Patch augmentation surgery for rotator cuff repair: the PARCS mixed-methods feasibility study.

CONSENSUS COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS DELPHI TECHNIQUE FEASIBILITY STUDIES FOCUS GROUPS MEDICAL DEVICE PATCH PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES ROTATOR CUFF SHOULDER SURGEONS SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES

Journal

Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)
ISSN: 2046-4924
Titre abrégé: Health Technol Assess
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9706284

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 2021
Historique:
entrez: 1 3 2021
pubmed: 2 3 2021
medline: 26 10 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

A rotator cuff tear is a common, disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms may include pain, weakness, lack of shoulder mobility and sleep disturbance. Many patients require surgery to repair the tear; however, there is a high failure rate. There is a need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery, and the use of patch augmentation (on-lay or bridging) to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds promise. Patches have been made using different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or tissue and synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or mesh). The aim of the Patch Augmented Rotator Cuff Surgery (PARCS) feasibility study was to determine the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and feasible. A mixed-methods feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched between April 2006 and August 2018. The project involved six stages: a systematic review of clinical evidence, a survey of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society's surgical membership, a survey of surgeon triallists, focus groups and interviews with stakeholders, a two-round Delphi study administered via online questionnaires and a 2-day consensus meeting. The various stakeholders (including patients, surgeons and industry representatives) were involved in stages 2-6. The systematic review comprised 52 studies; only 15 were comparative and, of these, 11 were observational (search conducted in August 2018). These studies were typically small (median number of participants 26, range 5-152 participants). There was some evidence to support the use of patches, although most comparative studies were at a serious risk of bias. Little to no published clinical evidence was available for a number of patches in clinical use. The membership survey of British Elbow and Shoulder surgeons [105 (21%) responses received] identified a variety of patches in use. Twenty-four surgeons (77%) completed the triallist survey relating to trial design. Four focus groups were conducted, involving 24 stakeholders. Differing views were held on a number of aspects of trial design, including the appropriate patient population (e.g. patient age) to participate. Agreement on the key research questions and the outline of two potential randomised controlled trials were achieved through the Delphi study [29 (67%)] and the consensus meeting that 22 participants attended. The main limitation was that the findings were influenced by the participants, who are not necessarily representative of the views of the relevant stakeholder groups. The need for further clinical studies was clear, particularly given the range and number of different patches available. Randomised comparisons of on-lay patch use for completed rotator cuff repairs and bridging patch use for partial rotator cuff repairs were identified as areas for further research. The value of an observational study to assess safety concerns of patch use was also highlighted. These elements are included in the trial designs proposed in this study. The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017057908. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Shoulder muscles and tendons allow us to move our arms to carry out daily activities, work and play sports. Disease and injury of these tendons can cause significant long-term disability. Early treatment of these tendon problems usually involves painkillers, injections and physiotherapy. However, many patients whose symptoms do not improve may need surgery to repair these tendons. Unfortunately, around 40% of surgical tendon repairs fail within 12 months. As such, these operations need to be improved. A promising approach is to use a patch to support the repair while the tendon heals; this patch is often used in a similar way to a plaster. However, it is not yet clear whether or not using a patch improves patient health and, if so, whether or not it makes enough of a difference to justify the additional cost to the NHS. A scientific study called a randomised controlled trial is needed to fairly assess the value of surgery with a patch in people requiring a tendon repair. This study must be carefully designed so that it is acceptable to patients and surgeons, among others, and feasible to run. We conducted a multistage study to explore whether or not a potential trial design could be achieved. We searched the scientific literature for previous research that had studied using patches for repairing shoulder tendons. We surveyed shoulder surgeons, including those who had previously been involved shoulder randomised controlled trials. We conducted four focus groups with stakeholders. Initial agreement on the best way to run a randomised controlled trial of patches in shoulder surgery was achieved using online questionnaires. Finally, we held a 2-day meeting to scrutinise the study findings and the relevant issues. Two potential studies were recommended, as was the need for closer monitoring of patch safety.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
