Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Low back pain is a common problem managed by primary care physicians and orthopedic specialists.

Objectives: To evaluate the outcome of new LBP[1] episodes in patients who chose to visit either an orthopedist or a general practitioner.

Methods: All patients visiting the orthopedist or physician during the study period were screened for a new complaint of LBP. After the initial visit the patients were interviewed by phone by means of a structured questionnaire, with a follow-up interview one month later. The study was performed at Clalit Health Services primary care and consultation clinics. A random sample of 125 GPs[2] and 17 orthopedists were chosen. Consecutively recruited were 166 patients who visited the GP and 75 the orthopedist. The main outcome measures evaluated were perceived complaint severity and degree of disturbance to everyday functioning, problem resolution, and health services utilization.

Results: Patients who decided to first visit the orthopedist indicated a higher disturbance to everyday functioning (75% vs. 70%, P < 0.01), were invited for further follow-up visits (6% vs. 51%, P < 0.05) and had more computed tomography and bone scans (20 vs. 3%, P < 0.001 and 9 vs. 2%, P < 0.05, respectively). Health status after one month showed that patients who chose the GP were more likely to have their problem solved (36 vs. 17%, P < 0.05).

Conclusions: Symptom resolution for a new LBP complaint was significantly higher in patients who decided on the GP, even when controlling for severity of illness and degree of disturbance to everyday functioning.

Background: Dyslipidemia remains underdiagnosed and undertreated in patients with coronary artery disease. The Computer-based Clinical Decision Support System provides an opportunity to close these gaps.

Objectives: To study the impact of computerized intervention on secondary prevention of CAD[1].

Methods: The CDSS[2] was programmed to automatically detect patients with CAD and to evaluate the availability of an updated lipoprotein profile and treatment with lipid-lowering drugs. The program produced automatic computer-generated monitoring and treatment recommendations. Adjusted primary clinics were randomly assigned to intervention (n=56) or standard care arms (n=56). Reminders were mailed to the primary medical teams in the intervention arm every 4 months updating them with current lipid levels and recommendations for further treatment. Compliance and lipid levels were monitored. The study group comprised all patients with CAD who were alive at least 3 months after hospitalization.

Results: Follow-up was available for 7448 patients with CAD (median 19.8 months, range 6–36 months). Overall, 51.7% of patients were adequately screened, and 55.7% of patients were compliant with treatment recommended to lower lipid level. A significant decrease in low density lipoprotein levels was observed in both arms, but was more pronounced in the intervention arm: 121.9 ± 34.2 vs. 124.3 ± 34.6 mg/dl (P < 0.02). A significantly lower rate of cardiac rehospitalizations was documented in patients who were adequately treated with lipid-lowering drugs, 37% vs. 40.9% (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: This initial assessment of our data represent a real-world snapshot where physicians and CAD patients often do not adhere to clinical guidelines, presenting a major obstacle to implementing effective secondary prevention. Our automatic computerized reminders system substantially facilitates adherence to guidelines and supports wide-range implementation.

Objectives: To determine whether drug studies in the pulmonary/allergy literature also demonstrate a publication bias towards more favorable results when a pharmaceutical company funds the study.

Methods: We reviewed all original articles published in seven pulmonary and allergy journals between October 2002 and September 2003. Included in the review were studies of inhaled corticosteroids (oral or nasal), long- or short-acting bronchodilators, or leukotriene receptor antagonists. Articles with funding from a pharmaceutical company and/or one or more authors employed by a pharmaceutical company were considered pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies. The remaining studies were considered not sponsored by a pharmaceutical company. Results were compared to ascertain whether positive results were obtained more frequently in the company-sponsored studies.

Results: Of the 100 articles included in this review 63 were considered pharmaceutical company-sponsored research. Results favorable for the drugs studies were significantly more common in those funded by a pharmaceutical company (98% vs. 32%).

Conclusions: In the pulmonary and allergy literature, as in other fields, there is a publication bias towards positive results in pharmaceutical company-sponsored research.