Search

Study design We combined elements of cohort and crossover-cohort design. Objective The objective of this study was to compare long-term outcomes for Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT) and Opioid Analgesic Therapy (OAT) regarding escalation of care for patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP). Summary of background data Current evidence-based guidelines for clinical management of cLBP include both OAT and SMT. For long-term care of older adults, the efficiency and value of continuing either OAT or SMT are uncertain. Methods We examined Medicare claims data spanning a five-year period. We included older Medicare beneficiaries with an episode of cLBP beginning in 2013. All patients were continuously enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D. We analyzed the cumulative frequency of encounters indicative of an escalation of care for cLBP, including hospitalizations, emergency department visits, advanced diagnostic imaging, specialist visits, lumbosacral surgery, interventional pain medicine techniques, and encounters for potential complications of cLBP. Results SMT was associated with lower rates of escalation of care as compared to OAT. The adjusted rate of escalated care encounters was approximately 2.5 times higher for initial choice of OAT vs. initial choice of SMT (with weighted propensity scoring: rate ratio 2.67, 95% CI 2.64-2.69, p Conclusions Among older Medicare beneficiaries who initiated long-term care for cLBP with opioid analgesic therapy, the adjusted rate of escalated care encounters was significantly higher as compared to those who initiated care with spinal manipulative therapy.Level of Evidence: 3.

Objective: Globally 37.9 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, and with mortality rates declining, there is an increasing focus on comorbidities including musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to generate and summarize an overview of the existing scientific literature dealing with MSK complaints in people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHAs). Methods: This scoping review followed the five-stage methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from inception to June 1, 2020. Two reviewers independently reviewed the articles for eligibility. A data extraction form was used to chart information such as author, year of publication, data source, sample size, country of origin, ethnicity, age, gender, antiretroviral therapy, MSK condition prevalence, and anatomical location. Results: The search identified 10 522 articles. Of these, 27 studies were included after full-text screening for data extraction. Studies were conducted in thirteen different countries with diverse data sources such as outpatient clinic files, hospital records, primary care clinic files, and AIDS Service Organization files. PLWHAs have a variety of MSK conditions. Most studies reported spinal pain such as lower back or neck pain, but pain in the extremities and osteoarthritis (OA) were also represented. However, the frequencies of pain at various anatomical sites were highly variable. Conclusion: There is a lack of knowledge regarding MSK conditions in PLWHAs. Future studies designed to specifically study MSK complaints and disabilities are needed to gain a better picture of the impact of these conditions in PLWHAs and to inform prevention and treatment strategies globally in this often-underserved population.

Study design Retrospective observational study. Objective Opioid Analgesic Therapy (OAT) and Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT) are evidence-based strategies for treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP), but the long-term safety of these therapies is uncertain. The objective of this study was to compare OAT versus SMT with regard to risk of adverse drug events (ADEs) among older adults with cLBP. Summary of background data We examined Medicare claims data spanning a 5-year period on fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 to 84 years, continuously enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D for a 60-month study period, and with an episode of cLBP in 2013. We excluded patients with a diagnosis of cancer or use of hospice care. Methods All included patients received long-term management of cLBP with SMT or OAT. We assembled cohorts of patients who received SMT or OAT only, and cohorts of patients who crossed over from OAT to SMT or from SMT to OAT. We used Poisson regression to estimate the adjusted incidence rate ratio for outpatient ADE among patients who initially chose OAT as compared with SMT. Results With controlling for patient characteristics, health status, and propensity score, the adjusted rate of ADE was more than 42 times higher for initial choice of OAT versus initial choice of SMT (rate ratio 42.85, 95% CI 34.16-53.76, P Conclusion Among older Medicare beneficiaries who received long-term care for cLBP the adjusted rate of ADE for patients who initially chose OAT was substantially higher than those who initially chose SMT.Level of Evidence: 2.

