Background Multisite pain and falls are common in older people, and isolated studies have identified multisite pain as a potential falls risk factor. This study aims to synthesise published literature to further explore the relationship between multisite pain and falls and to quantify associated risks. Methods Bibliographic databases were searched from inception to December 2017. Studies of community-dwelling adults aged 50 years and older with a multisite pain measurement and a falls outcome were included. Two reviewers screened articles, undertook quality assessment and extracted data. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool the effect estimate (odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI)). Heterogeneity was assessed by I 2 ; sensitivity analyses used adjusted risk estimates and exclusively longitudinal studies. Results The search identified 49,577 articles, 3145 underwent abstract review, 22 articles were included in the systematic review and 18 were included in the meta-analysis. The unadjusted pooled OR of 1.82 (95%CI 1.55–2.13), demonstrating that those reporting multisite pain are at increased risk of falls, is supported by the adjusted pooled OR of 1.56 (95%CI 1.39–1.74). Multisite pain predicts future falls risk (OR = 1.74 (95%CI 1.57–1.93)). For high-quality studies, those reporting multisite pain have double the odds of a future fall compared to their pain-free counterparts. Conclusion Multisite pain is associated with an increased future falls risk in community-dwelling older people. Increasing public awareness of multisite pain as a falls risk factor and advising health and social care professionals to identify older people with multisite pain to signpost accordingly will enable timely falls prevention strategies to be implemented. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-019-1847-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
ObjectivesDespite many shared risk factors and pathophysiological pathways, the risk of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and myocardial infarction (MI) in interstitial lung disease (ILD) remains poorly understood. This lack of data could be preventing patients who may benefit from screening for these cardiovascular diseases from receiving it.MethodsA population-based cohort study used electronic patient records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and linked Hospital Episode Statistics to identify 68 572 patients (11 688 ILD exposed (mean follow-up: 3.8 years); 56 884 unexposed controls (mean follow-up: 4.0 years), with 349 067 person-years of follow-up. ILD-exposed patients (pulmonary sarcoidosis (PS) or idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (PF)) were matched (by age, sex, registered general practice and available follow-up time) to patients without ILD or IHD/MI. Rates of incident MI and IHD were estimated. HRs were modelled using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression accounting for potential confounders.ResultsILD was independently associated with IHD (HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.18) and MI (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.11). In all disease categories, risk of both IHD and MI peaked between ages 60 and 69 years, except for the risk of MI in PS which was greatest <50 years. Men with PF were at greatest risk of IHD, while women with PF were at greatest risk of MI.ConclusionsILD, particularly PF, is independently associated with MI and IHD after adjustment for established cardiovascular risk factors. Our results suggest clinicians should prioritise targeted assessment of cardiovascular risk in patients with ILD, particularly those aged 60–69 years. Further research is needed to understand the impact of such an approach to risk management.
Despite the availability of tests to diagnose acute myocardial infarction (AMI), cases are still missed. We systematic reviewed the literature to determine how missed AMI has been defined, the reported rates of misdiagnosed AMI, the outcomes patients with misdiagnosed AMI have, what diagnosis was initially suspected in missed AMI cases, and what factors are associated with misdiagnosed AMI. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE in September 2020 for studies that evaluated missed AMI. Data was extracted from studies that met the inclusion criteria and the results were narratively synthesized. A total of 15 studies were included in this review. The number of patients with missed AMI in individual studies ranged from 64 to 4,707.There was no consistently used definition for misdiagnosed AMI but most studies reported rates of approximately 1-2%. Compared to AMI that was recognized, one study found no difference in mortality for misdiagnosed AMI at 30 days and 1 year. The common initial misdiagnoses that subsequently had AMI were ischemic heart disease, non-specific chest pain, gastrointestinal disease, musculoskeletal pain and arrhythmias. Reasons for missed AMI include incorrect electrocardiogram interpretation and failure to order appropriate diagnostic tests. Hospitals in rural areas and those with a low proportion of classical chest pain patients that turned out to have AMI were at greater risk of missed AMI. Misdiagnosed AMI is an unfortunate part of everyday clinical practice and better training in electrocardiogram interpretation and education about atypical presentations of AMI may reduce the number of misdiagnosed AMI.
There is large variability in sickness certification policy and hence sickness certification rates across Europe. A system that enables comparisons across countries would be beneficial in ensuring health and economic planning. To enable a baseline rate of certification to be established and compared across countries, standardized reporting of sickness certification is needed.
BackgroundSickness certification constitutes daily clinical practice for GPs. In April 2010, the UK sickness certification system changed to reflect the evidence that work is generally good for health and a new Statement of Fitness for Work -the 'fit note' -was introduced. Sickness certification is a contentious topic among GPs and the proposed fit note generated mixed reviews. AimTo explore GPs' views and use of the fit note during its first year of operation. Design and settingQualitative interview study of GPs based in different geographical locations across the UK. MethodGPs (n = 15), who were recruited from a national sample, participated in semi-structured telephone interviews which were subject to constant comparative analysis. ResultsOverall, the fit note was well received. GPs recognised that work is generally good for health and felt the fit note facilitated using an earlier return to work as a negotiation tool. GPs perceive employers as the major obstacle to early return to work. There were reports of scepticism towards the system that negatively impacted on some GPs' operation of sickness certification. Feedback over the fit note's impact on employer behaviour and the return of a mechanism that enables GPs to request early independent assessments would be welcomed. ConclusionA revised approach is needed to address the scepticism towards the sickness certification system that persists among some GPs. New strategies need to be designed to engage employers in facilitating an early return to work and to enable the objectives of the medical statement reforms to be achieved.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.