This study aimed to understand hospital doctors’ priorities (target use cases and aetiologies) for the development of a new rapid diagnostic test for patients with fever.

A cross-sectional online survey.

Europe-wide.

Secondary and tertiary care doctors involved in patient assessment and diagnosis across Europe.

Online survey from April to September 2024.

Importance of developing a new test on a scale of 1–10 for up to 19 ‘use cases’ (types of febrile presentations in specific demographic groups): use case scores and ranks and differences across subgroups of respondents, with free text to capture additional suggestions; respondents’ preferences (multiple choice) regarding which aetiologies should be included in a new test.

265 respondents from 30 European countries (out of 270 starting the survey) were included in the analysis. Top priorities included febrile immunocompromised patients and fever without a focus for both paediatric and adult use cases, and 1–3 months old febrile infants. Rankings were similar across clinician subgroups despite some differences in average scores. 92% (243/263), 95% CI 89% to 95%, of respondents would find a ‘generic’ test for bacterial aetiology useful, even if it does not differentiate between Gram-positive and Gram-negative aetiologies. 54% (63/116), 95% CI 45% to 63%, of respondents would find a ‘generic’ test for inflammatory aetiology useful when seeking to diagnose children for whom Kawasaki’s disease (KD) is on the differential, even in the absence of any KD-specific test, 83% (96/116), 95% CI 75% to 89%, would find such a ‘generic’ test useful if they could use it alongside a KD test when desired.

Clinicians prioritise the most vulnerable patients (because of age or comorbidities) and unclear presentations (fever without a focus) for the development of a new fever diagnostic test. Even relatively simple (eg, bacterial, inflammatory) tests could provide added value to most clinicians.

Accessible, person-centred, non-pharmacologic modalities are needed to address chronic pain and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD). Building off prior single-site pilot studies of music therapy (MT) in SCD, the purpose of this study is to (1) examine the data collection processes and intervention implementation overall and across two sites and (2) evaluate the implementation of the MT and health education interventions using quantitative and qualitative data.

This three-arm, two-site, feasibility randomised controlled trial will include 90 individuals ≥14 years who have SCD, chronic pain and access to a mobile device who are not currently engaged in mind-body pain management interventions under the supervision of a healthcare professional. Participants will be randomised to six sessions over 8 weeks of either: (1) in-person MT, (2) hybrid (one in-person, five virtual) MT or (3) hybrid health education. Patient-reported outcome measures of HRQoL and self-efficacy will be assessed at baseline, post-intervention and 6 weeks post-intervention. 24 participants (eight per arm) and 20 stakeholders (eg, haematologists, music therapists, nurses) will be invited to complete semi-structured interviews to further examine intervention acceptability, perceived benefits and implementation. Sessions will be monitored for fidelity, and participants lacking access to home internet or videoconferencing technology will be provided tablets to engage in virtual sessions. Feasibility will be determined by rates of data completion, recruitment, retention, session attendance and home practice.

This study was approved by the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center Institutional Review Board (STUDY20231055). The dissemination plan includes presenting findings at national and international scientific conferences and publishing in peer-reviewed journals. All activities will be conducted in collaboration with SCD community stakeholders.

NCT06853158.

To explore differences in health-related benefit status over 3 years, focusing on patterns of sick leave, work assessment allowance and disability benefits, between people who underwent rehabilitation and a matched control group.

Prospective longitudinal multicentre cohort study using registry data over three consecutive years.

Secondary specialist rehabilitation services at 17 institutions across Norway.

Patients (n=2710), 42% with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, aged 18–65 years referred for multidisciplinary rehabilitation at one of the participating institutions. They were propensity score matched with 37 760 controls from the national sick leave registry, based on sociodemographic factors and health-related benefit status.

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes, commonly lasting 3 weeks (range: 1 week to 6 months), tailored to individual needs.

Days on health-related benefits (sick leave, work assessment allowance (WAA) and disability benefits) were quantified as lost workdays per month. Differences between groups were analysed using Generalised Estimating Equations across three consecutive years: the year before rehabilitation, the rehabilitation year and the year after rehabilitation.