Study design RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) applied to chiropractic manipulation for patients with chronic low-back pain (CLBP) and chronic neck pain (CNP). Objective Determine the rate of appropriate care provided by US chiropractors. Summary of background data Spinal manipulation has been shown effective for CLBP and CNP but may not be appropriate for all patients with these conditions. Methods Ratings of the appropriateness of spinal and cervical manipulation previously developed by two RUAM expert panels were applied to data abstracted from random samples of patient charts from chiropractors in six US regions to determine the appropriateness of manipulation for each patient. Results Of 125 chiropractors sampled, 89 provided charts that could be abstracted. Of the 2128 charts received, 1054 were abstracted. Charts received but not abstracted included 460 that were unusable (e.g., illegible), and 555 did not have CLBP or CNP. Across the abstracted charts 72% had CLBP, 57% had CNP, and 29% had both; 84% of patients with CLBP and 86% with CNP received manipulation. Patients with CLBP who had minor neurologic findings, sciatic nerve irritation, or no joint dysfunction were significantly less likely to receive manipulation. Patients with CNP who had substantial trauma etiology, no joint dysfunction, or no radiographs were significantly less likely to receive manipulation. Most manipulation for CLBP (64%) was appropriate and most manipulation for CNP (93%) was for patients where appropriateness was uncertain or equivocal. The proportions of patients receiving inappropriate manipulation for either condition were low (1%-3%) as were the numbers of patients presenting to these chiropractors for which manipulation was inappropriate. Conclusion Chiropractors in this US sample tend to provide manipulation to very few patients with CLBP or CNP for which it is inappropriate. However, more research is needed to determine which patients with CNP benefit from manipulation.Level of Evidence: 4.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly limited patients' access to care for spine-related symptoms and disorders. However, physical distancing between clinicians and patients with spine-related symptoms is not solely limited to restrictions imposed by pandemic-related lockdowns. In most low- and middle-income countries, as well as many underserved marginalized communities in high-income countries, there is little to no access to clinicians trained in evidence-based care for people experiencing spinal pain. Objective The aim of this study is to describe the development and present the components of evidence-based patient and clinician guides for the management of spinal disorders where in-person care is not available. Methods Ultimately, two sets of guides were developed (one for patients and one for clinicians) by extracting information from the published Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) papers. An international, interprofessional team of 29 participants from 10 countries on 4 continents participated. The team included practitioners in family medicine, neurology, physiatry, rheumatology, psychology, chiropractic, physical therapy, and yoga, as well as epidemiologists, research methodologists, and laypeople. The participants were invited to review, edit, and comment on the guides in an open iterative consensus process. Results The Patient Guide is a simple 2-step process. The first step describes the nature of the symptoms or concerns. The second step provides information that a patient can use when considering self-care, determining whether to contact a clinician, or considering seeking emergency care. The Clinician Guide is a 5-step process: (1) Obtain and document patient demographics, location of primary clinical symptoms, and psychosocial information. (2) Review the symptoms noted in the patient guide. (3) Determine the GSCI classification of the patient’s spine-related complaints. (4) Ask additional questions to determine the GSCI subclassification of the symptom pattern. (5) Consider appropriate treatment interventions. Conclusions The Patient and Clinician Guides are designed to be sufficiently clear to be useful to all patients and clinicians, irrespective of their location, education, professional qualifications, and experience. However, they are comprehensive enough to provide guidance on the management of all spine-related symptoms or disorders, including triage for serious and specific diseases. They are consistent with widely accepted evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. They also allow for adequate documentation and medical record keeping. These guides should be of value during periods of government-mandated physical or social distancing due to infectious diseases, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. They should also be of value in underserved communities in high-, middle-, and low-income countries where there is a dearth of accessible trained spine care clinicians. These guides have the potential to reduce the overutilization of unnecessary and expensive interventions while empowering patients to self-manage uncomplicated spinal pain with the assistance of their clinician, either through direct in-person consultation or via telehealth communication.

BackgroundAlthough the delivery of appropriate healthcare is an important goal, the definition of what constitutes appropriate care is not always agreed upon. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method is one of the most well-known and used approaches to define care appropriateness from the clinical perspective—i.e., that the expected effectiveness of a treatment exceeds its expected risks. However, patient preferences (the patient perspective) and costs (the healthcare system perspective) are also important determinants of appropriateness and should be considered.MethodsWe examined the impact of including information on patient preferences and cost on expert panel ratings of clinical appropriateness for spinal mobilization and manipulation for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain.ResultsThe majority of panelists thought patient preferences were important to consider in determining appropriateness and that their inclusion could change ratings, and half thought the same about cost. However, few actually changed their appropriateness ratings based on the information presented on patient preferences regarding the use of these therapies and their costs. This could be because the panel received information on average patient preferences for spinal mobilization and manipulation whereas some panelists commented that appropriateness should be determined based on the preferences of individual patients. Also, because these therapies are not expensive, their ratings may not be cost sensitive. The panelists also generally agreed that preferences and costs would only impact their ratings if the therapies were considered clinically appropriate.ConclusionsThis study found that the information presented on patient preferences and costs for spinal mobilization and manipulation had little impact on the rated appropriateness of these therapies for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. Although it was generally agreed that patient preferences and costs were important to the appropriateness of M/M for CLBP and CNP, it seems that what would be most important were the preferences of the individual patient, not patients in general, and large cost differentials.

