Jörg Haasenritter

Background: Chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) pain significantly impacts individuals’ quality of life. Regular physical activity is an important key to therapy. However, adherence to exercise is often below the intended levels. This systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness of adherence support strategies in physical activity randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for patients with chronic MSK pain, to address the challenge of motivation and adherence in this population. Methods: Ovid and CINAHL databases were searched for MSK “chronic pain,” “adherence” and “physical activity” (in various synonyms) for RCTs with a follow-up of at least 6 months. After a screening process that included several team members, a narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis on adherence and effect sizes of different outcomes were performed. Results: An initial database output of 5816 articles resulted in 76 RCTs that remained for analysis. These RCTs showed high heterogeneity of intervention design and outcome data. Adherence to exercise varied widely, with 21 RCTs achieving rates of 80% or higher using strategies like education, goal setting, self-monitoring, and personal feedback. The meta-analysis, based on 29 out of 76 RCTs, indicated a nonsignificant correlation between adherence levels and an improved outcome (eg, pain or quality of life). No individual strategy emerged as superior, emphasizing the complexity and diversity of intervention designs. Conclusions: This review offers strategies, such as information/education and individual goal setting/feedback that may be beneficial for enhancing physical activity in patients with chronic MSK pain. Future research should focus on including promising adherence support strategies and providing data for adherence calculations.

Introduction Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) was the main cause of death in Germany in 2021, with major risk factors (ie, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, obesity and certain lifestyle factors) being highly prevalent. Preventing ASCVD by assessment and modification of these risk factors is an important challenge for general practitioners. This study aims to systematically review and synthesise recent recommendations of national and international guidelines regarding the primary prevention of ASCVD in adults in primary care. Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to evaluate primary prevention strategies for ASCVD. CPGs will be retrieved from MEDLINE and the Turning Research Into Practice database, guideline-specific databases and websites of guidelines-producing societies, with searches limited to publications from 2016 onwards. We will include CPGs in English, Spanish, German or Dutch languages that provide evidence-based recommendations for ASCVD prevention. The study population will include adults without diagnosed ASCVD. Two independent reviewers will assess guideline eligibility and quality by means of the mini-checklist MiChe, and extract study characteristics and relevant recommendations for further consistency analysis. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements. Findings will be presented as a narrative synthesis and in tabular form. Ethics and dissemination This review does not require ethical approval. Our systematic review will inform the CPG of the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians on the primary prevention of ASCVD. The review results will also be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at local, national and international conferences. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023394605.

Dizziness is a common reason for consulting a general practitioner and there is a broad range of possible underlying aetiologies. There are few evidence-based data about prevalence, aetiology and prognosis in primary care. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of symptom-evaluating studies on prevalence, aetiology or prognosis of dizziness in primary care. We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE. Two independent researchers screened titles and abstracts according to predefined criteria. We included all studies evaluating the symptoms ‘dizziness’ or ‘vertigo’ as a reason for consultation in primary care. We extracted data about study population and methodology and prevalence, aetiology and prognosis. Two raters independently judged study quality and risk of bias. We investigated the variation across studies using forest plots, I2 and prediction intervals. Since we anticipated a great amount of clinical and unexplained statistical heterogeneity, we provided qualitative syntheses instead of pooled estimates. We identified 31 studies (22 on prevalence, 14 on aetiology and 8 on prognosis). Consultation prevalence differs between 1,0 and 15,5%. The most common aetiologies are vestibular/peripheral (5,4-42,1%), benign peripheral positional vertigo (4,3-39,5%), vestibular neuritis (0,6-24,0%), Menière’s disease (1,4-2,7%), cardiovascular disease (3,8-56,8%), neurological disease (1,4-11,4%), psychogenic (1,8-21,6%), no clear diagnosis (0,0-80,2%). While studies based on subjective patient assessment reported improvement rates from 37 to 77%, these findings could not be confirmed when applying instruments that measure symptom severity or quality of life. There is a broad variety of possible underlying diseases for the symptom dizziness. There exist only few methodologically sound studies concerning aetiology and prognosis of dizziness.

