Search

Background: One of the most prevalent illnesses of the shoulder is rotator cuff tendinosis, which is also a major contributor to shoulder discomfort and shoulder joint dysfunction. According to statistics, rotator cuff tendinosis occurs in 0.3–5.5% of cases and affects 0.5–7.4% of people annually. It will be necessary to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of hypertonic glucose proliferation therapy in the treatment of rotator cuff problems. Methods: The databases Cochrane PubMed, Library, Web of Science and EMbase, are retrieved by the computer. Individuals with rotator cuff lesions in the intervention group were treated with hypertonic dextrose proliferation therapy, whereas individuals in the control condition were treated with a placebo. Outcome markers for rotator cuff lesions patients; Pursuant to studies, the visual analogue scale (VAS) score, the shoulder pain & disability index (SPADI), & other metrics are used to evaluate the effects of hypertonic dextrose proliferation treatment on individuals with rotator cuff diseases. After carefully evaluating the calibre of the literature, data analysis was performed utilising the RevMan 5.3 programme. Results: Meta-analysis finally contained 6 papers. In six investigations, the test & control group's VAS scores improved, with the test team's score considerably outperforming the control team [standardized mean difference (SMD): 1.10; 95% Cl: 0.37,1.83; P < 0.01], shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI) score (SMD:8.13; 95% Cl: 5.34,10.91; P < 0.01), Flexion (SMD:5.73; 95% Cl: 0.99,10.47; P < 0.05), Abduction (SMD:6.49; 95% Cl: 0.66,12.31; P < 0.05), Internal rotation (SMD:-1.74; 95% Cl: -4.25,0.78; P = 0.176) and External rotation (SMD:2.78; 95% Cl: -0.13,5.69; P = 0.062). Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that individuals with rotator cuff injuries may benefit from hypertonic dextrose proliferation treatment based on the visual analogue scale (VAS) score, the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score, Flexion, & Abduction. These results must, nevertheless, be supported by high-caliber follow-up research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Epidemiological studies often rely on self-reported health problems and validation greatly improves study quality. In a study of late effects after childhood cancer, we validated self-reported cardiovascular problems by contacting general practitioners (GPs). This paper describes: (a) the feasibility of this approach; and (b) the agreement between survivor-reports and reports from their GP. Methods: The Swiss Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (SCCSS) contacts all childhood cancer survivors registered in the Swiss Childhood Cancer Registry since 1976 who survived at least 5 years from cancer diagnosis. We validated answers of all survivors who reported a cardiovascular problem in the questionnaire. Reported cardiovascular problems were hypertension, arrhythmia, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, stroke, thrombosis, and valvular problems. In the questionnaire, we further asked survivors to provide a valid address of their GP and a consent for contact. We sent case-report forms to survivors' GPs and requested information on cardiovascular diagnoses of their patients. To determine agreement between information reported by survivors and GPs, we calculated Cohen's kappa (κ) coefficients for each category of cardiovascular problems. Results: We used questionnaires from 2172 respondents of the SCCSS. Of 290 survivors (13% of 2172) who reported cardiovascular problems, 166 gave consent to contact their GP and provided a valid address. Of those, 135 GPs (81%) replied, and 128 returned the completed case-report form. Survivor-reports were confirmed by 54/128 GPs (42%). Of the 54 GPs, 36 (28% of 128) confirmed the problems as reported by the survivors; 11 (9% of 128) confirmed the reported problem(s) and gave additional information on more cardiovascular outcomes; and seven GPs (5% of 128) confirmed some, but not all cardiovascular problems. Agreement between GPs and survivors was good for stroke (κ = 0.79), moderate for hypertension (κ = 0.51), arrhythmias (κ = 0.41), valvular problems (κ = 0.41) and thrombosis (κ = 0.56), and poor for coronary heart disease (κ = 0.15) and heart failure (κ = 0.32). Conclusions: Despite excellent GP compliance, it was found unfeasible to validate self-reported cardiovascular problems via GPs because they do not serve as gatekeepers in the Swiss health care system. It is thus necessary to develop other validation methods to improve the quality of patient-reported outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]