BACKGROUND. Spinal mobilization and manipulation are two therapies found to be generally safe and effective for chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, the question remains whether they are appropriate for all CLBP patients. RESEARCH DESIGN. An expert panel used a well-validated approach, including an evidence synthesis and clinical acumen, to develop and then rate the appropriateness of the use of spinal mobilization and manipulation across an exhaustive list of clinical scenarios which could present for CLBP. Decision tree analysis (DTA) was used to identify the key patient characteristics that affected the ratings. RESULTS. Nine hundred clinical scenarios were defined and then rated by a 9-member expert panel as to the appropriateness of spinal mobilization and manipulation. Across clinical scenarios more were rated appropriate than inappropriate. However, the number patients presenting with each scenario is not yet known. Nevertheless, DTA indicates that all clinical scenarios that included major neurologic findings, and some others involving imaging findings of central herniated nucleus pulposus, spinal stenosis, or free fragments, were rated as inappropriate for both spinal mobilization and manipulation. DTA also identified the absence of these imaging findings and no previous laminectomy as the most important patient characteristics in predicting ratings of appropriate. CONCLUSIONS. A well-validated expert panel-based approach was used to develop and then rate the appropriateness of the use of spinal mobilization and manipulation across the clinical scenarios which could present for CLBP. Information on the clinical scenarios for which these therapies are inappropriate should be added to clinical guidelines for CLBP.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to identify risk factors, prognostic factors, and comorbidities associated with common spinal disorders. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature of common spinal disorders was performed through September 2016. To identify search terms, we developed 3 terminology groups for case definitions: 1) spinal pain of unknown origin, 2) spinal syndromes, and 3) spinal pathology. We used a comprehensive strategy to search PubMed for meta-analyses and systematic reviews of case-control studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials for risk and prognostic factors and cross-sectional studies describing associations and comorbidities. RESULTS: Of 3,453 candidate papers, 145 met study criteria and were included in this review. Risk factors were reported for group 1: non-specific low back pain (smoking, overweight/obesity, negative recovery expectations), non-specific neck pain (high job demands, monotonous work); group 2: degenerative spinal disease (workers' compensation claim, degenerative scoliosis), and group 3: spinal tuberculosis (age, imprisonment, previous history of tuberculosis), spinal cord injury (age, accidental injury), vertebral fracture from osteoporosis (type 1 diabetes, certain medications, smoking), and neural tube defects (folic acid deficit, anti-convulsant medications, chlorine, influenza, maternal obesity). A range of comorbidities was identified for spinal disorders. CONCLUSION: Many associated factors for common spinal disorders identified in this study are modifiable. The most common spinal disorders are co-morbid with general health conditions, but there is a lack of clarity in the literature differentiating which conditions are merely comorbid versus ones that are risk factors. Modifiable risk factors present opportunities for policy, research, and public health prevention efforts on both the individual patient and community levels. Further research into prevention interventions for spinal disorders is needed to address this gap in the literature. The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) was funded by grants from the Skoll Foundation (www.skoll.org) and NCMIC Foundation (www.ncmicfoundation.org) (SH). World Spine Care provided financial management for the GSCI project. The grantors had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Open access funding for this study provided by Brighthall, Inc. BNG and CDJ are officers of Brighthall. Sí

Background Areca (betel) nut is considered a Group 1 human carcinogen shown to be associated with other chronic diseases in addition to cancer. This paper describes the areca (betel) nut chewing trend in Guam, and health behaviors of chewers in Guam and Saipan. Methods The areca (betel) nut module in the Guam Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey was used to calculate the 5-year (2011–2015) chewing trend. To assess the association between areca (betel) nut chewing and health risks in the Mariana Islands, a cross-section of 300 chewers, ≥18 years old, were recruited from households in Guam and Saipan. Self-reported socio-demographics, oral health behaviors, chronic disease status, diet, and physical activity were collected. Anthropometry was measured. Only areca (betel) nut-specific and demographic information were collected from youth chewers in the household. Results The 5-year areca (betel) nut chewing prevalence in Guam was 11% and increased among Non-Chamorros, primarily other Micronesians, from 2011 (7%) to 2015 (13%). In the household survey, most adult chewers (46%) preferred areca nut with betel leaf, slaked lime, and tobacco. Most youth chewers (48%) preferred areca nut only. Common adult chronic conditions included diabetes (14%), hypertension (26%), and obesity (58%). Conclusion The 5-year areca (betel) nut chewing prevalence in Guam is comparable to the world estimate (10–20%), though rising among Non-Chamorros. Adult and youth chewers may be at an increased risk for oral cancer. Adult chewers have an increased risk of other chronic health conditions. Cancer prevention and intervention strategies should incorporate all aspects of health.

