The course of chronic and recurrent low back pain in the general population

Using latent class analysis (LCA), a previous study on patients attending primary care identified four courses of low back pain (LBP) over the subsequent 6 months. To date, no studies have used longitudinal pain recordings to examine the "natural" course of recurrent and chronic LBP in a population-based sample of individuals. This study examines the course of LBP in the general population and elaborates on the stability and criterion-related validity of the clusters derived. A random sample of 400 individuals reporting LBP in a population-based study was asked to complete a comprehensive questionnaire at the start and end of the year's survey, and 52 weekly pain diaries in between. The latter were analyzed using LCA. 305 individuals returned more than 50% of the diaries. Four clusters were identified (severe persistent, moderate persistent, mild persistent, and fluctuating). The clusters differed significantly with regards to pain and disability. Assessment of cluster stability showed that a considerable proportion of patients in the "fluctuating" group changed their classification over time. Three of the four clusters describing the typical course of pain matched the clusters described previously for patients in primary care. Due to the population-based design, this study achieves, for the first time, a close insight into the "natural" course of chronic and recurrent low back pain, including individuals that did not necessarily visit the general practitioner. The findings will help to understand better the nature of this pain in the general population.

Cluster randomized clinical trials in orthodontics: design, analysis and reporting issues

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) use as the unit of randomization clusters, which are usually defined as a collection of individuals sharing some common characteristics. Common examples of clusters include entire dental practices, hospitals, schools, school classes, villages, and towns. Additionally, several measurements (repeated measurements) taken on the same individual at different time points are also considered to be clusters. In dentistry, CRTs are applicable as patients may be treated as clusters containing several individual teeth. CRTs require certain methodological procedures during sample calculation, randomization, data analysis, and reporting, which are often ignored in dental research publications. In general, due to similarity of the observations within clusters, each individual within a cluster provides less information compared with an individual in a non-clustered trial. Therefore, clustered designs require larger sample sizes compared with non-clustered randomized designs, and special statistical analyses that account for the fact that observations within clusters are correlated. It is the purpose of this article to highlight with relevant examples the important methodological characteristics of cluster randomized designs as they may be applied in orthodontics and to explain the problems that may arise if clustered observations are erroneously treated and analysed as independent (non-clustered).

Improvement of antibiotic prescription in outpatient care: a cluster-randomized intervention study using a sentinel surveillance network of physicians.

OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of implementing guidelines, coupled with individual feedback, on antibiotic prescribing behaviour of primary care physicians in Switzerland. METHODS One hundred and forty general practices from a representative Swiss sentinel network of primary care physicians participated in this cluster-randomized prospective intervention study. The intervention consisted of providing guidelines on treatment of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) and uncomplicated lower urinary tract infections (UTIs), coupled with sustained, regular feedback on individual antibiotic prescription behaviour during 2 years. The main aims were: (i) to increase the percentage of prescriptions of penicillins for all RTIs treated with antibiotics; (ii) to increase the percentage of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole prescriptions for all uncomplicated lower UTIs treated with antibiotics; (iii) to decrease the percentage of quinolone prescriptions for all cases of exacerbated COPD (eCOPD) treated with antibiotics; and (iv) to decrease the proportion of sinusitis and other upper RTIs treated with antibiotics. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01358916). RESULTS While the percentage of antibiotics prescribed for sinusitis or other upper RTIs and the percentage of quinolones prescribed for eCOPD did not differ between the intervention group and the control group, there was a significant increase in the percentage of prescriptions of penicillins for all RTIs treated with antibiotics [57% versus 49%, OR = 1.42 (95% CI 1.08-1.89), P = 0.01] and in the percentage of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole prescriptions for all uncomplicated lower UTIs treated with antibiotics [35% versus 19%, OR = 2.16 (95% CI 1.19-3.91), P = 0.01] in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS In our setting, implementing guidelines, coupled with sustained individual feedback, was not able to reduce the proportion of sinusitis and other upper RTIs treated with antibiotics, but increased the use of recommended antibiotics for RTIs and UTIs, as defined by the guidelines.