No abstract

Acupuncture treatment is frequently sought for tension-type headache (TTH), but there is conflicting evidence as to its effectiveness. This randomised, controlled, multicentre, patient-and observer-blinded trial was carried out in 122 outpatient practices in Germany on 409 patients with TTH, defined as ≥0 headache days per month of which ≤1 included migraine symptoms. Interventions were verum acupuncture according to the practice of traditional Chinese medicine or sham acupuncture consisting of superficial needling at nonacupuncture points. Acupuncture was administered by physicians with specialist acupuncture training. Ten 30-min sessions were given over a six-week period, with additional sessions available for partial response. Response was defined as >50% reduction in headache days/month at six months and no use of excluded concomitant medication or other therapies. In the intent-to-treat analysis (all 409 patients), 33% of verum patients and 27% of sham controls (p=0.18) were classed as responders. Verum was superior to sham for most secondary endpoints, including headache days (1.8 fewer; 95% CI 0.6, 3.0; p=0.004) and the International Headache Society response criterion (66% vs. 55% response, risk difference 12%, 95% CI: 2%-21%; p=0.024).). The relative risk on the primary and secondary response criterion was very similar (∼0.8); the difference in statistical significance may be due to differences in event rate. TTH improves after acupuncture treatment. However, the degree to which treatment benefits depend on psychological compared to physiological effects and the degree to which any physiological effects depend on needle placement and insertion depth are unclear.

Background: Whether reducing time-to-surgery for elderly patients suffering from hip fracture results in better outcomes remains subject to controversial debates.

International audienceThe reliability of ankle—brachial index (ABI) measurements performed by different observer groups in primary care has not yet been determined. The aims of the study were to provide precise estimates for all effects influencing the variability of the ABI (patients' individual variability, intra- and inter-observer variability), with particular focus on the performance of different observer groups. Using a partially balanced incomplete block design, 144 unselected individuals aged ≥ 65 years underwent double ABI measurements by one vascular surgeon or vascular physician, one family physician and one nurse with training in Doppler sonography. Three groups comprising a total of 108 individuals were analyzed (only two with ABI < 0.90). Errors for two repeated measurements for all three observer groups did not differ (experts 8.5%, family physicians 7.7%, and nurses 7.5%, = 0.39). There was no relevant bias among observer groups. Intra-observer variability expressed as standard deviation divided by the mean was 8%, and inter-observer variability was 9%. In conclusion, reproducibility of the ABI measurement was good in this cohort of elderly patients who almost all had values in the normal range. The mean error of 8—9% within or between observers is smaller than with established screening measures. Since there were no differences among observers with different training backgrounds, our study confirms the appropriateness of ABI assessment for screening peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and generalized atherosclerosis in the primary case setting. Given the importance of the early detection and management of PAD, this diagnostic tool should be used routinely as a standard for PAD screening. Additional studies will be required to confirm our observations in patients with PAD of various severities