BackgroundThis study is to identify, summarise and synthesise literature on the causes of the evidence to practice gap for complex interventions in primary care.DesignThis study is a systematic review of reviews.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsychINFO were searched, from inception to December 2013. Eligible reviews addressed causes of the evidence to practice gap in primary care in developed countries. Data from included reviews were extracted and synthesised using guidelines for meta-synthesis.ResultsSeventy reviews fulfilled the inclusion criteria and encompassed a wide range of topics, e.g. guideline implementation, integration of new roles, technology implementation, public health and preventative medicine. None of the included papers used the term “cause” or stated an intention to investigate causes at all. A descriptive approach was often used, and the included papers expressed “causes” in terms of “barriers and facilitators” to implementation. We developed a four-level framework covering external context, organisation, professionals and intervention. External contextual factors included policies, incentivisation structures, dominant paradigms, stakeholders’ buy-in, infrastructure and advances in technology. Organisation-related factors included culture, available resources, integration with existing processes, relationships, skill mix and staff involvement. At the level of individual professionals, professional role, underlying philosophy of care and competencies were important. Characteristics of the intervention that impacted on implementation included evidence of benefit, ease of use and adaptability to local circumstances. We postulate that the “fit” between the intervention and the context is critical in determining the success of implementation.ConclusionsThis comprehensive review of reviews summarises current knowledge on the barriers and facilitators to implementation of diverse complex interventions in primary care. To maximise the uptake of complex interventions in primary care, health care professionals and commissioning organisations should consider the range of contextual factors, remaining aware of the dynamic nature of context. Future studies should place an emphasis on describing context and articulating the relationships between the factors identified here.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42014009410 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0396-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Eleven key recommendations for treatment of hand OA were developed using a combination of research based evidence and expert consensus. The evidence was evaluated and the strength of recommendation was provided.

Since publication of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for management of hand osteoarthritis (OA) in 2007 new evidence has emerged. The aim was to update these recommendations. EULAR standardised operating procedures were followed. A systematic literature review was performed, collecting the evidence regarding all non-pharmacological, pharmacological and surgical treatment options for hand OA published to date. Based on the evidence and expert opinion from an international task force of 19 physicians, healthcare professionals and patients from 10 European countries formulated overarching principles and recommendations. Level of evidence, grade of recommendation and level of agreement were allocated to each statement. Five overarching principles and 10 recommendations were agreed on. The overarching principles cover treatment goals, information provision, individualisation of treatment, shared decision-making and the need to consider multidisciplinary and multimodal (non-pharmacological, pharmacological, surgical) treatment approaches. Recommendations 1-3 cover different non-pharmacological treatment options (education, assistive devices, exercises and orthoses). Recommendations 4-8 describe the role of different pharmacological treatments, including topical treatments (preferred over systemic treatments, topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) being first-line choice), oral analgesics (particularly NSAIDs to be considered for symptom relief for a limited duration), chondroitin sulfate (for symptom relief), intra-articular glucocorticoids (generally not recommended, consider for painful interphalangeal OA) and conventional/biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (discouraged). Considerations for surgery are described in recommendation 9. The last recommendation relates to follow-up. The presented EULAR recommendations provide up-to-date guidance on the management of hand OA, based on expert opinion and research evidence.

Objectives: To develop evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hand osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: The multidisciplinary guideline development group, representing 15 European countries, generated 10 key propositions regarding diagnosis using a Delphi consensus approach. For each recommendation, research evidence was searched for systematically. Whenever possible, the sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio (LR) were calculated; relative risk and odds ratios were estimated for risk factors for hand OA. Quality of evidence was categorised using the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) hierarchy, and strength of recommendation was assessed by the EULAR visual analogue scale. Results: Diagnostic topics included clinical manifestations, radiographic features, subgroups, differential diagnosis, laboratory tests, risk factors and comorbidities. The sensitivity, specificity and LR varied between tests depending upon the cut-off level, gold standard and controls. Overall, no single test could be used to define hand OA on its own (LR ,10) but a composite of the tests greatly increased the chance of the diagnosis. The probability of a subject having hand OA was 20% when Heberden nodes alone were present, but this increased to 88% when in addition the subject was over 40 years old, had a family history of nodes and had joint space narrowing in any finger joint. Conclusion: Ten key recommendations for diagnosis of hand OA were developed using research evidence and expert consensus. Diagnosis of hand OA should be based on assessment of a composite of features.

ObjectivesWe conducted a systematic literature review to assess the adverse event (AE) profile of paracetamol.MethodsWe searched Medline and Embase from database inception to 1 May 2013. We screened for observational studies in English, which reported mortality, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal (GI) or renal AEs in the general adult population at standard analgesic doses of paracetamol. Study quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Pooled or adjusted summary statistics were presented for each outcome.ResultsOf 1888 studies retrieved, 8 met inclusion criteria, and all were cohort studies. Comparing paracetamol use versus no use, of two studies reporting mortality one showed a dose–response and reported an increased relative rate of mortality from 0.95 (0.92 to 0.98) to 1.63 (1.58 to 1.68). Of four studies reporting cardiovascular AEs, all showed a dose–response with one reporting an increased risk ratio of all cardiovascular AEs from 1.19 (0.81 to 1.75) to 1.68 (1.10 to 2.57). One study reporting GI AEs reported a dose–response with increased relative rate of GI AEs or bleeds from 1.11 (1.04 to 1.18) to 1.49 (1.34 to 1.66). Of four studies reporting renal AEs, three reported a dose–response with one reporting an increasing OR of ≥30% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate from 1.40 (0.79 to 2.48) to 2.19 (1.4 to 3.43).DiscussionGiven the observational nature of the data, channelling bias may have had an important impact. However, the dose–response seen for most endpoints suggests a considerable degree of paracetamol toxicity especially at the upper end of standard analgesic doses.

