M Grotle

Oslo University Hospital, Kristiania (historical), Oslo County, Norway

Are you M Grotle?

Claim your profile

Publications (10)27.79 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To explore how patients with sciatica rate the 'bothersomeness' of paresthesia (tingling and numbness) and weakness as compared with leg pain during 2 years of follow-up. METHODS: Observational cohort study including 380 patients with sciatica and lumbar disc herniation referred to secondary care. Using the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index paresthesia, weakness and leg pain were rated on a scale from 0 to 6. A symptom score of 4-6 was defined as bothersome. RESULTS: Along with leg pain, the bothersomeness of paresthesia and weakness both improved during follow-up. Those who received surgery (n = 121) reported larger improvements in both symptoms than did those who were treated without surgery. At 2 years, 18.2 % of the patients reported bothersome paresthesia, 16.6 % reported bothersome leg pain, and 11.5 % reported bothersome weakness. Among patients with no or little leg pain, 6.7 % reported bothersome paresthesia and 5.1 % bothersome weakness. CONCLUSION: During 2 years of follow-up, patients considered paresthesia more bothersome than weakness. At 2 years, the percentage of patients who reported bothersome paresthesia was similar to the percentage who reported bothersome leg pain. Based on patients' self-report, paresthesia and weakness are relevant aspects of disc-related sciatica.
    European Spine Journal 06/2013; · 2.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to compare the predictive ability of the standardised screening tool Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire (ÖMPQ) and the clinicians' prognostic assessment in identifying patients with low back pain (LBP) and neck pain at risk for persistent pain and disability at eight weeks follow-up. Patients seeking care for LBP or neck pain were recruited by 19 manual therapists in Norway. Patients completed the ÖMPQ and the low back- or neck specific Oswestry Disability Index/Neck Disability Index at baseline and 8 weeks after first consultation. The manual therapists filled in their assessment of patient's prognosis immediately after the first consultation, blinded for patient's answers to the questionnaire. A total of 157 patients (81with neck pain and 76 with LBP) were included. The best odds for predicting the outcome for LBP patients was found for the clinicians' assessment of prognosis (LR+ = 2.1 and LR- = 0.55), whereas the likelihood ratios were similar for the two tools in the neck group. For LBP patients, both the clinicians' assessment and the ÖMPQ contributed significantly in the separate regression models (p = 0.02 and p = 0.002, resp), whereas none of the tools where significant contributors for neck patients (p = 0.67 and 0.07). Neither of the two methods showed high precision in their predictions of follow-up at eight weeks. However, for LBP patients, the ÖMPQ and the clinicians' prognostic assessment contributed significantly in the prediction of functional outcome 8 weeks after the initial assessment of manual therapist, whereas the prediction for neck patients was unsure.
    Manual therapy 09/2012; · 2.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Some general practitioners (GPs) treat acute low back pain (LBP) with acupuncture, despite lacking evidence of its effectiveness for this condition. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a single treatment session with acupuncture can reduce time to recovery when applied in addition to standard LBP treatment according to the Norwegian national guidelines. Analyses of prognostic factors for recovery and cost-effectiveness will also be carried out. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this randomised, controlled multicentre study in general practice in Southern Norway, 270 patients will be allocated into one of two treatment groups, using a web-based application based on block randomisation. Outcome assessor will be blinded for group allocation of the patients. The control group will receive standard treatment, while the intervention group will receive standard treatment plus acupuncture treatment. There will be different GPs treating the two groups, and both groups will just have one consultation. Adults who consult their GP because of acute LBP will be included. Patients with nerve root affection, 'red flags', pregnancy, previous sick leave more than 14 days and disability pension will be excluded. The primary outcome of the study is the median time to recovery (in days). The secondary outcomes are rated global improvement, back-specific functional status, sick leave, medication, GP visits and side effects. A pilot study will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Participation is based on informed written consent. The authors will apply for an ethical approval from the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics when the study protocol is published. Results from this study, positive or negative, will be disseminated in scientific medical journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01439412.
    BMJ Open 05/2012; 2(3). · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To provide a thorough description of team rehabilitation care and compare the structure, process, and outcomes in two specialized arthritis rehabilitation settings. Patients with inflammatory arthritis scheduled for inpatient rehabilitation in seven specialized rehabilitation centres and three rheumatology hospital departments in Norway were included consecutively in a prospective cohort study. Patients completed questionnaires at admission, at discharge, and at a 6-month follow-up, and kept a diary regarding structure and process variables during the rehabilitation stay. Eighty patients in rehabilitation centres and 73 in hospital departments were included and 80% responded to the 6-month follow-up questionnaire. The two clinical settings differed significantly with regard to structure variables such as cost, referral of patients, length of stay, and number of health professionals involved, and most process variables reflecting treatment modalities. The most remarkable difference was in the amount of individual intervention compared with group intervention. Despite significant improvements in most outcomes at discharge, the scores deteriorated towards baseline level 6 months later. There was a trend towards more significant improvement during rehabilitation for patients at rehabilitation centres whereas patients at hospitals had more prolonged improvement. Team rehabilitation for inflammatory arthritis in two different clinical settings differed across most variables for structure and process, but few significant differences in outcome were found. Considering the substantial differences in cost, there is an urgent need for consensus concerning which patients should receive rehabilitation in which setting. Future research on the development and evaluation of methods for prolonging the beneficial effects of rehabilitation is needed.
    Scandinavian journal of rheumatology 11/2011; 41(1):20-8. · 2.51 Impact Factor
  • Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 09/2011; 19. · 4.26 Impact Factor
  • Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 10/2010; 18. · 4.26 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Chris G Maher, Margreth Grotle
