Efficacy of MRI in primary care for patients with knee complaints due to trauma: protocol of a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (TACKLE trial)

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Pim AJ Luijsterburg³  Monique Reijnierse¹  Sita MA Bierma-Zeinstra⁴  Hans JL Bloem¹  Jan AN Verhaar⁴  Rob GHH Nelissen⁶  Bart W Koes³  Wilbert B van den Hout²  Partick JE Bindels³  Paul R Algra⁵  Kim van Oudenaarde¹  Nynke M Swart³ 

[1] Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, PO Box 9600, 2300, RC, Leiden, The Netherlands;Department of Medical Decisions, Leiden University Medical Centre, PO Box 9600, 2300, RC, Leiden, The Netherlands;Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000,CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;Department of Orthopaedics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;Department of Radiology, Medical Centre Alkmaar, Alkmaar, Wilhelminalaan 12, 1815, JD, Alkmaar, The Netherlands;Department of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Centre, PO Box 9600, 2300, RC, Leiden, The Netherlands

关键词: Cost-effectiveness;    Cost-utility;    Randomised controlled non-inferiority trial;    Magnetic resonance imaging;    General practice;    Traumatic knee complaint;   

Others  :  1128726
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-15-63

 received in 2014-02-06, accepted in 2014-02-27,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Patients with traumatic knee complaints regularly consult their general practitioner (GP). MRI might be a valuable diagnostic tool to assist GPs in making appropriate treatment decisions and reducing costs. Therefore, this study will assess the cost-effectiveness of referral to MRI by GPs compared with usual care, in patients with persistent traumatic knee complaints.

Design and methods

This is a multi-centre, open-labelled randomised controlled non-inferiority trial in combination with a concurrent observational cohort study. Eligible patients (aged 18–45 years) have knee complaints due to trauma (or sudden onset) occurring in the preceding 6 months and consulting their GP. Participants are randomised to: 1) an MRI group, i.e. GP referral to MRI, or 2) a usual care group, i.e. no MRI. Primary outcomes are knee-related daily function, medical costs (healthcare use and productivity loss), and quality of life. Secondary outcomes are disability due to knee complaints, severity of knee pain, and patients’ perceived recovery and satisfaction. Outcomes are measured at baseline and at 1.5, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up. Also collected are data on patient demographics, GPs’ initial working diagnosis, GPs’ preferred management at baseline, and MRI findings.

