PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J N Katz

Publications and source records attributed to J N Katz.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

The rational clinical examination. Does this patient have a torn meniscus or ligament of the knee? Value of the physical examination.

CONTEXT: While most meniscal or ligamentous knee injuries heal with nonoperative treatments, a subset should be treated with arthroscopic or open surgery. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the accuracy of the clinical examination for meniscal or ligamentous knee injuries. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966-December 31, 2000) and HealthSTAR (1975-December 31, 2000) databases were searched for English-language articles describing the diagnostic accuracy of individual examination items for the knee and a combination of physical examination items (composite examination). Other data sources included reference lists from relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION: Studies selected for data extraction were those that compared the performance of the physical examination of the knee with a reference standard, such as arthroscopy, arthrotomy, or magnetic resonance imaging. Eighty-eight articles were identified, of which 23 (26%) met inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: A rheumatologist and an orthopedic surgeon independently reviewed each article using a standardized rating scale that scored the assembly of the study, the relevance of the patients enrolled, the appropriateness of the reference standard, and the blinding of the examiner. DATA SYNTHESIS: Summary likelihood ratios (LRs) were estimated from random effects models. The summary LRs for physical examination for tears of the anterior cruciate ligament, using the anterior drawer test, were 3.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-22.0) for a positive examination and 0.30 (95% CI, 0.05-1.50) for a negative examination; the Lachman test, 25.0 (95% CI, 2.7-651.0) and 0.1 (95% CI, 0.0-0.4); and the composite assessment, 25.0 (95% CI, 2.1-306.0) and 0.04 (95% CI, 0.01-0.48), respectively. The LRs could not be generated for any specific examination maneuver for a posterior cruciate ligament tear, but the composite assessment had an LR of 21.0 (95% CI, 2.1-205.0) for a positive examination and 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01-0.50) for a negative examination. Determination of meniscal lesions, using McMurray test, had an LR of 1.3 (95% CI, 0.9-1.7) for a positive examination and 0.8 (95% CI, 0.6-1.1) for a negative examination; joint line tenderness, 0.9 (95% CI, 0.8-1.0) and 1.1 (95% CI, 1.0-1.3); and the composite assessment, 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-5.1) and 0.4 (95% CI, 0.2-0.7), respectively. CONCLUSION: The composite examination for specific meniscal or ligamentous injuries of the knee performed much better than specific maneuvers, suggesting that synthesis of a group of examination maneuvers and historical items may be required for adequate diagnosis.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries↗
PubMed2001

Predictors of outcomes of carpal tunnel release.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that are predictive of the outcomes of greatest importance to patients-i.e., symptom relief, functional improvement, and satisfaction with the outcomes of surgery-following carpal tunnel release. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Maine Carpal Tunnel Study, a community-based study of the outcomes of treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome. In a cohort of patients who underwent carpal tunnel release, a preoperative physical examination was performed and questionnaires were completed preoperatively and at 6, 18, and 30 months postoperatively. The questionnaires assessed symptom severity, upper extremity functional limitations, mental health, general physical health status, the relative severity of individual symptoms, satisfaction with the results of surgery, sociodemographic factors, and for those subjects who were in the workforce, aspects of the work environment. The associations between preoperative factors and the 3 principal outcomes (symptom severity, upper extremity functional limitations, and satisfaction with the results of surgery, all evaluated at 18 months postoperatively) were assessed with bivariate and multivariate linear regression and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-one subjects were enrolled and 188 (78%) completed followup surveys 18 months postoperatively. Two-thirds of the patients reported being completely or very satisfied with the outcomes of surgery at 6, 18, and 30 months postoperatively. A range of clinical and work-related variables were associated with outcomes. In multivariate analyses, greater preoperative upper extremity functional limitation was predictive of greater functional limitations postoperatively. Worse mental health status was significantly associated with more severe symptoms and lower satisfaction. Alcohol use was also associated with more severe symptoms and lower satisfaction. Among workers, involvement of an attorney was significantly associated with greater functional limitation, more severe symptoms, and lower satisfaction. Recipients of worker's compensation who did not hire an attorney had generally good outcomes. Of note, physical examination parameters were not predictive of the outcomes of surgery. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of carpal tunnel release in community-based practices are excellent. Predictors of the outcomes of surgery are disease-specific and generic clinical factors as well as work-related factors. The strongest predictors of less favorable outcomes are worse scores on patient-reported measures of upper extremity functional limitation and mental health status, alcohol use, and the involvement of an attorney. Clinicians should carefully evaluate patients' functional status, mental health status, health habits, and attorney involvement prior to performing carpal tunnel release, and discuss with patients the prognostic implications of these parameters.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

"Are you better?" A qualitative study of the meaning of recovery.