The World Spine Care (WSC), established by volunteers from 5 continents, is dedicated to providing sustainable, evidencebased spine care to individuals and communities in low and middle-income countries consistent with available health-care resources and integrated within the local culture. The research committee approves and oversees the WSC's collaborative research and training projects worldwide and serves to create a sustainable research community for underserved populations focused on preventing disability from spinal disorders. The purpose of this article is to describe 4 projects overseen by the WSC research committee and to discuss several challenges and specific facilitators that allowed successful completion of initiatives. These novel projects, which involved establishing spine surgery expertise and data collection in the WSC clinics and surrounding communities, all met their aims. This was achieved by overcoming language and resource challenges, adapting to local customs, and taking time to build mutual respect and to nurture relationships with local investigators and stakeholders.

The world lacks sustainable models of care to manage spinal disorders in poor and underserved communities. The purpose of this article is to: (1) review the rationale and importance of developing a sustainable evidence-based model of care at low cost for people with spinal disorders in underserved and poor communities, and (2) describe the process and challenges of establishing such a program in these communities. Given that burden of disease studies rank spinal disorders among the leading causes of disability and the finding that low-income countries have much need but few resources for delivering adequate care, World Spine Care (WSC) was established to "improve lives in underserved communities through sustainable, integrated, evidence-based, spinal care." WSC is comprised of volunteers and institutions from 6 continents and several countries, and incorporates a Board of Directors, an executive committee, a clinical team and a research committee. WSC opened its first clinic in 2012 in Botswana, and now has a clinic in the Dominican Republic and a memorandum of understanding to open a clinic in Tanzania. Clinical programs, research projects, and education-based capacity-building initiatives are adapted to and integrated within each community in collaboration with local decision makers, existing health care workers and traditional healers. Cornerstones of WSC's emphasis on long-term sustainability are (1) education of community partners, governments and local health professionals, and (2) facilitation of opportunities for training graduate students in a variety of health-related fields. World Spine Care has (a) recognized the enormous need to establish clinical programs aimed at easing the suffering and disability associated with spinal disorders in resource-poor communities, (b) shown widespread support for an organization devoted to reducing the global burden of disease caused by spinal disorders, and (c) shown that establishing successful evidence-based, culturally appropriate programs in cooperation with local governments and communities are possible. Challenges remain, but with sound leadership, research and a model of care, there is an opportunity to help reduce the burden of the leading cause of disability in the world.