Discussion

In the Netherlands, the additional diagnostic value and cost-effectiveness of direct access to knee MRI for patients presenting with traumatic knee complaints in general practice is unknown. Although GPs increasingly refer patients to MRI, the Dutch clinical guideline ‘Traumatic knee complaints’ for GPs does not recommend referral to MRI, mainly because the cost-effectiveness is still unknown.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Registration: NTR3689.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Swart et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]vd Linden MW, Westert GP, de Bakker DH, Schellevis FG: Second national study to disaeses and actions in general practice: complaints and disorders in the population and in general practice (in Dutch). Utrecht, Bilthoven: NIVEL/RIVM; 2004.
• [2]Belo JN, Berg HF, Klein Ikkink AJ, Wildervanck-Dekker CMJ, Smorenburg HAAJ, Draijer LW: Clinical guideline ‘traumatic knee complaints’ from the Dutch College of General Practitioners (in Dutch). Huisarts en Wetenschap 2010, 54:147-158.
• [3]Jackson JL, O'Malley PG, Kroenke K: Evaluation of acute knee pain in primary care. Ann Intern Med 2003, 139(7):575-588.
• [4]Oei EH, Nikken JJ, Verstijnen AC, Ginai AZ, Myriam Hunink MG: MR imaging of the menisci and cruciate ligaments: a systematic review. Radiology 2003, 226(3):837-848.
• [5]Kastelein M, Luijsterburg PA, Wagemakers HP, Bansraj SC, Berger MY, Koes BW, Bierma-Zeinstra SM: Diagnostic value of history taking and physical examination to assess effusion of the knee in traumatic knee patients in general practice. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009, 90(1):82-86.
• [6]Kastelein M, Wagemakers HP, Luijsterburg PA, Verhaar JA, Koes BW, Bierma-Zeinstra SM: Assessing medial collateral ligament knee lesions in general practice. Am J Med 2008, 121(11):982-988. e982
• [7]Wagemakers HP, Heintjes EM, Boks SS, Berger MY, Verhaar JA, Koes BW, Bierma-Zeinstra SM: Diagnostic value of history-taking and physical examination for assessing meniscal tears of the knee in general practice. Clin J Sport Med 2008, 18(1):24-30.
• [8]Wagemakers HP, Luijsterburg PA, Boks SS, Heintjes EM, Berger MY, Verhaar JA, Koes BW, Bierma-Zeinstra SM: Diagnostic accuracy of history taking and physical examination for assessing anterior cruciate ligament lesions of the knee in primary care. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010, 91(9):1452-1459.
• [9]Crawford R, Walley G, Bridgman S, Maffulli N: Magnetic resonance imaging versus arthroscopy in the diagnosis of knee pathology, concentrating on meniscal lesions and ACL tears: a systematic review. Br Med Bull 2007, 84:5-23.
• [10]Mackenzie R, Palmer CR, Lomas DJ, Dixon AK: Magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: diagnostic performance studies. Clin Radiol 1996, 51(4):251-257.
• [11]Guideline arthroscopy of the knee: indication and treatment (in Dutch) Available from: http://richtlijnendatabase.nl/richtlijn/artroscopie_van_de_knie/diagnostiek_van_knieletsels.html webcite
• [12]Wagemakers HP, Luijsterburg PA, Heintjes EM, Berger MY, Verhaar J, Koes BW, Bierma-Zeinstra SM: Outcome of knee injuries in general practice: 1-year follow-up. Br J Gen Pract 2010, 60(571):56-63.
• [13]Watura R, Lloyd DC, Chawda S: Magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: direct access for general practitioners. BMJ 1995, 311(7020):1614.
• [14]Brealey SD, Atwell C, Bryan S, Coulton S, Cox H, Cross B, Fylan F, Garratt A, Gilbert FJ, Gillan MG, Hendry M, Hood K, Houston H, King D, Morton V, Orchard J, Robling M, Russell IT, Torgerson D, Wadsworth V, Wilkinson C: The DAMASK trial protocol: a pragmatic randomised trial to evaluate whether GPs should have direct access to MRI for patients with suspected internal derangement of the knee. BMC Health Serv Res 2006, 6:133. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]DAMASK trial team: Effectiveness of GP access to magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: a randomised trial. Br J Gen Pract 2008, 58(556):e1-e8. discussion 774
• [16]Patel NK, Bucknill A, Ahearne D, Denning J, Desai K, Watson M: Early magnetic resonance imaging in acute knee injury: a cost analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012, 20(6):1152-1158.
• [17]Dutch Trial Registration. Available from: http://www.trialregister.nl webcite
• [18]The open source survey application Limesurvey. Available from: http://www.limesurvey.org/ webcite
• [19]Guideline Anterior Cruciate Ligament (in Dutch). Available from: http://richtlijnendatabase.nl/richtlijn/voorste_kruisbandletsel/diagnostiek_bij_vkb_-letsel.html webcite
• [20]Tegner Y, Lysholm J: Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985, 198:43-49.
• [21]Heintjes EM, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Berger MY, Koes BW: Lysholm scale and WOMAC index were responsive in prospective cohort of young general practice patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61(5):481-488.
• [22]Lysholm J, Tegner Y: Knee injury rating scales. Acta Orthop 2007, 78(4):445-453.
• [23]Manual of the iMTA Medical Cost Questionnaire (iMCQ) Rotterdam: iMTA, Erasmus University; 2013. http://www.imta.nl webcite
• [24]Tan SS, Bouwmans CA, Rutten FF, Hakkaart-van Roijen L: Update of the Dutch manual for costing in economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012, 28(2):152-158.
• [25]Manual of the iMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ) Rotterdam: iMTA, Erasmus University Rotterdam; 2013. http://www.imta.nl webcite
• [26]Brooks R: EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996, 37(1):53-72.
• [27]Fransen M, Edmonds J: Reliability and validity of the EuroQol in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology (Oxford) 1999, 38(9):807-813.
• [28]de Groot IB, Favejee MM, Reijman M, Verhaar JA, Terwee CB: The Dutch version of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score: a validation study. Health Qual Life Outcome 2008, 6:16. BioMed Central Full Text
• [29]Williamson A, Hoggart B: Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs 2005, 14(7):798-804.
• [30]Ostelo RW, de Vet HC, Vlaeyen JW, Kerckhoffs MR, Berfelo WM, Wolters PM, van den Brandt PA: Behavioral graded activity following first-time lumbar disc surgery: 1-year results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003, 28(16):1757-1765.
• [31]Kamper SJ, Ostelo RW, Knol DL, Maher CG, de Vet HC, Hancock MJ: Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63(7):760-766. e761
• [32]Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ: Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA 2006, 295(10):1152-1160.