two controlled trials: cueing strategies to improve gait; cognitive movement strategies to improve transfers; exercises to improve balance; and training of joint mobility and muscle power to improve physical capacity. These practice recommendations provide a basis for current physical therapy in Parkinson's disease in everyday clinical practice, as well as for future research in this field.

Biomedical Research↗

PubMed2006

Considered judgement in evidence-based guideline development.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines should be based on the best available evidence. However, this evidence is often incomplete, controversial, or lacking. Other considerations beyond the evidence are therefore needed to be able to formulate specific and applicable recommendations for clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to obtain consensus among experts about a set of domains and items covering the most relevant 'other considerations' to formulate recommendations in evidence-based guideline development. METHODS: An initial list of 10 domains and 49 items for a systematic and considered judgement of scientific evidence was generated from the literature. A panel of Dutch experts in guideline development tested this list using a two-round Delphi consensus technique. Each expert was asked to independently score the relevance of the items on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 'very important' to 'not important'. The final list consisted of items that were included by at least 60% consensus. RESULTS: Twenty-eight experts participated in the first Delphi round and 21 of them in the second round. High scoring domains were 'clinical relevance', 'safety', and 'availability of resources'. There was consensus about the relevance of 37 items. The domain 'conflicts of interest by industry' was excluded because of lack of consensus. CONCLUSION: This is the first formal consensus approach towards structuring the considered judgement process in formulating recommendations in clinical guidelines. The final list of items can be used to facilitate the process of guideline development. The next step is to test the practical usefulness and applicability of this list in guideline development.

Consensus↗

PubMed2006

Education by general practitioners or education and exercises by physiotherapists for patients with whiplash-associated disorders? A randomized clinical trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of education and advice given by general practitioners (GPs) with education, advice, and active exercise therapy given by physiotherapists (PTs) for patients with whiplash-associated disorders. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Available evidence from systematic reviews has indicated beneficial effects for active interventions in patients with whiplash-associated disorders. However, it remained unclear which kind of active treatment was most effective. METHODS: Whiplash patients with symptoms or disabilities at 2 weeks after accident were recruited in primary care. Eligible patients still having symptoms or disabilities at 4 weeks were randomly allocated to GP care or physiotherapy. GPs and PTs treated patients according to a dynamic multimodal treatment protocol primarily aimed to increase activities and influence unfavorable psychosocial factors for recovery. We trained all health care providers about the characteristics of the whiplash problem, available evidence regarding prognosis and treatment, and protocol of the interventions. The content of the information provided to patients during treatment depended on the treatment goals set by the GPs or PTs. Also, the type of exercises chosen by the PTs depended on the treatment goals, and it was not explicitly necessary that exercise therapy was provided in all patients. Primary outcome measures included neck pain intensity, headache intensity, and work activities. Furthermore, an independent blinded assessor measured functional recovery, cervical range of motion, disability, housekeeping and social activities, fear of movement, coping, and general health status. We assessed outcomes at 8, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after the accident. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were randomized to either GP care (n = 42) or physiotherapy (n = 38). At 12 and 52 weeks, no significant differences were found concerning the primary outcome measures. At 12 weeks, physiotherapy was significantly more effective than GP care for improving 1 of the measures of cervical range of motion (adjusted mean difference 12.3 degrees ; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.7-21.9). Long-term differences between the groups favored GP care but were statistically significant only for some secondary outcome measures, including functional recovery (adjusted relative risk 2.3; 95% CI 1.0-5.0), coping (adjusted mean difference 1.7 points; 95% CI 0.2-3.3), and physical functioning (adjusted mean difference 8.9 points; 95% CI 0.6-17.2). CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant differences for the primary outcome measures. Treatment by GPs and PTs were of similar effectiveness. The long-term effects of GP care seem to be better compared to physiotherapy for functional recovery, coping, and physical functioning. Physiotherapy seems to be more effective than GP care on cervical range of motion at short-term follow-up.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Effectiveness of exercise therapy and manual mobilisation in ankle sprain and functional instability: a systematic review.