Background Studies suggest Pacific Islander women have disparate rates of preterm birth, primary cesarean delivery, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and low birthweight infants. However, data is limited. In order to improve the health of Pacific Islanders, it is essential to better understand differences in obstetric outcomes in this diverse population Methods This study compared perinatal outcomes between Pacific Islander (9,646) and White (n = 5,510) women who delivered a singleton liveborn in any Hawaii hospital from January 2010 to December 2011 using the Hawaii Health Information Corporation (HHIC) database. Pacific Islanders were disaggregated into the following groups: Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Micronesian, and Other Pacific Islanders. Perinatal outcomes (e.g. hypertensive diseases, birthweight, mode of delivery) were compared using multivariable logistic models controlling for relevant sociodemographic and health risk factors (e.g. age and payer type). Results Significant differences in perinatal outcomes between Pacific Islander and White women and newborns were noted. All Pacific Islander groups had an increased risk of hypertension. Outcome differences were also seen between Pacific Islanders groups. Native Hawaiians had the highest risk of low birthweight infants, Samoans had the highest risk of macrosomic infants and Micronesians had the highest risk of cesarean delivery. Conclusions Important differences in perinatal outcomes among Pacific Islanders exist. It is important to examine Pacific Islander populations separately in future research, public health interventions, and policy. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-015-0671-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The secretariat of the Bone and Joint Decade Task Force on Neck Pain and Associated Disorders welcomes the interest of Drs. Dreyfuss and Baker in our findings regarding radiofrequency neurotomy [1]. We are happy to elaborate why we found the two studies cited in their letter scientifically inadmissible to the best evidence synthesis. Firstly, we noted that both of these papers, the Lord et al. [8] and Govind et al. [5] publications report the findings from a single research center and have not been reproduced at any other location. We strongly believe the findings of those papers deserve close scrutiny by the spinal disorders community and serious reconsideration in the same manner as would be expected for any other contemplated treatment approach that was based on a very limited or poorly validated research. The methodological problems with the Lord et al. [8] study are itemized in our best-evidence synthesis [1]. At the heart of the methodological flaws are the issues of (1) unbalanced randomization in a very small study population (only 12 subjects receiving the intervention) and (2) the extension of outcomes analysis beyond the time of blinding and validated outcomes assessment (which by design was limited to 3 months or less). Regarding the unbalanced randomization, this methodological problem was severe and the number of subjects was so small that no statistical adjustment for confounding variables can be made. Lord et al. reported that twice as many subjects in the sham group (33%) had painful facet joints that were not treated. If the authors are correct, one would suspect some continued neck pain in 33% of the sham group on this basis alone. That is before the intervention was even done, the sham group may have had only eight potential subjects who could report complete neck pain relief (the success criterion) with four cases having untreated neck problems necessarily falling within the failed treatment category. To have a “controlled” study with only a small number of subjects, randomization not only should be performed, it needs to be successful in providing similar populations of patients in the treatment and controlled groups. Along the same line of unbalanced randomization, 83% of the sham group had litigation related to the neck pain syndrome being treated (vs. 33% of the RF group). Drs. Dreyfuss and Baker cite the work of the senior author of the Lord et al. [8] and a study of Sapir and Gorup [9], to contend that litigation is clinically irrelevant in the context of chronic whiplash disorders. To most active clinicians, this proposition does not pass “the chuckle test,” nor does it comport with the literature in general [2, 3, 6]. In fact, the study by Sapir and Gorup cited by Drs. Baker and Dreyfuss actually reported worse outcomes in active litigation subjects undergoing RF neurotomy (at 2 week 15% more non-litigation subjects achieved >70% pain reduction after RF, and at 1 year a higher pain VAS of 4.0 in the litigation group versus 2.9 (non-litigation), P = 0.05). More telling is the study by Dr. Dreyfuss himself, on RF for facet pain [4]. In that study Dr. Dreyfuss excluded subjects with “compensable disability or work injury, [or] ongoing litigation” because these factors were “comorbid or psychosocial factors…likely to confound the results.” We completely agree with Dr. Dreyfuss’ own assessment: compensation disputes and litigation are very likely to confound a study’s results. So when the Lord et al. study reported far more of the sham group had active litigation issues there is little confidence that outcomes differences in favor of the RF procedure can be attributable to the intervention alone. Next, there is the issue of loss of blinding due to documented sensory changes in nearly half the RF group (none in the sham group) soon after the procedure and additional selective un-blinding at 3 months. Our group had, again, little confidence that either the evaluating surgeon or the subjects were actually blinded to which treatment was received in these subjects and expect some reporting bias is possible for that reason. Finally, after the blinding protocol had been broken at 3 months, subjects were then followed by the un-validated (and likely inaccurate) method of being directed to call back when their pain exceeded 50% of their pre-procedure intensity. Lord et al. counted any subject they did not hear from as a success! This assumption is, charitably stated, dubious. Therefore, although a Kaplan–Meier and Cox Proportional Hazard analysis may have been reasonable if the subjects had been followed with standard metrics every month or so, this was not the case. The most valid data appear to be that collected before the patient-initiated “call back assessment” method was begun (3 months). For those few data points the Fisher Exact test is an appropriately applied analysis for small subject studies. Clearly, there was no statistical difference in outcomes at 3 weeks or at 3 months—despite the randomization imbalances strongly favoring the RF group. The Govind et al. [5] study, again by the same research group, on RF neurotomy for suspected cervicogenic headache was also felt to be scientifically inadmissible by the Task Force. While Govind et al., do report “extraordinary” results, they unfortunately also report less than extraordinary methods: this was an unblinded, uncontrolled, non-randomized case-series report. No independent examiner, nor standard pain metrics, nor functional questionnaires were used to assess outcome. This case-series was promptly criticized for these methodological flaws in the same journal [7]. Clearly, exploratory studies such as Govind et al. are important and are needed to direct more definitive clinical research. They are, however, the least substantial of all forms of clinical evidence, and a poor basis for advocating general clinical application of invasive treatments. Both Dr. Dreyfuss and Dr. Baker are careful clinicians and scientific thinkers, whom we respect immensely. In fact we expected, at the onset of our best-evidence synthesis, to find much more substantial evidence supporting RF in this area. We, like Drs. Dreyfuss and Baker, believed that RF neurotomy might have had good data supporting treatment for neck pain in appropriately selected patients. However, we did not find this and, frankly, if these two highly-flawed papers are the “best evidence” for the use of RF neurotomy in neck pain syndromes, this is sad news indeed—and well out of step with efforts to increase standards for evidence-based clinical care. After careful review of this area of treatment, it is clear that the most basic studies still need to be performed. If these are highly effective treatments, it should be easily proven in a properly designed trial, as we outlined in our research recommendations [1], and testing the hypothesis should be a priority for those interested in this type of intervention.