PURPOSE: Research into the meaning of illness has often focused on an individual's transition into a state of being ill, for example the adoption of a sick role. The question "Are you better?" addresses the transition out of this state and is fundamental to the patient-clinician relationship, guiding decisions about treatment. However, the question assumes that all patients have the same meaning for "being better." The purpose of this study was to explore the meaning of the concept of recovery (getting better) in a group of people with upper limb musculoskeletal disorders. METHODS: Qualitative (grounded theory) methods were used. Individual interviews were conducted with 24 workers with work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb. The audiotaped interviews were transcribed and coded for content. Categories were linked, comparisons made, and a theory built about how people respond to the question "Are you better?" RESULTS: The perception of "being better" is highly contextualized in the experience of the individual. Being better is not only reflected in changes in the state of the disorder (resolution) but could be an adjustment of life to work around the disorder (readjustment) or an adaptation to living with the disorder (redefinition). The experience of the disorder can be influenced by factors such as the perceived legitimacy of the disorder, the comparators used to define health and illness, and coping styles, which in turn can influence being better. CONCLUSION: Two patients could mean very different things when saying that they are better. Some may not actually have a change in disease state as measured by symptoms, impairments, or function.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed2001

A taxonomy for responsiveness.

Responsiveness is quickly becoming a critical criterion for the selection of outcomes measures in studies of treatment effectiveness, economic appraisals, and other program evaluations. Statistical characteristics, specifically "large effect sizes," are often felt to indicate the relative worth of one instrument over another. However, debates about their meaning led the present authors to propose a taxonomy for responsiveness based on the context of the study concerned. The three axes underlying the classification system relate to: who is this being analyzed for (individuals or groups); which scores are being contrasted (over time/at one point in time); and the type of change being quantified (for example, observed change or important change). It is concluded that responsiveness should be considered a highly contextualized attribute of an instrument, rather than a static property and should be described only in that way. A questionnaire could thus be described as being "responsive to" a given category in the new taxonomy.

Classification↗
PubMed2001

Association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and outcomes of total hip replacement in the United States medicare population.

BACKGROUND: The mortality and complication rates of many surgical procedures are inversely related to hospital procedure volume. The objective of this study was to determine whether the volumes of primary and revision total hip replacements performed at hospitals and by surgeons are associated with rates of mortality and complications. METHODS: We analyzed claims data of Medicare recipients who underwent elective primary total hip replacement (58,521 procedures) or revision total hip replacement (12,956 procedures) between July 1995 and June 1996. We assessed the relationship between surgeon and hospital procedure volume and mortality, dislocation, deep infection, and pulmonary embolus in the first ninety days postoperatively. Analyses were adjusted for age, gender, arthritis diagnosis, comorbid conditions, and income. Analyses of hospital volume were adjusted for surgeon volume, and analyses of surgeon volume were adjusted for hospital volume. RESULTS: Twelve percent of all primary total hip replacements and 49% of all revisions were performed in centers in which ten or fewer of these procedures were carried out in the Medicare population annually. In addition, 52% of the primary total hip replacements and 77% of the revisions were performed by surgeons who carried out ten or fewer of these procedures annually. Patients treated with primary total hip replacement in hospitals in which more than 100 of the procedures were performed per year had a lower risk of death than those treated with primary replacement in hospitals in which ten or fewer procedures were performed per year (mortality rate, 0.7% compared with 1.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.38, 0.89). Patients treated with primary total hip replacement by surgeons who performed more than fifty of those procedures in Medicare beneficiaries per year had a lower risk of dislocation than those who were treated by surgeons who performed five or fewer of the procedures per year (dislocation rate, 1.5% compared with 4.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.34, 0.69). Patients who had revision total hip replacement done by surgeons who performed more than ten such procedures per year had a lower rate of mortality than patients who were treated by surgeons who performed three or fewer of the procedures per year (mortality rate, 1.5% compared with 3.1%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.44, 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated at hospitals and by surgeons with higher annual caseloads of primary and revision total hip replacement had lower rates of mortality and of selected complications. These analyses of Medicare claims are limited by a lack of key clinical information such as operative details and preoperative functional status.

Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip↗
PubMed2001

Validity and responsiveness of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to validate the Knee Society Clinical Rating System (knee and function scores) and to compare its responsiveness with that of the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36). METHODS: Patients were recruited as part of a prospective observational study of the outcomes of primary total knee arthroplasty for the treatment of osteoarthritis in four centers in the United States, six centers in the United Kingdom, and two centers in Australia. Independent research assistants at each site collected the Knee Society clinical data. The WOMAC, SF-36, patient satisfaction, and demographic data were obtained with self-administered questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 862 eligible patients were recruited, and complete preoperative and twelve-month data were available for 697 (80.9%) of them. The mean age was seventy years (range, thirty-eight to ninety years), and the majority of the patients (58.9%) were women. Low correlations were found among the items of both the knee and the function score at both assessment times. The Knee Society pain and function scores had moderate-to-strong correlations with the corresponding pain and function domains of the WOMAC and SF-36 (r = 0.31 to 0.72). Measurement of the standardized response mean showed the Knee Society knee score to be more responsive (standardized response mean, 2.2) than the WOMAC (standardized response means, 2.0 for pain and 1.4 for function) and the SF-36 (standardized response means, 1.0 for bodily pain and 1.1 for physical functioning). The Knee Society function score was the least responsive measure (standardized response mean, 0.8). Correlation of changes in scores at twelve months with patient reports of satisfaction and improvement in health status showed the WOMAC and SF-36 to be more responsive than the Knee Society scores. CONCLUSIONS: There is a poor correlation among the items of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System, but the rating system has adequate convergent construct validity. The WOMAC and SF-36 are more responsive measures of outcome of total knee arthroplasty. As they are less labor-intensive for researchers to use and as use of these instruments removes observer bias from the study design, they are preferable for knee arthroplasty outcome studies.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2001

Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. Minimal Clinically Important Difference.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a classification system for studies of responsiveness that was designed to help organize these studies, and identify those with the potential to provide information on minimal clinically important difference (MCID). We developed a 3 dimensional cube into which studies of responsiveness can be categorized based on their evaluation of 3 attributes: 1. individual or group setting; 2. which scores are contrasted; and 3. the type of change or difference being assessed. We present and discuss examples of studies that fit into categories in the classification cube. This classification system helps to focus attention on whether the literature is able to provide information on the specific type of change a person is interested in. It reinforces that the ability of an instrument to detect a certain category of discrimination within the cube does not mean it will necessarily be responsive to another category. The cube has been shown here as a means to separate out studies that address important change. These studies can then be examined as the source of information on MCID.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2001

Examination findings and self-reported walking capacity in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Spinal stenosis is a common, often disabling, condition resulting from compression of the cauda equina and nerve roots. This study was designed to: (1) characterize the impairments of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and (2) to identify predictors of self-reported walking capacity. SUBJECTS: Forty-three patients with symptomatic LSS, from 3 specialty clinics, were evaluated. Twenty-eight subjects (65%) were female. The subjects' median age was 73.6 years (mean=72.4, SD=10.3, range=45.7-90.7), and the median duration of low back pain was 24 months (mean=36.6, SD=41.6, range=0-216). METHODS: Demographic data, medical history, and information about low back pain and symptoms (eg, numbness, tingling, and lower-extremity weakness) were collected using a standardized questionnaire and physical examination. RESULTS: Twenty-two subjects (51%) had lower-extremity weakness, primarily of the extensor hallucis longus muscle. Thirty-five subjects (81%) had absent or decreased neurosensory responses (eg, pinprick, vibration, reflexes), and 28 subjects (66%) reported that they were unable to walk farther than 2 blocks. Women were more likely than men to report difficulties walking, as were subjects with abnormal Romberg test scores and those with greater pain during walking. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Pain and balance problems appeared to be the primary factors limiting ambulation in our subjects with LSS.