This study critically reviews the effectiveness of exercise therapy and manual mobilisation in acute ankle sprains and functional instability by conducting a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Trials were searched electronically and manually from 1966 to March 2005. Randomised controlled trials that evaluated exercise therapy or manual mobilisation of the ankle joint with at least one clinically relevant outcome measure were included. Internal validity of the studies was independently assessed by two reviewers. When applicable, relative risk (RR) or standardised mean differences (SMD) were calculated for individual and pooled data. In total 17 studies were included. In thirteen studies the intervention included exercise therapy and in four studies the effects of manual mobilisation of the ankle joint was evaluated. Average internal validity score of the studies was 3.1 (range 1 to 7) on a 10-point scale. Exercise therapy was effective in reducing the risk of recurrent sprains after acute ankle sprain: RR 0.37 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.74), and with functional instability: RR 0.38 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.62). No effects of exercise therapy were found on postural sway in patients with functional instability: SMD: 0.38 (95% CI -0.15 to 0.91). Four studies demonstrated an initial positive effect of different modes of manual mobilisation on dorsiflexion range of motion. It is likely that exercise therapy, including the use of a wobble board, is effective in the prevention of recurrent ankle sprains. Manual mobilisation has an (initial) effect on dorsiflexion range of motion, but the clinical relevance of these findings for physiotherapy practice may be limited.

Acute Disease↗

PubMed2005

Prognostic factors for poor recovery in acute whiplash patients.

The objective of our prospective inception cohort study was to identify prognostic factors for poor recovery in patients with whiplash-associated disorders grade 1 or 2 who still had neck pain and accompanying complaints 2 weeks after the accident. The study was carried out in a primary health care setting in The Netherlands and included 125 patients. The primary outcome measure was functional recovery defined in terms of neck pain intensity or work disability without medication use. The secondary outcome measures included neck pain intensity, work disability and sick leave. The outcomes were assessed at 4, 12 and 52 weeks after the accident. Prognostic factors were identified by logistic regression analyses. One year after the injury, 64% of the patients were recovered. Factors related to poor recovery were female gender, a low level of education, high initial neck pain, more severe disability, higher levels of somatisation and sleep difficulties. Neck pain intensity and work disability proved to be the most consistent predictors for poor recovery. The accuracy of the predictions of the prognostic models was high, meaning that the models adequately distinguished patients with poor recovery from those regarded as recovered. These findings add to the growing body of evidence, indicating that socio-demographic, physical and psychological factors affect short- and long-term outcome after whiplash injury. Our findings also indicate that care providers can easily identify patients at risk for poor recovery with a visual analogue scale for initial pain intensity and work-related activities.

Acute Disease↗

PubMed2005

Implementation of clinical guidelines on physical therapy for patients with low back pain: randomized trial comparing patient outcomes after a standard and active implementation strategy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: An active strategy was developed for the implementation of the clinical guidelines on physical therapy for patients with low back pain. The effect of this strategy on patients' physical functioning, coping strategy, and beliefs regarding their low back pain was studied. SUBJECTS: One hundred thirteen primary care physical therapists treated a total of 500 patients. METHODS: The physical therapists were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups. The control group received the guidelines by mail (standard passive method of dissemination). The intervention group, in contrast, received an additional active training strategy consisting of 2 sessions with education, group discussion, role playing, feedback, and reminders. Patients with low back pain, treated by the participating therapists, completed questionnaires on physical functioning, pain, sick leave, coping, and beliefs. RESULTS: Physical functioning and pain in the 2 groups improved substantially in the first 12 weeks. Multilevel longitudinal analysis showed no differences between the 2 groups on any outcome measure during follow-up. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The authors found no additional benefit to applying an active strategy to implement the physical therapy guidelines for patients with low back pain. Active implementation strategies are not recommended if patient outcomes are to be improved.

Education, Continuing↗

PubMed2003

Prognostic factors of whiplash-associated disorders: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies.