Best evidence synthesis. To perform a best evidence synthesis on the course and prognostic factors for neck pain and its associated disorders in Grades I–III whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). Knowledge of the course of recovery of WAD guides expectations for recovery. Identifying prognostic factors assists in planning management and intervention strategies and effective compensation policies to decrease the burden of WAD. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) conducted a critical review of the literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain and its associated disorders. Studies meeting criteria for scientific validity were included in a best evidence synthesis. We found 226 articles related to course and prognostic factors in neck pain and its associated disorders. After a critical review, 70 (31%) were accepted on scientific merit; 47 of these studies related to course and prognostic factors in WAD. The evidence suggests that approximately 50% of those with WAD will report neck pain symptoms 1 year after their injuries. Greater initial pain, more symptoms, and greater initial disability predicted slower recovery. Few factors related to the collision itself (for example, direction of the collision, headrest type) were prognostic; however, postinjury psychological factors such as passive coping style, depressed mood, and fear of movement were prognostic for slower or less complete recovery. There is also preliminary evidence that the prevailing compensation system is prognostic for recovery in WAD. The Neck Pain Task Force undertook a best evidence synthesis to establish a baseline of the current best evidence on the course and prognosis for WAD. Recovery of WAD seems to be multifactorial.

STUDY DESIGN: Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: To undertake a best evidence synthesis of the published evidence on the burden and determinants of neck pain and its associated disorders in the general population. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The evidence on burden and determinants of neck has not previously been summarized. METHODS: The Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders performed a systematic search and critical review of literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain. Studies meeting criteria for scientific validity were included in a best evidence synthesis. RESULTS: We identified 469 studies on burden and determinants of neck pain, and judged 249 to be scientifically admissible; 101 articles related to the burden and determinants of neck pain in the general population. Incidence ranged from 0.055 per 1000 person years (disc herniation with radiculopathy) to 213 per 1000 persons (self-reported neck pain). Incidence of neck injuries during competitive sports ranged from 0.02 to 21 per 1000 exposures. The 12-month prevalence of pain typically ranged between 30% and 50%; the 12-month prevalence of activity-limiting pain was 1.7% to 11.5%. Neck pain was more prevalent among women and prevalence peaked in middle age. Risk factors for neck pain included genetics, poor psychological health, and exposure to tobacco. Disc degeneration was not identified as a risk factor. The use of sporting gear (helmets, face shields) to prevent other types of injury was not associated with increased neck injuries in bicycling, hockey, or skiing. CONCLUSION: Neck pain is common. Nonmodifiable risk factors for neck pain included age, gender, and genetics. Modifiable factors included smoking, exposure to tobacco, and psychological health. Disc degeneration was not identified as a risk factor. Future research should concentrate on longitudinal designs exploring preventive strategies and modifiable risk factors for neck pain. Language: en

Best evidence synthesis. To undertake a best evidence synthesis on the burden and determinants of whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) after traffic collisions. Summary of Background Data. Previous best evidence synthesis on WAD has noted a lack of evidence regarding incidence of and risk factors for WAD. Therefore there was a warrant of a reanalyze of this body of research. A systematic search of Medline was conducted. The reviewers looked for studies on neck pain and its associated disorders published 1980 –2006. Each relevant study was independently and critically reviewed by rotating pairs of reviewers. Data from studies judged to have acceptable internal validity (scientifically admissible) were abstracted into evidence tables, and provide the body of the best evidence synthesis. The authors found 32 scientifically admissible studies related to the burden and determinants of WAD. In the Western world, visits to emergency rooms due to WAD have increased over the past 30 years. The annual cumulative incidence of WAD differed substantially between countries. They found that occupant seat position and collision impact direction were associated with WAD in one study. Eliminating insurance payments for pain and suffering were associated with a lower incidence of WAD injury claims in one study. Younger ages and being a female were both associated with filing claims or seeking care for WAD, although the evidence is not consistent. Preliminary evidence suggested that headrests/car seats, aimed to limiting head extension during rear-end collisions had a preventive effect on reporting WAD, especially in females. WAD after traffic collisions affects many people. Despite many years of research, the evidence regarding risk factors for WAD is sparse but seems to include personal, societal, and environmental factors. More research including, well-defined studies with accurate denominators for calculating risk, and better consideration of confounding factors, are needed.

