ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: To compare data based on touch screen to data based on traditional paper versions of questionnaires frequently used to examine patient reported outcomes in knee osteoarthritis patients and to examine the impact of patient characteristics on this comparison METHODS: Participants were recruited from an ongoing trial (ClinicalTrials.Gov Identifier: NCT00655941). 20 female participants, mean age 67 (SD 7), completed KOOS, VAS pain, function and patient global, SF-36, Physical Activity Scale, painDETECT, and the ADL Taxonomy. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two subgroups, completing either the paper or touch screen version first. Mean, mean differences (95% CI), median, median differences and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for all questionnaires. RESULTS: ICCs between data based on computerized and paper versions ranged from 0.86 to 0.99. Analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between versions of the ADL Taxonomy, but not for the remaining questionnaires. Age, computer experience or education-level had no significant impact on the results. The computerized questionnaires were reported to be easier to use. CONCLUSION: The computerized questionnaires gave comparable results to answers given on paper. Patient characteristics did not influence results and implementation was feasible.

Valid, reliable and responsive Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) questionnaires for young to middle-aged, physically active individuals with hip and groin pain are lacking.

Background:  Alcohol use disorders (AUD) involving hazardous, harmful, and addictive misuse of alcohol are widespread in most parts of the world. The aim of this study was to review the effect of disulfiram in the treatment of patients with AUD. The effect of disulfiram was evaluated according to the primary outcome of an intake of alcohol below 30 and 20 g/d for men and women, respectively, as well as secondary outcomes such as days until relapse, alcohol intake, and numbers of drinking days. Methods:  A systematic review of the literature was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Results:  Eleven randomized controlled trials were included with a total of 1,527 patients. They compared disulfiram treatment with placebo, none or other abstinence-supportive treatments. Overall, 6 studies reported of a significant better effect on abstinence for patients treated with disulfiram. Six of 9 studies measuring secondary outcomes reported that patients treated with disulfiram had significantly more days until relapse and fewer drinking days, respectively. The quality of the included studies was moderate. Heterogeneity was significant in most of the meta-analyses, but valid results were found regarding the effect of disulfiram versus placebo over 12 months and unsupervised disulfiram versus other or no treatment. The vast majority of significant studies were of shorter duration, while only 3 studies of 12 months were significant regarding more days until relapse and/or reduction in drinking days. Conclusions:  Supervised treatment with disulfiram has some effect on short-term abstinence and days until relapse as well as number of drinking days when compared with placebo, none, or other treatments for patients with alcohol dependency or abuse. Long-term effect on abstinence has not been evaluated yet. However, there is a need for more homogeneous and high-quality studies in the future regarding the efficacy of disulfiram.

Lower limb injuries are a large problem in athletes. However, there is a paucity of knowledge on the relationship between alignment of the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) of the foot and development of such injuries. A reliable and valid test to quantify foot type is needed to be able to investigate the relationship between arch type and injury likelihood. Feiss Line is a valid clinical measure of the MLA. However, no study has investigated the reliability of the test.

Interventions aimed at reducing the number of smokers are generally believed to be cost effective. However as the cost of the interventions should be paid up front whereas the gains in life years only appear in the future--the budgetary consequences might be a barrier to implementing such interventions.