A rotator cuff tear is a common, disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms may include pain, weakness, lack of shoulder mobility and sleep disturbance. Many patients require surgery to repair the tear; however, there is a high failure rate. There is a need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery, and the use of patch augmentation (on-lay or bridging) to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds promise. Patches have been made using different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or tissue and synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or mesh).
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the Patch Augmented Rotator Cuff Surgery (PARCS) feasibility study was to determine the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and feasible.
DESIGN
A mixed-methods feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched between April 2006 and August 2018.
METHODS
The project involved six stages: a systematic review of clinical evidence, a survey of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society's surgical membership, a survey of surgeon triallists, focus groups and interviews with stakeholders, a two-round Delphi study administered via online questionnaires and a 2-day consensus meeting. The various stakeholders (including patients, surgeons and industry representatives) were involved in stages 2-6.
RESULTS
The systematic review comprised 52 studies; only 15 were comparative and, of these, 11 were observational (search conducted in August 2018). These studies were typically small (median number of participants 26, range 5-152 participants). There was some evidence to support the use of patches, although most comparative studies were at a serious risk of bias. Little to no published clinical evidence was available for a number of patches in clinical use. The membership survey of British Elbow and Shoulder surgeons [105 (21%) responses received] identified a variety of patches in use. Twenty-four surgeons (77%) completed the triallist survey relating to trial design. Four focus groups were conducted, involving 24 stakeholders. Differing views were held on a number of aspects of trial design, including the appropriate patient population (e.g. patient age) to participate. Agreement on the key research questions and the outline of two potential randomised controlled trials were achieved through the Delphi study [29 (67%)] and the consensus meeting that 22 participants attended.
LIMITATIONS
The main limitation was that the findings were influenced by the participants, who are not necessarily representative of the views of the relevant stakeholder groups.
CONCLUSION
The need for further clinical studies was clear, particularly given the range and number of different patches available.
FUTURE WORK
Randomised comparisons of on-lay patch use for completed rotator cuff repairs and bridging patch use for partial rotator cuff repairs were identified as areas for further research. The value of an observational study to assess safety concerns of patch use was also highlighted. These elements are included in the trial designs proposed in this study.
STUDY REGISTRATION
The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017057908.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in
Shoulder muscles and tendons allow us to move our arms to carry out daily activities, work and play sports. Disease and injury of these tendons can cause significant long-term disability. Early treatment of these tendon problems usually involves painkillers, injections and physiotherapy. However, many patients whose symptoms do not improve may need surgery to repair these tendons. Unfortunately, around 40% of surgical tendon repairs fail within 12 months. As such, these operations need to be improved. A promising approach is to use a patch to support the repair while the tendon heals; this patch is often used in a similar way to a plaster. However, it is not yet clear whether or not using a patch improves patient health and, if so, whether or not it makes enough of a difference to justify the additional cost to the NHS. A scientific study called a randomised controlled trial is needed to fairly assess the value of surgery with a patch in people requiring a tendon repair. This study must be carefully designed so that it is acceptable to patients and surgeons, among others, and feasible to run. We conducted a multistage study to explore whether or not a potential trial design could be achieved. We searched the scientific literature for previous research that had studied using patches for repairing shoulder tendons. We surveyed shoulder surgeons, including those who had previously been involved shoulder randomised controlled trials. We conducted four focus groups with stakeholders. Initial agreement on the best way to run a randomised controlled trial of patches in shoulder surgery was achieved using online questionnaires. Finally, we held a 2-day meeting to scrutinise the study findings and the relevant issues. Two potential studies were recommended, as was the need for closer monitoring of patch safety.

