Cited by 62Musculoskeletal Disorders and RehabilitationMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationHealth Policy Implementation Science

Professional interventions for general practitioners on the management of musculoskeletal conditions

Open access
Tzortziou Brown, Victoria, Underwood, Martin, Mohamed, Noman, Westwood, Olwyn, Morrissey, Dylan·2016·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal conditions require particular management skills. Identification of interventions which are effective in equipping general practitioners (GPs) with such necessary skills could translate to improved health outcomes for patients and reduced healthcare and societal costs. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of professional interventions for GPs that aim to improve the management of musculoskeletal conditions in primary care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2010, Issue 2; MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 - October 2013); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 - Ocotber 2013); CINAHL, EbscoHost (1980 - November 2013), and the EPOC Specialised Register. We conducted cited reference searches using ISI Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar; and handsearched selected issues of Arthritis and Rheumatism and Primary Care-Clinics in Office Practice. The latest search was conducted in November 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of professional interventions for GPs, taking place in a community setting, aiming to improve the management (including diagnosis and treatment) of musculoskeletal conditions and reporting any objective measure of GP behaviour, patient or economic outcomes. We considered professional interventions of any length, duration, intensity and complexity compared with active or inactive controls. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently abstracted all data. We calculated the risk difference (RD) and risk ratio (RR) of compliance with desired practice for dichotomous outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) and standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes. We investigated whether the direction of the targeted behavioural change affects the effectiveness of interventions. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty studies met our inclusion criteria.From 11 studies on osteoporosis, meta-analysis of five studies (high-certainty evidence) showed that a combination of a GP alerting system on a patient's increased risk of osteoporosis and a patient-directed intervention (including patient education and a reminder to see their GP) improves GP behaviour with regard to diagnostic bone mineral density (BMD) testing and osteoporosis medication prescribing (RR 4.44; (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.54 to 5.55; 3 studies; 3,386 participants)) for BMD and RR 1.71 (95% CI 1.50 to 1.94; 5 studies; 4,223 participants) for osteoporosis medication. Meta-analysis of two studies showed that GP alerting on its own also probably improves osteoporosis guideline-consistent GP behaviour (RR 4.75 (95% CI 3.62 to 6.24; 3,047 participants)) for BMD and RR 1.52 (95% CI 1.26 to 1.84; 3.047 participants) for osteoporosis medication) and that adding the patient-directed component probably does not lead to a greater effect (RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 2,995 participants)) for BMD and RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.10; 2,995 participants) for osteoporosis medication.Of the 10 studies on low back pain, seven showed that guideline dissemination and educational opportunities for GPs may lead to little or no improvement with regard to guideline-consistent GP behaviour. Two studies showed that the combination of guidelines and GP feedback on the total number of investigations requested may have an effect on GP behaviour and result in a slight reduction in the number of tests, while one of these studies showed that the combination of guidelines and GP reminders attached to radiology reports may result in a small but sustained reduction in the number of investigation requests.Of the four studies on osteoarthritis, one study showed that using educationally influential physicians may result in improvement in guideline-consistent GP behaviour. Another study showed slight improvements in patient outcomes (pain control) after training GPs on pain management.Of three studies on shoulder pain, one study reported that there may be little or no improvement in patient outcomes (functional capacity) after GP education on shoulder pain and injection training.Of two studies on other musculoskeletal conditions, one study on pain management showed that there may be worse patient outcomes (pain control) after GP training on the use of validated assessment scales.The 12 remaining studies across all musculoskeletal conditions showed little or no improvement in GP behaviour and patient outcomes.The direction of the targeted behaviour (i.e. increasing or decreasing a behaviour) does not seem to affect the effectiveness of an intervention. The majority of the studies did not investigate the potential adverse effects of the interventions and only three studies included a cost-effectiveness analysis.Overall, there were important methodological limitations in the body of evidence, with just a third of the studies reporting adequate allocation

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd007495.pub2

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 79 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
  2. pre-workshop or post-workshop or (before adj3 workshop) or (after adj3 workshop)).ti,ab. (610)
  3. book or conference paper or editorial or letter or review).pt. not randomized controlled trial/ [Per BMJ Clinical Evidence filter] (4034696)
  4. pre-workshop or post-workshop or (before adj3 workshop) or (after adj3 workshop)).ti,ab. (809)
  5. deleted line; no impact on strategy 41 review.ti. [EM] (312835)
  6. MSK & PC & EPOC Filter] (3595) Cochrane Library via OVID EBM Collection Search date: October 2013 EBM Reviews -Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews <2005 to September 2013>, EBM Reviews -ACP Journal Club <1991 to October 2013>, EBM Reviews -Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects <3rd Quarter 2013>, EBM Reviews -Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials <September 2013>, EBM Reviews -Cochrane Methodology Register <3rd Quarter 2012>, EBM Reviews -Health Technology Assessment <3rd Quarter 2013>, EBM Reviews -NHS Economic Evaluation Database <3rd Quarter 2013> 1 exp musculoskeletal diseases/ or rheumatology/ or exp orthopedics/ or orthopedic procedures/ (20864) 2 (musculoskeletal or arthrit$ or orthop?edic? or osteo$ or polymyalg$ or periarthrit$).ti. (13266)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tzortziou Brown, V., Underwood, M., Mohamed, N., Westwood, O., & Morrissey, D.
Affiliations
  • Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry.; Centre for Primary Care and Public Health; London UK
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • Croydon University Hospital (GB)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-05-06
Volume
2016
Issue
5
Pages
CD007495-CD007495
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W2143249121
Cited by
62
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6
FWCI
1.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Queen Mary University of London
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (CAT SCL-2013-04-003, NF-SI-0512-10103, CL-2015-19-004)
  • University of Oxford
  • University of Bath
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
musculoskeletal disorders, general practitioners, professional intervention, osteoporosis, bone densitometry, patient education, primary care
MeSH terms
Back Pain, Humans, Musculoskeletal Diseases, Osteoarthritis, Osteoporosis, Bone Density, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Reminder Systems, Guideline Adherence, Shoulder Pain, Bone Density Conservation Agents, General Practitioners, Interrupted Time Series Analysis, Controlled Before-After Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review