Background Scientifically rigorous general population-based studies comparing chiropractic with primary-care medical patients within and between countries have not been published. The objective of this study is to compare care seekers of doctors of chiropractic (DCs) and general practitioners (GPs) in the United States and Canada on a comprehensive set of sociodemographic, quality of life, and health-related variables. Methods Data are from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health (JCUSH), 2002–03, a random sample of adults in Canada (N = 3505) and the U.S. (N = 5183). Respondents were categorized according to their pattern of health-care use in the past year. Distributions, percentages, and estimates (adjusted odds ratios) weighted to reflect the complex survey design were produced. Results Nearly 80% of respondents sought care from GPs; 12% sought DC care. Compared with GP only patients, DC patients in both countries tend to be under 65 and white, with arthritis and disabling back or neck pain. U.S. DC patients are more likely than GP only patients to be obese and to lack a regular doctor; Canadian DC patients are more likely than GP only patients to be college educated, to have higher incomes, and dissatisfied with MD care. Compared with seekers of both GP and DC care, DC only patients in both countries have fewer chronic conditions, take fewer drugs, and have no regular doctor. U.S. DC only patients are more likely than GP+DC patients to be uninsured and dissatisfied with health care; Canadian DC only patients are more likely than GP+DC patients to be under 45, male, less educated, smokers, and not obese, without disabling back or neck pain, on fewer drugs, and lacking a regular doctor. Conclusion Chiropractic and GP patients are dissimilar in both Canada and the U.S., with key differences between countries and between DC patients who do and do not seek care from GPs. Such variation has broad and potentially far-reaching health policy and research implications.

Background While it is widely held that non-surgical management should be the first line of approach in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), little is known about the efficacy of non-surgical treatments for this condition. Data are needed to determine the most efficacious and safe non-surgical treatment options for patients with LSS. The purpose of this paper is to describe the clinical outcomes of a novel approach to patients with LSS that focuses on distraction manipulation (DM) and neural mobilization (NM). Methods This is a prospective consecutive case series with long term follow up (FU) of fifty-seven consecutive patients who were diagnosed with LSS. Two were excluded because of absence of baseline data or failure to remain in treatment to FU. Disability was measured using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RM) and pain intensity was measured using the Three Level Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Patients were also asked to rate their perceived percentage improvement. Results The mean patient-rated percentage improvement from baseline to the end to treatment was 65.1%. The mean improvement in disability from baseline to the end of treatment was 5.1 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. Clinically meaningful improvement in disability from baseline to the end of treatment was seen in 66.7% of patients. The mean improvement in "on average" pain intensity was 1.6 points. This did not reach the threshold for clinical meaningfulness. The mean improvement in "at worst" pain was 3.1 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. The mean duration of FU was 16.5 months. The mean patient-rated percentage improvement from baseline to long term FU was 75.6%. The mean improvement in disability was 5.2 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. Clinically meaningful improvement in disability was seen in 73.2% of patients. The mean improvement in "on average" pain intensity from baseline to long term FU was 3.0 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. The mean improvement in "at worst" pain was 4.2 points. This was considered to be clinically meaningful. Only two patients went on to require surgery. No major complications to treatment were noted. Conclusion A treatment approach focusing on DM and NM may be useful in bringing about clinically meaningful improvement in disability in patients with LSS.

Background Neck pain (NP) is a common cause of disability. Accurate and efficacious methods of diagnosis and treatment have been elusive. A diagnosis-based clinical decision guide (DBCDG; previously referred to as a diagnosis-based clinical decision rule) has been proposed which attempts to provide the clinician with a systematic, evidence-based guide in applying the biopsychosocial model of care. The approach is based on three questions of diagnosis. The purpose of this study is to present the prevalence of findings using the DBCDG in consecutive patients with NP. Methods Demographic, diagnostic and baseline outcome measure data were gathered on a cohort of NP patients examined by one of three examiners trained in the application of the DBCDG. Results Data were gathered on 95 patients. Signs of visceral disease or potentially serious illness were found in 1%. Centralization signs were found in 27%, segmental pain provocation signs were found in 69% and radicular signs were found in 19%. Clinically relevant myofascial signs were found in 22%. Dynamic instability was found in 40%, oculomotor dysfunction in 11.6%, fear beliefs in 31.6%, central pain hypersensitivity in 4%, passive coping in 5% and depression in 2%. Conclusion The DBCDG can be applied in a busy private practice environment. Further studies are needed to investigate clinically relevant means to identify central pain hypersensitivity, oculomotor dysfunction, poor coping and depression, correlations and patterns among the diagnostic components of the DBCDG as well as inter-examiner reliability, validity and efficacy of treatment based on the DBCDG.

Background The objective of this study was to estimate the effect of obesity, as measured by body mass index (BMI), on treatment outcomes for low back pain (LBP). Methods Data from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Friendly Hills Healthcare Network low back pain study (collected from 1995 to 2000) were used to perform a secondary data analysis of this randomized clinical trial on adults who sought care for LBP. BMI was the primary predictor variable. Binary logistic regression modeling was performed to estimate odds ratios adjusted for the effects of confounders. Results Using normal weight as the referent population, underweight and overweight populations did not display significant odds ratios for any of the outcome variables. The obese population demonstrated odds ratios of 0.615 (0.379, 0.998) for improvement of disability and 0.550 (0.341, 0.889) for improvement of most severe back pain. Conclusion The results of this study support an association between obesity and less effective treatment outcomes whether measured by disability (Roland-Morris scale) or pain (most severe pain NRS). Overweight and underweight populations do not appear to have significantly different outcomes than normal weight populations. Trial registration This trial was designed and conducted prior to the advent of registries.

