Background Predicting which patients with hip osteoarthritis are more likely to show disease progression is important for healthcare professionals. Therefore, the aim of this review was to assess which factors are predictive of progression in patients with hip osteoarthritis. Methods A literature search was made up until 14 March 2019. Included were cohort and case-control studies evaluating the association between factors and progression (either clinical, radiological, or THR). Excluded were studies with a follow-up < 1 year or specific underlying pathologies of osteoarthritis. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUIPS tool. A best-evidence synthesis was conducted. Results We included 57 articles describing 154 different factors. Of these, a best-evidence synthesis was possible for 103 factors, separately for clinical and radiological progression, and progression to total hip replacement. We found strong evidence for more clinical progression in patients with comorbidity and more progression to total hip replacement for a higher Kellgren and Lawrence grade, superior or (supero) lateral femoral head migration, and subchondral sclerosis. Strong evidence for no association was found regarding clinical progression for gender, social support, pain medication, quality of life, and limited range of motion of internal rotation or external rotation. Also, strong evidence for no association was found regarding radiological progression for the markers CTX-I, COMP, NTX-I, PINP, and PIIINP and regarding progression to total hip replacement for body mass index. Conclusion Strong evidence suggested that 4 factors were predictive of progression of hip osteoarthritis, whereas 12 factors were not predictive of progression. Evidence for most of the reported factors was either limited or conflicting. Protocol registration PROSPERO, CRD42015010757 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-019-1969-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectivesWorldwide the use of opioids, both doctor-prescribed and illicit, has increased. In most countries, opioids are first prescribed by general practitioners (GPs). Identifying factors that influence GPs’ opioid prescription decision-making may help reduce opioid misuse and overuse. We performed a systematic review to gain insight into GP attitudes towards opioid prescription and to identify possible solutions to promote changes in the field of primary care.Design and settingSystematic review of qualitative studies reporting GPs’ attitudes towards opioid use in non-cancer pain management.MethodsWe searched Embase, Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane, PsychInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers selected studies based on prespecified eligibility criteria. Study quality was evaluated with the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, and their results were analysed using thematic analysis. Quality of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation—Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach.ResultsWe included 14 studies. Four themes were established using thematic analyses: (1) GPs caught in the middle of ‘the opioid crisis’; (2) Are opioids always bad? (3) GPs’ weighing scale, taking patient-related and therapeutic relationship-related factors into account; and (4) GPs’ sense of powerlessness—lack of alternatives, support by specialists and lack of time in justifying non-prescriptions.ConclusionGP attitudes towards opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain are subject to several GP-related, patient-related and therapeutic relationship-related factors. Raising GP and patient awareness on the inefficacy of opioids in chronic non-cancer pain management and providing non-opioid alternatives to treat chronic pain might help to promote opioid reduction in primary care. More research is needed to develop practical guidelines on appropriate opioid prescribing, tapering off opioid use and adopting effective communication strategies.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020194561.Cite Now

No abstract