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the predictive ability of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire-a screening tool for psychosocial factors in patients with low back pain across 2 cultural settings (Norway and Australasia) and to establish whether the Orebro provides additional information about outcome than that provided by the baseline value of the prognostic outcome. Prospective cohort studies with 12 month follow-up; 97 working patients were seeking primary care in Norway and 133 working individuals participated in a trial conducted in Australasia. A series of multiple regression analyses were conducted with pain and disability as outcomes, and the Orebro score and baseline values of the outcome as predictors. The predictive ability of the Orebro was similar in Norway and Australasia in all the analyses except for disability at 12 months, in which the predictive ability was significantly stronger in Norway as compared to Australasia (P=0.011). The Orebro provided additional information about outcome than that provided by the baseline value of the prognostic outcome: for pain the R-square changes were from 2.4% to 4.0% with no statistically difference between the nationalities. For disability the R-square changes in the Australasian cohort ranged from 1.9% to 4.8% and in the Norwegian cohort from 4.5% to 6.5%. The Orebro questionnaire had similar predictive ability in Norway and Australasia when pain was used as an outcome, whereas the Orebro tended to be a stronger predictor in Norway when disability was used as outcome.
    The Clinical journal of pain 10/2009; 25(8):666-70. · 2.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate health-care experiences of patients following inpatient rheumatology rehabilitation and to assess the association between these experiences and aspects of health-care delivery and patient characteristics. Data were collected from 435 patients with a rehabilitation stay of >or= 1 week at 12 institutions in Norway in 2006. At discharge, patients completed the Rehabilitation Patient Experiences Questionnaire (Re-PEQ), which includes four important aspects of patient experiences. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess associations between Re-PEQ scores, health-care process, health and sociodemographic variables. A total of 412 (94.7%) patients completed the Re-PEQ; scores ranged from 69 (social environment) to 83 (care/organization) on the 0-100 scale, where 100 represents the best possible experience. The social environment scale had the largest component of variation explained by the independent variables, which included number of doctor visits, amount of group education, and individual exercise (p < 0.01). The type of institution, number of doctor visits, mental health, and gender also explained significant components of variation in the other Re-PEQ scale scores. Patients reported good experiences with rheumatology rehabilitation. Areas where poorer experiences emerged can help target areas for future initiatives aimed at improving the quality of care. Health and sociodemographic variables should be controlled for in studies of patient experiences.
    Scandinavian journal of rheumatology 08/2009; 38(5):357-61. · 2.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Seven previous systematic reviews (SRs) have evaluated back schools, and one has evaluated brief education, with the latest SR including studies until November 2004. The effectiveness of fear-avoidance training has not been assessed. To assess the effectiveness of back schools, brief education, and fear-avoidance training for chronic low back pain (CLBP). A SR. We searched the MEDLINE database of randomized controlled trials (RCT) until August 2006 for relevant trials reported in English. Assessment of effectiveness was based on pain, disability, and sick leave. RCTs that reported back schools, or brief education as the main intervention, were included. For fear-avoidance training, evaluation of domain-specific outcome was required. Two reviewers independently reviewed the studies. Eight RCTs including 1,002 patients evaluated back schools, three studies were of high quality. We found conflicting evidence for back schools compared with waiting list, placebo, usual care, and exercises, and a cognitive behavioral back school. Twelve trials including 3,583 patients evaluated brief education. Seven trials, six of high quality, evaluated brief education in the clinical setting. We found strong evidence of effectiveness on sick leave and short-term disability compared with usual care. We found conflicting or limited evidence for back book or Internet discussion (five trials, two of high quality) compared with waiting list, no intervention, massage, yoga, or exercises. Three RCTs of high quality, including 364 patients, evaluated fear-avoidance training. We found moderate evidence that there is no difference between rehabilitation including fear-avoidance training and spinal fusion. Consistent recommendations are given for brief education in the clinical setting, and fear-avoidance training should be considered as an alternative to spinal fusion, and back schools may be considered in the occupational setting. The discordance between reviews can be attributed differences in inclusion criteria and application of evidence rules.
    The Spine Journal 12/2007; 8(6):948-58. · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate reliability and construct validity of the Norwegian versions of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and the modified Oswestry Disability Index. Translation of two functional status questionnaires and a cross-sectional study of measurement properties. The questionnaires were translated and back-translated following the Guillemin criteria. The Norwegian versions were tested for 55 patients with acute low back pain and 50 patients with chronic low back pain. Test-retest with a 2-day interval was performed in a subsample of 28 patients from the chronic sample. Reliability was assessed by repeatability according to Bland and Altman, intraclass coefficient and coefficient of variation. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha. Concurrent construct validity was assessed with correlations between the questionnaires and the SF-36, Disability Rating Index and pain intensity. Repeatability of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire was 4 points, coefficient of variation 15% and intraclass correlation coefficient 0.89, and of the modified Oswestry Disability Index 11, 12% and 0.88, respectively. Internal consistency was 0.94 for both questionnaires. The questionnaires correlated highly with the physical functioning scale of SF-36, moderately with pain, and low with mental scales of the SF-36. The reliability and construct validity of the Norwegian versions of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and the modified Oswestry Disability Index are acceptable for assessing functional status of Norwegian-speaking patients with low back pain.
    Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 10/2003; 35(5):241-7. · 1.90 Impact Factor

Publication Stats

135 Citations
27.79 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 2013
    • Oslo University Hospital
      • Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Kristiania (historical), Oslo County, Norway
  • 2009–2012
    • Diakonhjemmet Hospital (Norway)
      Kristiania (historical), Oslo County, Norway
    • University of Sydney
      Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • 2003
    • University of Oslo (UiO)
      • Department of Health Sciences
      Oslo, Oslo, Norway