Background Spinal pain is a common problem, and disability related to spinal pain has great consequence in terms of human suffering, medical costs and costs to society. The traditional approach to the non-surgical management of patients with spinal pain, as well as to research in spinal pain, has been such that the type of treatment any given patient receives is determined more by what type of practitioner he or she sees, rather than by diagnosis. Furthermore, determination of treatment depends more on the type of practitioner than by the needs of the patient. Much needed is an approach to clinical management and research that allows clinicians to base treatment decisions on a reliable and valid diagnostic strategy leading to treatment choices that result in demonstrable outcomes in terms of pain relief and functional improvement. The challenges of diagnosis in patients with spinal pain, however, are that spinal pain is often multifactorial, the factors involved are wide ranging, and for most of these factors there exist no definitive objective tests. Discussion The theoretical model of a diagnosis-based clinical decision rule has been developed that may provide clinicians with an approach to non-surgical spine pain patients that allows for specific treatment decisions based on a specific diagnosis. This is not a classification scheme, but a thought process that attempts to identify most important features present in each individual patient. Presented here is a description of the proposed approach, in which reliable and valid assessment procedures are used to arrive at a working diagnosis which considers the disparate factors contributing to spinal pain. Treatment decisions are based on the diagnosis and the outcome of treatment can be measured. Summary In this paper, the theoretical model of a proposed diagnosis-based clinical decision rule is presented. In a subsequent manuscript, the current evidence for the approach will be systematically reviewed, and we will present a research strategy required to fill in the gaps in the current evidence, as well as to investigate the decision rule as a whole.

Background It is commonly stated that nerve root pain should be expected to follow a specific dermatome and that this information is useful to make the diagnosis of radiculopathy. There is little evidence in the literature that confirms or denies this statement. The purpose of this study is to describe and discuss the diagnostic utility of the distribution of pain in patients with cervical and lumbar radicular pain. Methods Pain drawings and descriptions were assessed in consecutive patients diagnosed with cervical or lumbar nerve root pain. These findings were compared with accepted dermatome maps to determine whether they tended to follow along the involved nerve root's dermatome. Results Two hundred twenty-six nerve roots in 169 patients were assessed. Overall, pain related to cervical nerve roots was non-dermatomal in over two-thirds (69.7%) of cases. In the lumbar spine, the pain was non-dermatomal in just under two-thirds (64.1%) of cases. The majority of nerve root levels involved non-dermatomal pain patterns except C4 (60.0% dermatomal) and S1 (64.9% dermatomal). The sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) for dermatomal pattern of pain are low for all nerve root levels with the exception of the C4 level (Se 0.60, Sp 0.72) and S1 level (Se 0.65, Sp 0.80), although in the case of the C4 level, the number of subjects was small (n = 5). Conclusion In most cases nerve root pain should not be expected to follow along a specific dermatome, and a dermatomal distribution of pain is not a useful historical factor in the diagnosis of radicular pain. The possible exception to this is the S1 nerve root, in which the pain does commonly follow the S1 dermatome.

Background Spinal pain is a common and often disabling problem. The research on various treatments for spinal pain has, for the most part, suggested that while several interventions have demonstrated mild to moderate short-term benefit, no single treatment has a major impact on either pain or disability. There is great need for more accurate diagnosis in patients with spinal pain. In a previous paper, the theoretical model of a diagnosis-based clinical decision rule was presented. The approach is designed to provide the clinician with a strategy for arriving at a specific working diagnosis from which treatment decisions can be made. It is based on three questions of diagnosis. In the current paper, the literature on the reliability and validity of the assessment procedures that are included in the diagnosis-based clinical decision rule is presented. Methods The databases of Medline, Cinahl, Embase and MANTIS were searched for studies that evaluated the reliability and validity of clinic-based diagnostic procedures for patients with spinal pain that have relevance for questions 2 (which investigates characteristics of the pain source) and 3 (which investigates perpetuating factors of the pain experience). In addition, the reference list of identified papers and authors' libraries were searched. Results A total of 1769 articles were retrieved, of which 138 were deemed relevant. Fifty-one studies related to reliability and 76 related to validity. One study evaluated both reliability and validity. Conclusion Regarding some aspects of the DBCDR, there are a number of studies that allow the clinician to have a reasonable degree of confidence in his or her findings. This is particularly true for centralization signs, neurodynamic signs and psychological perpetuating factors. There are other aspects of the DBCDR in which a lesser degree of confidence is warranted, and in which further research is needed.