ObjectiveTo identify, summarise and synthesise available literature on the effectiveness of implementation strategies for optimising implementation of complex interventions in primary care.DesignSystematic review of reviews.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsychINFO were searched, from first publication until December 2013; the bibliographies of relevant articles were screened for additional reports.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEligible reviews had to (1) examine effectiveness of single or multifaceted implementation strategies, (2) measure health professional practice or process outcomes and (3) include studies from predominantly primary care in developed countries. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text articles of potentially eligible reviews for inclusion.Data synthesisExtracted data were synthesised using a narrative approach.Results91 reviews were included. The most commonly evaluated strategies were those targeted at the level of individual professionals, rather than those targeting organisations or context. These strategies (eg, audit and feedback, educational meetings, educational outreach, reminders) on their own demonstrated a small to modest improvement (2–9%) in professional practice or behaviour with considerable variability in the observed effects. The effects of multifaceted strategies targeted at professionals were mixed and not necessarily more effective than single strategies alone. There was relatively little review evidence on implementation strategies at the levels of organisation and wider context. Evidence on cost-effectiveness was limited and data on costs of different strategies were scarce and/or of low quality.ConclusionsThere is a substantial literature on implementation strategies aimed at changing professional practices or behaviour. It remains unclear which implementation strategies are more likely to be effective than others and under what conditions. Future research should focus on identifying and assessing the effectiveness of strategies targeted at the wider context and organisational levels and examining the costs and cost-effectiveness of implementation strategies.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42014009410.

Objective To determine whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that exercise interventions are more effective than no exercise control and to compare the effectiveness of different exercise interventions in relieving pain and improving function in patients with lower limb osteoarthritis. Data sources Nine electronic databases searched from inception to March 2012.Study selection Randomised controlled trials comparing exercise interventions with each other or with no exercise control for adults with knee or hip osteoarthritis.Data extraction Two reviewers evaluated eligibility and methodological quality. Main outcomes extracted were pain intensity and limitation of function. Trial sequential analysis was used to investigate reliability and conclusiveness of available evidence for exercise interventions. Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to combine both direct (within trial) and indirect (between trial) evidence on treatment effectiveness.Results 60 trials (44 knee, two hip, 14 mixed) covering 12 exercise interventions and with 8218 patients met inclusion criteria. Sequential analysis showed that as of 2002 sufficient evidence had been accrued to show significant benefit of exercise interventions over no exercise control. For pain relief, strengthening, flexibility plus strengthening, flexibility plus strengthening plus aerobic, aquatic strengthening, and aquatic strengthening plus flexibility, exercises were significantly more effective than no exercise control. A combined intervention of strengthening, flexibility, and aerobic exercise was also significantly more effective than no exercise control for improving limitation in function (standardised mean difference −0.63, 95% credible interval −1.16 to −0.10). ConclusionsAs of 2002 sufficient evidence had accumulated to show significant benefit of exercise over no exercise in patients with osteoarthritis, and further trials are unlikely to overturn this result. An approach combining exercises to increase strength, flexibility, and aerobic capacity is likely to be most effective in the management of lower limb osteoarthritis. The evidence is largely from trials in patients with knee osteoarthritis. PROSPERO (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) No CRD42012002267. Protocol registration IntroductionOsteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis and one of the leading causes of pain and disability worldwide.1 The lifetime prevalence of symptomatic hip osteoarthritis is estimated at 25.3%, 2 while that of knee osteoarthritis is even higher at 44.7%. 3 The economic burden of osteoarthritis is substantial and consists of both direct costs (such as drugs, Between 1999 and 2000 in the United Kingdom, about 36 million working days were lost because of osteoarthritis alone, leading to an estimated £3.2bn (€3.8bn, $5.1bn) in productivity losses, with the total cost to the UK economy being estimated at 1% of gross national product per year. 1 In the United States, the estimated incremental cost of medical care expenditures and earnings losses for people ...

BackgroundOsteoarthritis is the leading cause of disability in older adults. Evidence of effectiveness for self-management of hand osteoarthritis is lacking.MethodsIn this randomised, factorial trial, we evaluated the effectiveness of joint protection versus no joint protection, and hand exercise versus no hand exercise in adults, 50 years of age or older, with hand osteoarthritis. Following a population survey (n=12 297), eligible individuals were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to: leaflet and advice; joint protection; hand exercise; joint protection plus hand exercise. Joint protection and hand exercises were delivered by nine occupational therapists, over four group sessions. The primary outcome was the OARSI/OMERACT responder criteria at 6 months. Outcomes were collected blind to allocation (3, 6, 12 m). Analysis was by intention to treat.ResultsOf 257 participants randomised (65:62:65:65) (mean age (SD) 66 years (9.1); female 66%) follow-up was 85% at 6 m (n=212). Baseline characteristics and loss to follow-up were similar between groups. There were no reported treatment side effects. At 6 m 33% assigned joint protection were responders compared with 21% with no joint protection (p=0.03). Of those assigned hand exercises, 28% were responders compared with 25% with no exercises (n.s.). Differences in secondary outcomes were not statistically significant, except for improvement in pain self-efficacy with joint protection (3 m p=0.002; 6 m p=0.001; 12 m p=0.03).ConclusionsThese findings show that occupational therapists can support self-management in older adults with hand osteoarthritis, and that joint protection provides an effective intervention for medium term outcome. (Funded by the Arthritis Research UK ISRCTN 33870549).