We present a systematic review of prospective cohort studies. Our aim was to assess prognostic factors associated with functional recovery of patients with whiplash injuries. The failure of some patients to recover following whiplash injury has been linked to a number of prognostic factors. However, there is some inconsistency in the literature and there have been no systematic attempts to analyze the level of evidence for prognostic factors in whiplash recovery. Studies were selected for inclusion following a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the database of the Dutch Institute of Allied Health Professions up until April 2002 and hand searches of the reference lists of retrieved articles. Studies were selected if the objective was to assess prognostic factors associated with recovery; the design was a prospective cohort study; the study population included at least an identifiable subgroup of patients suffering from a whiplash injury; and the paper was a full report published in English, German, French or Dutch. The methodological quality was independently assessed by two reviewers. A study was considered to be of 'high quality' if it satisfied at least 50% of the maximum available quality score. Two independent reviewers extracted data and the association between prognostic factors and functional recovery was calculated in terms of risk estimates. Fifty papers reporting on twenty-nine cohorts were included in the review. Twelve cohorts were considered to be of 'high quality'. Because of the heterogeneity of patient selection, type of prognostic factors and outcome measures, no statistical pooling was able to be performed. Strong evidence was found for high initial pain intensity being an adverse prognostic factor. There was strong evidence that for older age, female gender, high acute psychological response, angular deformity of the neck, rear-end collision, and compensation not being associated with an adverse prognosis. Several physical (e.g. restricted range of motion, high number of complaints), psychosocial (previous psychological problems), neuropsychosocial factors (nervousness), crash related (e.g. accident on highway) and treatment related factors (need to resume physiotherapy) showed limited prognostic value for functional recovery. High initial pain intensity is an important predictor for delayed functional recovery for patients with whiplash injury. Often mentioned factors like age, gender and compensation do not seem to be of prognostic value. Scientific information about prognostic factors can guide physicians or other care providers to direct treatment and to probably prevent chronicity.

Cohort Studies↗

PubMed2003

One-time physical therapist consultation in primary health care.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: One-time physical therapist consultation, prior to possible referral for physical therapy intervention, may enhance the quality of patient care, particularly if the referring physician is uncertain as to whether intervention by a physical therapist will be beneficial. The purpose of this study was to describe the use of consultation by a group of primary care physicians (PCPs) who could refer patients for a one-time consultation. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A 7-month observational study was conducted in the Netherlands with 59 pairs of randomly selected PCPs and physical therapists practicing in primary health care. Data were collected for the PCPs, the physical therapists, and the patients. Self-administered questionnaires (completed at the start and at the completion of the study), consultation request and report forms, and treatment referral records from health insurance agencies were used to obtain data. National reference data on patients referred by PCPs for intervention by a physical therapist were used to compare the data of patients referred by PCPs for a one-time consultation. The number and nature of consultation requests were determined as well as patient characteristics. The PCPs' satisfaction with the outcome and process of a one-time consultation and its impact on PCPs' management decisions also were described. RESULTS: The number of referrals for a one-time consultation was 352 (X=5.9 per PCP, SD=5.4, range=0-20), resulting in a mean referral rate of 4.7 per 1,000 patients (SD=4.6). Characteristics of patients referred for a one-time consultation differed from national reference data of patients referred by their PCP for intervention by a physical therapist. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The results show that PCPs used the opportunity for a one-time physical therapist consultation and were satisfied with the outcome and process of consultation. The findings suggest that a one-time consultation is an appropriate and beneficial component of PCPs' patient management process.

Humans↗

PubMed2002

Clinical practice guideline for the physiotherapy of patients with whiplash-associated disorders.

STUDY DESIGN: A clinical practice guideline. OBJECTIVES: To assist physiotherapists in decision making and to improve the efficacy and uniformity of care for patients with whiplash-associated disorders Grades I and II. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Whiplash constitutes a considerable problem in health care. Many interventions are used in physiotherapy practice, despite increasing evidence for the use of active interventions. There is still no clinical practice guideline for the management of patients with whiplash-associated disorders. METHOD OF DEVELOPMENT: A computerized literature search of Medline, Cinahl, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of the Dutch National Institute of Allied Health Professions was performed to search for information about the diagnostic process and the therapeutic process in whiplash patients. When no evidence was available, consensus between experts was achieved to develop the guideline. Practicing physiotherapists reviewed the clinical applicability and feasibility of the guideline, and their comments were used to improve it. RECOMMENDATIONS: The diagnostic process consists of systematic history taking and a physical examination supported by reliable and valid assessment tools to document symptoms and functional disabilities. The primary goals of treatment are a quick return to normal activities and the prevention of chronicity. Active interventions such as education, exercise therapy, training of functions, and activities are recommended according to the length of time since the accident and the rate of recovery. The biopsychosocial model is used to address the consequences of whiplash trauma. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific evidence for the diagnosis and physiotherapeutic management of whiplash is sparse; therefore, consensus is used in different parts of the guideline. The guideline reflects the current state of knowledge of the effective and appropriate physiotherapy in whiplash patients. More and better research is necessary to validate this guideline in the future.

Acceleration↗