Autres résumés

Type: plain-language-summary (eng)
Shoulder muscles and tendons allow us to move our arms to carry out daily activities, work and play sports. Disease and injury of these tendons can cause significant long-term disability. Early treatment of these tendon problems usually involves painkillers, injections and physiotherapy. However, many patients whose symptoms do not improve may need surgery to repair these tendons. Unfortunately, around 40% of surgical tendon repairs fail within 12 months. As such, these operations need to be improved. A promising approach is to use a patch to support the repair while the tendon heals; this patch is often used in a similar way to a plaster. However, it is not yet clear whether or not using a patch improves patient health and, if so, whether or not it makes enough of a difference to justify the additional cost to the NHS. A scientific study called a randomised controlled trial is needed to fairly assess the value of surgery with a patch in people requiring a tendon repair. This study must be carefully designed so that it is acceptable to patients and surgeons, among others, and feasible to run. We conducted a multistage study to explore whether or not a potential trial design could be achieved. We searched the scientific literature for previous research that had studied using patches for repairing shoulder tendons. We surveyed shoulder surgeons, including those who had previously been involved shoulder randomised controlled trials. We conducted four focus groups with stakeholders. Initial agreement on the best way to run a randomised controlled trial of patches in shoulder surgery was achieved using online questionnaires. Finally, we held a 2-day meeting to scrutinise the study findings and the relevant issues. Two potential studies were recommended, as was the need for closer monitoring of patch safety.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33646096
doi: 10.3310/hta25130
pmc: PMC7958078
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1-138

Subventions

Organisme : The Dunhill Medical Trust
ID : DMT/RCS604
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 15/103/03
Pays : United Kingdom