The rehabilitation group had more days on health-related benefits per month than controls throughout the observation period. During the rehabilitation year, they had on average 1.7 more days on sick leave (95 % CI 1.3 to 1.9), 2.3 more WAA days (95% CI 1.9 to 2.7) and 0.2 more days on disability benefits (95% CI 0.1 to 0.3). In the year after rehabilitation, they had 0.6 fewer days on sick leave (95% CI –0.8 to –0.3), but 3.7 more days on WAA (95% CI 3.1 to 4.2) and 0.6 more days on disability benefits (95% CI 0.4 to 0.8). Patterns were similar for the subgroup with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

People undergoing rehabilitation had more days on health-related benefits and a greater increase in long-term benefits, even after matching, indicating a higher disease and support burden than controls. Tailoring interventions and health-related benefits is an essential aspect of rehabilitation for people with complex work participation needs. Future research should include longer observation periods to explore long-term outcomes of rehabilitation.

NCT03764982

The Latarjet procedure is the mainstay treatment in high-demand patients with substantial glenoid bone loss or after failed capsulolabral repairs. Patients typically return to sport (RTS) within 6 months postoperatively, requiring intensive rehabilitation. Current rehabilitation protocols focus on mobility, strength and stability. Yet, psychological factors, such as fear of reinjury, are the main reason not to RTS. Therefore, this study aims to determine whether integrating psychological interventions into postoperative rehabilitation improves patient-reported shoulder function compared with physical therapy alone.

This monocentric randomised controlled trial will enrol 52 patients undergoing a Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability. Participants will be equally and randomly assigned to either postoperative physical therapy combined with cognitive behavioural therapy or physical therapy alone. Eligibility criteria include patients aged 18–67 years undergoing an open or arthroscopic Latarjet procedure at our institution. Exclusion criteria include posterior or multidirectional instability, rotator cuff tear, prior shoulder surgery, anxiety disorder, using anxiolytics, neurological disorder, systemic disease, previous hospitalisation for shoulder pain and proximal humerus fractures.

The primary outcome is the Western Ontario Shoulder Index at 6 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes include incidence of recurrent dislocations, RTS and return-to-work rates, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia for Shoulder Instability, subjective shoulder value and visual analogue score for pain at 6 months postoperatively as well as the Shoulder Instability Return to Sport after Injury scale at 4.5 months postoperatively.

This study was approved by the French Committee of Person Protection West I. The national registration number is 2023-A02057-38. The study has been registered at Clinicaltrials.gov with trial registration number NCT06154889. Patients are not financially compensated for participation and are allowed to withdraw from the study at any time without any preconditions. The final results of the study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and an abstract of the study will be submitted to international scientific meetings by the end of 2026. Data will be made available by the corresponding author on reasonable request.

The study has been registered at Clinicaltrials.gov with trial registration number NCT06154889. The trial sponsor is Vivalto Santé.

NCT06154889.

Pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) frequently accompanies rotator cuff tears, with tenotomy and tenodesis often being used to address this pathology. While meta-analyses report comparable functional outcomes between these techniques, tenotomy is linked to higher rates of Popeye deformity, whereas tenodesis is more technically demanding and might involve extra material. A novel self-locking tenodesis technique aims to reduce deformity risk while being a simpler alternative to the conventional tenodesis procedure; however, comparative evidence is currently limited.

This single-centre, patient-blinded randomised controlled trial will enrol 100 patients aged ≥40 years with reparable, non-traumatic, full-thickness supraspinatus and/or infraspinatus and/or subscapularis tendon tears undergoing arthroscopic repair from January 2025 until January 2027. Key exclusion criteria include massive or irreparable tears, advanced glenohumeral osteoarthritis and prior shoulder surgery. Participants will be randomised to either 360 double lasso loop tenodesis or self-locking tenodesis. The primary outcome is the Constant score at 1 year, with a predefined non-inferiority margin of 10 points. Secondary outcomes include American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, simple shoulder value score, LHB score, cosmetic appearance, pain scores and radiographic tendon migration. Statistical non-inferiority will be assessed using a one-sided t-test.

The study protocol received approval from the National Ethical Review Board in France (CPP Sud-Est V) and was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

NCT06774820.