Background The Marburg Heart Score (MHS) is a simple, valid, and robust clinical decision rule assisting GPs in ruling out coronary heart disease (CHD) in patients presenting with chest pain. Aim To investigate whether using the rule adds to the GP’s clinical judgement. Design and setting A comparative diagnostic accuracy study was conducted using data from 832 consecutive patients with chest pain in general practice. Method Three diagnostic strategies were defined using the MHS: diagnosis based solely on the MHS; using the MHS as a triage test; and GP’s clinical judgement aided by the MHS. Their accuracy was compared with the GPs’ unaided clinical judgement. Results Sensitivity and specificity of the GPs’ unaided clinical judgement was 82.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 72.4 to 89.9) and 61.0% (95% CI = 56.7 to 65.2), respectively. In comparison, the sensitivity of the MHS was higher (difference 8.5%, 95% CI = −2.4 to 19.6) and the specificity was similar (difference −0.4%, 95% CI = −5.3 to 4.5); the sensitivity of the triage was similar (difference −1.5%, 95% CI = −9.8 to 7.0) and the specificity was higher (difference 11.6%, 95% CI = 7.8 to 15.4); and both the sensitivity and specificity of the aided clinical judgement were higher (difference 8.0%, 95% CI = −6.9 to 23.0 and 5.8%, 95% CI = −1.6 to 13.2, respectively). Conclusion Using the Marburg Heart Score for initial triage can improve the clinical diagnosis of CHD in general practice.

To investigate the frequencies of different and relevant underlying etiologies of chest pain in general practice.We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE. Two reviewers independently rated the eligibility of publications and assessed the risk of bias ...

Chest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation in primary care. Traditional textbooks still assign pain localization a certain discriminative role in the differential diagnosis of chest pain. The aim of our study was to synthesize pain drawings from a large sample of chest pain patients and to examine whether pain localizations differ for different underlying etiologies.

Calculation of individual risk is the cornerstone of effective cardiovascular prevention. arriba is a software to estimate the individual risk to suffer a cardiovascular event in 10 years. Prognosis and the absolute effects of pharmacological and lifestyle interventions help the patient make a well-informed decision. The risk calculation algorithm currently used in arriba is based on the Framingham risk algorithm calibrated to the German setting. The objective of this study is to evaluate and adapt the algorithm for the target population in primary care in Germany.

To determine the diagnostic value of single symptoms and signs for coronary heart disease (CHD) in patients with chest pain. Searches of two electronic databases (EMBASE 1980 to March 2008, PubMed 1966 to May 2009) and hand searching in seven journals were conducted. Eligible studies recruited patients presenting with acute or chronic chest pain. The target disease was CHD, with no restrictions regarding case definitions, eg, stable CHD, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), acute myocardial infarction (MI), or major cardiac event (MCE). Diagnostic tests of interest were items of medical history and physical examination. Bivariate random effects model was used to derive summary estimates of positive (pLR) and negative likelihood ratios (nLR). We included 172 studies providing data on the diagnostic value of 42 symptoms and signs. With respect to case definition of CHD, diagnostically most useful tests were history of CHD (pLR=3.59), known MI (pLR=3.21), typical angina (pLR=2.35), history of diabetes mellitus (pLR=2.16), exertional pain (pLR=2.13), history of angina pectoris (nLR=0.42), and male sex (nLR=0.49) for diagnosing stable CHD; pain radiation to right arm/shoulder (pLR=4.43) and palpitation (pLR=0.47) for diagnosing MI; visceral pain (pLR=2.05) for diagnosing ACS; and typical angina (pLR=2.60) and pain reproducible by palpation (pLR=0.13) for predicting MCE. We comprehensively reported the accuracy of a broad spectrum of single symptoms and signs for diagnosing myocardial ischemia. Our results suggested that the accuracy of several symptoms and signs varied in the published studies according to the case definition of CHD.

We would like to thank Djasmo, Echteld, and Spee for their well-founded and insightful comments on our report on the external validation of the MHS.1 Regarding the reference standard, Djasmo et al point out that the results of our study may be biased since the expert panel establishing the reference diagnosis was not blinded to the results of the MHS, that they assume that blinding without loss of data would have been possible, and that a kappa of 0.62 does not indicate a substantial agreement. Regarding the latter, several authors suggested that a kappa between 0.6 and 0.8 indicates a substantial agreement.2,3 However, we do not have the primary intention to discuss the appropriateness of such threshold recommendations. We think that the main message is that the agreement was not perfect and that this indicated a difference between the blinded and the unblinded reference panel. But it is important to state that the lack …