Références

Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg. 2015 Mar;19(1):32-9
pubmed: 25599436
Aust J Physiother. 2001;47(4):289-94
pubmed: 11722295
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Nov-Dec;18(6):927-32
pubmed: 19535272
Eur Cell Mater. 2016 Jan 27;31:107-18
pubmed: 26815643
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Feb;467(2):450-6
pubmed: 18949526
Musculoskelet Surg. 2013 Jun;97 Suppl 1:63-8
pubmed: 23588831
Am J Sports Med. 2005 Jun;33(6):907-11
pubmed: 15827358
Crit Care. 2013 Nov 08;17(6):R266
pubmed: 24207137
Am J Sports Med. 2012 Jan;40(1):141-7
pubmed: 22215726
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jan 23;(1):CD005619
pubmed: 18254085
Br J Surg. 2005 Oct;92(10):1293-7
pubmed: 16078288
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007 Mar;15(3):305-14
pubmed: 16927071
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Feb;27(2):242-251
pubmed: 29157898
Trials. 2012 Aug 06;13:132
pubmed: 22867278
Surg Technol Int. 2014 Mar;24:348-52
pubmed: 24526420
Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(3):i-iv, 1-88
pubmed: 9561895
Arthroscopy. 2013 Feb;29(2):266-73
pubmed: 23206691
Z Orthop Unfall. 2016 Oct;154(5):504-512
pubmed: 27327123
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 May;474(5):1328-32
pubmed: 26584800
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006 Mar 10;7:25
pubmed: 16529658
PLoS Med. 2011 Jan 25;8(1):e1000393
pubmed: 21283604
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Sep;27(9):1545-1552
pubmed: 29980338
Am J Sports Med. 2016 Nov;44(11):2984-2992
pubmed: 26847487
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Jan-Feb;17(1 Suppl):35S-39S
pubmed: 18201655
BMJ. 1995 Jul 29;311(7000):299-302
pubmed: 7633241
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Apr;41(4):872-9
pubmed: 23423315
J Orthop Sci. 2002;7(4):451-6
pubmed: 12181658
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2009 Nov;38(11):572-5
pubmed: 20049352
Ann Surg. 2019 Feb;269(2):211-220
pubmed: 29697448
Acta Orthop Scand. 1996 Jun;67(3):264-8
pubmed: 8686465
BMJ. 2015 Jan 02;350:g7647
pubmed: 25555855
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Jun;24(6):915-21
pubmed: 25483907
Am J Sports Med. 2014 May;42(5):1169-75
pubmed: 24634447
Arthroscopy. 2008 Apr;24(4):403-409.e1
pubmed: 18375271
BMJ. 2014 May 21;348:g3253
pubmed: 24850821
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017 May;103(3):435-440
pubmed: 28238963
Br J Surg. 2016 Sep;103(10):1377-84
pubmed: 27462835
J R Soc Interface. 2018 Apr;15(141):
pubmed: 29695606
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Jun;42(6):1296-303
pubmed: 24733157
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005 Jun;87(6):819-23
pubmed: 15911666
BMJ Open. 2013 Apr 11;3(4):
pubmed: 23585392
Am J Sports Med. 2016 Apr;44(4):963-71
pubmed: 26851271
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006 Feb;45(2):215-21
pubmed: 16263781
Arthroscopy. 2016 Aug;32(8):1676-90
pubmed: 27157657
BMJ. 2013 Jun 18;346:f2820
pubmed: 23778425
Perspect Clin Res. 2012 Oct;3(4):119-21
pubmed: 23293757
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Mar 2;93(5):e15
pubmed: 21368069
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2014 Feb;43(4):570-6
pubmed: 24074644
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Feb;86(2):219-24
pubmed: 14960664
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015 Oct;21(10):906-9
pubmed: 26183298
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Sep;21(9):1168-76
pubmed: 22079767
Clin Orthop Surg. 2014 Sep;6(3):329-35
pubmed: 25177460
Syst Rev. 2018 Nov 13;7(1):187
pubmed: 30424809
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Mar;19(2 Suppl):104-9
pubmed: 20188275
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Dec;25(12):1961-1970
pubmed: 27130784
Br Med Bull. 2013;105:107-38
pubmed: 23080417
Ann Rheum Dis. 1957 Dec;16(4):494-502
pubmed: 13498604
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Oct;23(10):1508-13
pubmed: 24725892
Shoulder Elbow. 2015 Apr;7(2):135-43
pubmed: 27582969
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
PLoS Med. 2016 Oct 18;13(10):e1002147
pubmed: 27755555
Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2012 Nov;24(6):486-94
pubmed: 22805713
Lancet Oncol. 2006 Feb;7(2):141-8
pubmed: 16455478
Bone. 2012 Aug;51(2):278-88
pubmed: 22155587
Soc Sci Med. 2005 Aug;61(3):685-95
pubmed: 15899326
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004 Sep-Oct;13(5):538-41
pubmed: 15383811
Arthroscopy. 2015 Aug;31(8):1459-65
pubmed: 25891222
Arthroscopy. 2019 Feb;35(2):304-311
pubmed: 30473455
Acta Orthop Belg. 2013 Dec;79(6):620-5
pubmed: 24563965
BMJ. 1995 Aug 5;311(7001):376-80
pubmed: 7640549
Bone Joint J. 2017 Jan;99-B(1):107-115
pubmed: 28053265
Am J Sports Med. 2008 Jun;36(6):1043-51
pubmed: 18354140
Health Expect. 2017 Dec;20(6):1401-1410
pubmed: 28618076
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Oct;25(10):1623-33
pubmed: 27545050
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Aug;474(8):1886-93
pubmed: 26872913
Arthroscopy. 2010 Mar;26(3):302-9
pubmed: 20206038
Trials. 2009 Feb 06;10:9
pubmed: 19200379
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Jun;88(6):1238-44
pubmed: 16757756
PLoS Med. 2010 Feb 16;7(2):e1000217
pubmed: 20169112
Arthroscopy. 2016 Sep;32(9):1752-60
pubmed: 27062012
Arthroscopy. 2013 Dec;29(12):1911-21
pubmed: 24169146
Am J Sports Med. 2006 Mar;34(3):392-6
pubmed: 16260463
JAMA. 2003 Jul 2;290(1):113-4
pubmed: 12837722