Age Distribution↗
PubMed2001

Referrals for musculoskeletal disorders: patterns, predictors, and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To examine factors associated with musculoskeletal referral and determine whether referral influences clinical outcomes. METHODS: Patients included in the study presented with knee or shoulder pain to primary care physicians affiliated with an academic teaching hospital. The primary clinical outcome was change in pain or function measured up to 12 months after initial presentation. Covariates included baseline pain and function, duration of complaint, initial diagnosis, insurance status, and several demographic factors. RESULTS: Forty-one percent (65 of 160 patients) were referred for knee or shoulder conditions, 47 (29%) patients were referred only to an orthopedic surgeon, and 12 (8%) only to a rheumatologist; 6 (4%) patients saw both specialists. For patients with knee pain, the only variable correlated with referral was an initial diagnosis of internal derangement (p = 0.02). No variable was significantly associated with referral for shoulder pain. Baseline pain, baseline function, duration of complaint, age, and insurance status were not associated with referral for either knee or shoulder pain (all p values > 0.05). The variables most associated with improvement in pain and function were more severe pain and function at baseline (all p values < 0.0001). In multivariate analyses controlling for clinical and demographic factors among patients with shoulder complaints, referral was associated with significantly less improvement in clinical outcomes than non-referral (p = 0.02). Referral was not associated with clinical outcomes for patients with knee pain. CONCLUSIONS: Referral was common for patients with knee or shoulder conditions. The only baseline variable correlated with referral was a diagnosis of knee internal derangement. Referral was not associated with improvement in pain or function and may actually be correlated with worse outcomes among patients with shoulder pain, although this is likely due to unmeasured factors contributing to the referral decision.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Cost-effectiveness of fusion with and without instrumentation for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness study was performed from the societal perspective. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the costs and benefits of laminectomy alone and laminectomy with concomitant lumbar fusion for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Costs, probabilities, and utilities were estimated from the literature. Short-term risks considered were perioperative complications, the probability of the fusion healing, and the probability that surgery will relieve symptoms. Long-term risks considered were recurrence of symptoms and reoperation. METHODS: The 10-year costs, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (reported as dollars per quality-adjusted year of life gained) were calculated using a Markov model. Sensitivity analysis was performed on all variables using clinically plausible ranges. RESULTS: Laminectomy with noninstrumented fusion costs $56,500 per quality-adjusted year of life versuslaminectomy without fusion. The cost-effectiveness of laminectomy with noninstrumented fusion was most sensitive to the increase in quality-of-life associated with relief of severe stenosis symptoms. The cost-effectiveness ratio of instrumented fusion compared with noninstrumented fusion was $3,112,800 per quality-adjusted year of life. However, if the proportion of patients experiencing symptom relief after instrumented fusion was 90% as compared with 80% for patients with noninstrumented fusion, then the cost-effectiveness ratio of instrumented fusion compared with noninstrumented fusion would be $82,400 per quality-adjusted year of life. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of laminectomy with noninstrumented fusion compares favorably with other surgical interventions, although it depends greatly on the true effectiveness of these surgeries to alleviatesymptoms and on how patients value the quality-of-life effect of relieving severe stenosis symptoms. Instrumented fusion was very expensive compared with the incremental gain in health outcome. Better data on the effectiveness of these alternative procedures are needed.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2000

Outcomes in work-related upper extremity and low back injuries: results of a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of treatment for work-related injuries and illnesses are multidimensional and complex, but have rarely been explored in detail. This study was intended to provide information on a sample of workers representing a range of jobs and employers typical of the workers compensation system. METHODS: A mailed, self-report survey measuring multiple dimensions was conducted. Identified through the New Hampshire Division of Workers' Compensation First Report of Injury database, a sample of workers with injuries to their lower back (60%) or upper extremities (40%) a year prior to the study were surveyed. Response rate was 80% (N=169; upper extremity cases=70; low back cases=99). RESULTS: Most (82.8%) were working one year post-injury. Over half reported residual effects of the injury on work or activities of daily living. Many working subjects reported persistent injury-related anxiety and pain at the end of the work day, worse in those with low back pain compared to those with upper extremity injuries. Almost 40% of those who returned to work suffered a reinjury. Forty-four percent of respondents suffered significant injury-related financial problems, which were worse in those who had been out of work for longer periods. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational musculoskeletal injuries do result in significant, long-term adverse physical, economic, and psychological consequences, as demonstrated in self-reported surveys.

Absenteeism↗
PubMed2000

Classification criteria and severity assessment in work-associated upper extremity disorders: methods matter.

Work-associated musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremity are common and disabling. Research on these disorders is needed and requires valid methods of classification of the disorders for epidemiologic studies and measurement of their impact on functional status. This commentary discusses the methodologic aspects of classification and functional status assessment in upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders.

Classification↗
PubMed2000

Outcomes of care and resource utilization among patients with knee or shoulder disorders treated by general internists, rheumatologists, or orthopedic surgeons.

PURPOSE: Previous studies have suggested that specialists may achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, albeit often at greater cost. We sought to compare outcomes of care and resource utilization among patients with shoulder or knee problems who were treated by general internists, rheumatologists, and orthopedic surgeons. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Outpatients with knee or shoulder complaints who were seen by general internists, rheumatologists, or orthopedic surgeons at an academic medical center were administered questionnaires at enrollment in the study and again 3 months later. The questionnaires included validated measures of satisfaction, functional status, and pain severity, as well as resource utilization. We compared baseline clinical characteristics, satisfaction with care, resource utilization, and changes in function and symptoms during 3 months of follow-up among patients who were cared for by the three different types of providers. RESULTS: A total of 534 patients responded to the baseline survey and 436 (82%) to the 3-month follow-up survey. About 60% (n = 323) had knee pain. Orthopedists cared for 40% (n = 211) of the patients, with the remainder treated in approximately equal numbers by general internists or rheumatologists. At baseline, patients of internists had less severe pain (differences of 0.3 to 0.6 points on a 1 to 5 scale, P <0.05) and functional limitations (differences of 0.4 to 0.6 points on a 1 to 5 scale, P <0.0006) than patients of rheumatologists and orthopedic surgeons. Adjusting for baseline differences, there were no significant differences among provider groups in pain relief or functional improvement during follow-up. However, in adjusted analyses, patients with shoulder pain who were cared for by orthopedic surgeons were least satisfied with the office environment [adjusted mean (+/- SD) satisfaction score of 1.6 +/- 0.8 on a 1 to 4 scale for orthopedic surgeons vs 1.3 +/- 0.8 for rheumatologists and 1.4 +/- 0.8 for internists, P = 0.004]. Among patients with knee pain, those treated by rheumatologists and orthopedic surgeons were more satisfied with the doctor-patient interaction (adjusted mean satisfaction scores of 1.1 +/- 0.9 for rheumatologists and 1.2 +/- 0.7 for orthopedic surgeons on a 1 to 4 scale vs 1.4 +/- 0.8 for general internists, P = 0.003). Orthopedic surgeons obtained significantly more radiographs of the knee or shoulder and more magnetic resonance imaging scans of the knee. Rheumatologists performed significantly more aspirations or injection procedures. Among all patients, those treated by rheumatologists were most satisfied with the physician interaction, and those treated by orthopedic surgeons were most satisfied with treatment results. CONCLUSION: The relative benefits of specialist compared with generalist care for patients with knee or shoulder pain depend on the importance attached to resource utilization, patient satisfaction, and health outcomes.

Academic Medical Centers↗
PubMed2000

Can history and physical examination be used as markers of quality? An analysis of the initial visit note in musculoskeletal care.

BACKGROUND: The medical record serves as an important source of information regarding the care process, but few studies have examined whether thoroughness of documentation is associated with outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to analyze the initial visit note for 513 patients presenting with acute musculoskeletal pain, compare thoroughness of documentation by physician specialty, and determine whether thoroughness of documentation was associated with clinical improvement or patient satisfaction. METHODS: A structured medical record abstraction was performed to examine whether treating physicians documented key historical and physical exam findings. Satisfaction with care, symptom relief, and functional improvement were assessed after 3 months with validated survey instruments. RESULTS: In the initial visit note, 43+/-16% of selected historical findings and 28+/-17% of physical examination findings were documented. Orthopedic surgeons documented 2 to 4 more historical and physical examination items (P <0.01) and assigned more specific diagnoses (P <0.01) than rheumatologists and general internists. Multivariate models showed a very weak association between all aspects of documentation and patient satisfaction with the provider-patient interaction (all partial R2 <0.016) and no association between documentation and 3-month pain relief or functional status. Patients' perception of physician communication was more highly associated with patient satisfaction (P = 0.0001) than was documentation. CONCLUSIONS: No provider types consistently documented many important historical items and physical examination findings. While thoroughness of documentation was not associated with clinical outcomes, there was a very weak relationship between documentation and patient satisfaction with provider-patient interactions.

Acute Disease↗