BMJ. 2017 Dec 11;359:j5366
pubmed: 29229593
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):786-91
pubmed: 17403801
Trials. 2013 Oct 09;14:324
pubmed: 24103529
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 Oct;92(10):1397-402
pubmed: 20884978
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Apr;82(4):505-15
pubmed: 10761941
Br J Sports Med. 2014 Dec;48(22):1620-6
pubmed: 24677026
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Sep;87(9):1978-84
pubmed: 16140812
BMJ Open. 2016 Apr 11;6(4):e010412
pubmed: 27067892
Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2010;44(6):426-30
pubmed: 21358247
BMJ Open. 2017 Dec 6;7(12):e017125
pubmed: 29212782
Acta Orthop. 2017 Dec;88(6):606-611
pubmed: 28880113
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018 Dec 21;4:188
pubmed: 30598834
Soc Sci Med. 2009 Jun;68(11):2018-28
pubmed: 19364625
Bone Joint Res. 2014 May;3(5):155-60
pubmed: 24845913
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 May;79(5):738-48
pubmed: 9160947
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1):CD004016
pubmed: 12535501
BMJ. 2012 Feb 28;344:e1349
pubmed: 22374740
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Jun;87(6):1229-40
pubmed: 15930531
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984 Apr;66(4):563-7
pubmed: 6707035
J Orthop Sci. 2010 May;15(3):310-6
pubmed: 20559798
Int J Shoulder Surg. 2012 Apr;6(2):36-44
pubmed: 22787332
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Nov;26(11):2038-2046
pubmed: 28865966
J Med Ethics. 2004 Apr;30(2):160-5
pubmed: 15082810
BMJ. 2013 Jun 18;346:f3012
pubmed: 23778427
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Nov;45(13):2982-2988
pubmed: 28820278
Trials. 2017 Dec 22;18(1):614
pubmed: 29273079
BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 17;7(7):e018004
pubmed: 28716796
Orthopedics. 2015 Apr;38(4):e292-6
pubmed: 25901622
Am J Sports Med. 2019 May;47(6):1496-1506
pubmed: 29906191
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jul;20(5):788-94
pubmed: 21106404
Bone Joint J. 2016 Oct;98-B(10):1389-1394
pubmed: 27694594
Trials. 2016 Jan 19;17:35
pubmed: 26787177
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):MR000008
pubmed: 19588449
Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2017 Jan;5(1):14-21
pubmed: 28271082
Am J Sports Med. 2008 Aug;36(8):1511-8
pubmed: 18443279
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Nov 2;93(21):1953-60
pubmed: 22048089
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012 Jun;65(6):697-704
pubmed: 22405818
Arthroscopy. 2012 Jan;28(1):8-15
pubmed: 21978432
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006 Apr;14(4):360-4
pubmed: 16252125
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Apr;88(4):489-95
pubmed: 16567784
Bone Joint J. 2014 Jan;96-B(1):70-4
pubmed: 24395314
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2013 Feb;42(2):63-70
pubmed: 23431549
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Jul;(304):78-83
pubmed: 8020238
Arthroscopy. 2005 Nov;21(11):1307-16
pubmed: 16325080
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004 Jul-Aug;13(4):424-6
pubmed: 15220883
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001 Sep-Oct;10(5):464-9
pubmed: 11641705
Surgery. 2008 May;143(5):582-8
pubmed: 18436005
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Sep;469(9):2452-60
pubmed: 21503787
BMJ Open. 2012 Jan 06;2(1):e000496
pubmed: 22228729
PLoS One. 2020 Apr 2;15(4):e0230235
pubmed: 32240199
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990 May;(254):81-6
pubmed: 2323151
Int Orthop. 2003;27(4):228-31
pubmed: 12827299
Am J Sports Med. 2015 May;43(5):1108-17
pubmed: 25673824
Am J Sports Med. 2017 May;45(6):1261-1268
pubmed: 28141953
World J Orthop. 2014 Nov 18;5(5):623-33
pubmed: 25405091
Orthop J Sports Med. 2015 Jun 10;3(6):2325967115587495
pubmed: 26665095
Eur Cell Mater. 2012 Oct 23;24:344-57; discussion 357
pubmed: 23090765
Trials. 2015 May 09;16:210
pubmed: 25956385
Musculoskelet Surg. 2011 Jul;95 Suppl 1:S13-23
pubmed: 21691735

Auteurs

Jonathan A Cook (JA)

Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Mathew Baldwin (M)

Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Cushla Cooper (C)

Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Navraj S Nagra (NS)

Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Joanna C Crocker (JC)

Health Experiences Research Group, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
National Institute for Health Research, Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.

Molly Glaze (M)

Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Gemma Greenall (G)

Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Amar Rangan (A)

The James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK.

Lucksy Kottam (L)

The James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK.

Jonathan L Rees (JL)

Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Dair Farrar-Hockley (D)

Patient representative, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Naomi Merritt (N)

Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Sally Hopewell (S)

Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

David Beard (D)

Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Michael Thomas (M)

Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust, Frimley, UK.

Melina Dritsaki (M)

Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Andrew J Carr (AJ)

Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH