Search

Purpose The focus of SPINE20 is to develop evidence-based policy recommendations for the G20 countries to work with governments to reduce the burden of spine disease, and disability. Methods On September 17–18, 2021, SPINE20 held its annual meeting in Rome, Italy. Prior to the meeting, the SPINE20 created six proposed recommendations. These recommendations were uploaded to the SPINE20 website 10 days before the meeting and opened to the public for comments. The recommendations were discussed at the meeting allowing the participants to object and provide comments. Results In total, 27 societies endorsed the following recommendations. SPINE20 calls upon the G20 countries: (1) to expand telehealth for the access to spine care, especially in light of the current situation with COVID-19. (2) To adopt value-based interprofessional spine care as an approach to improve patient outcomes and reduce disability. (3) To facilitate access and invest in the development of a competent rehabilitation workforce to reduce the burden of disability related to spine disorders. (4) To adopt a strategy to promote daily physical activity and exercises among the elderly population to maintain an active and independent life with a healthy spine, particularly after COVID-19 pandemic. (5) To engage in capacity building with emerging countries and underserved communities for the benefit of spine patients. (6) To promote strategies to transfer evidence-based advances into patient benefit through effective implementation processes. Conclusions SPINE20’s initiatives will make governments and decision makers aware of efforts to reduce needless suffering from disabling spine pain through education that can be instituted across the globe.

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.

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.

Purpose: The purpose of this report is to describe the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) contributors, disclosures, and methods for reporting transparency on the development of the recommendations. Methods: World Spine Care convened the GSCI to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable healthcare model for spinal care. The initiative aims to improve the management, prevention, and public health for spine-related disorders worldwide; thus, global representation was essential. A series of meetings established the initiative’s mission and goals. Electronic surveys collected contributorship and demographic information, and experiences with spinal conditions to better understand perceptions and potential biases that were contributing to the model of care. Results: Sixty-eight clinicians and scientists participated in the deliberations and are authors of one or more of the GSCI articles. Of these experts, 57 reported providing spine care in 34 countries, (i.e., low-, middle-, and high-income countries, as well as underserved communities in high-income countries.) The majority reported personally experiencing or having a close family member with one or more spinal concerns including: spine-related trauma or injury, spinal problems that required emergency or surgical intervention, spinal pain referred from non-spine sources, spinal deformity, spinal pathology or disease, neurological problems, and/or mild, moderate, or severe back or neck pain. There were no substantial reported conflicts of interest. Conclusion: The GSCI participants have broad professional experience and wide international distribution with no discipline dominating the deliberations. The GSCI believes this set of papers has the potential to inform and improve spine care globally. Graphical abstract: These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.[Figure not available: see fulltext.]

The purpose of this study was to develop recommendations for prevention interventions for spinal disorders that could be delivered globally, but especially in underserved areas and in low- and middle-income countries. We extracted risk factors, associations, and comorbidities of common spinal disorders (e.g., back and neck pain, spinal trauma, infection, developmental disorders) from a scoping review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews of clinical trials, cohort studies, case control studies, and cross-sectional studies. Categories were informed by the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) classification system using the biopsychosocial model. Risk factors were clustered and mapped visually. Potential prevention interventions for individuals and communities were identified. Forty-one risk factors, 51 associations, and 39 comorbidities were extracted; some were associated with more than one disorder. Interventions were at primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary prevention levels. Public health-related actions included screening for osteopenia, avoiding exposure to certain substances associated with spinal disorders, insuring adequate dietary intake for vitamins and minerals, smoking cessation, weight management, injury prevention, adequate physical activity, and avoiding harmful clinical practices (e.g., over-medicalization). Prevention principles and health promotion strategies were identified that were incorporated in the GSCI care pathway. Interventions should encourage healthy behaviors of individuals and promote public health interventions that are most likely to optimize physical and psychosocial health targeting the unique characteristics of each community. Prevention interventions that are implemented in medically underserved areas should be based upon best evidence, resource availability, and selected through group decision-making processes by individuals and the community. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The purpose of this systematic literature review was to develop recommendations for the assessment of spine-related complaints in medically underserved areas with limited resources. We conducted a systematic review and best evidence synthesis of guidelines on the assessment of spine-related complaints. Independent reviewers critically appraised eligible guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II criteria. Low risk of bias clinical practice guidelines was used to develop recommendations. In accordance with the mandate of the Global Spinal Care Initiative (GSCI), recommendations were selected that could be applied to medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries by considering the limited access and costs of diagnostic technologies. We screened 3069 citations; 20 guidelines were eligible for critical appraisal. We used 13 that had a low risk of bias that targeted neck and back pain. When assessing patients with spine-related complaints in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries, we recommend that clinicians should: (1) take a clinical history to determine signs or symptoms suggesting serious pathology (red flags) and psychological factors (yellow flags); (2) perform a physical examination (musculoskeletal and neurological); (3) do not routinely obtain diagnostic imaging; (4) obtain diagnostic imaging and/or laboratory tests when serious pathologies are suspected, and/or presence of progressive neurologic deficits, and/or disabling persistent pain; (5) do not perform electromyography or nerve conduction studies for diagnosis of intervertebral disc disease with radiculopathy; and (6) do not perform discography for the assessment of spinal disorders. This information can be used to inform the GSCI care pathway and model of care. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The purpose of this review was to describe psychological and social factors associated with low back pain that could be applied in spine care programs in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries. We performed a narrative review of cohort, cross-sectional, qualitative and mixed methods studies investigating adults with low back pain using Medline and PubMed were searched from January 2000 to June 2015. Eligible studies had at least one of the following outcomes: psychological, social, psychosocial, or cultural/ethnicity factors. Studies met the following criteria: (1) English language, (2) published in peer-reviewed journal, (3) adults with spinal disorders, (4) included treatment, symptom management or prevention. Out of 58 studies, 29 were included in this review. There are few studies that have evaluated psychological and social factors associated with back pain in low- and middle-income communities, therefore, adapting recommendations from other regions may be needed until further studies can be achieved. Psychological and social factors are important components to addressing low back pain and health care providers play an important role in empowering patients to take control of their spinal health outcomes. Patients should be included in negotiating their spinal treatment and establishing treatment goals through careful listening, reassurance, and information providing by the health care provider. Instruments need to be developed for people with low literacy in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries, especially where psychological and social factors may be difficult to detect and are poorly addressed. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The purpose of this study was to develop a stratification scheme for surgical spinal care to serve as a framework for referrals and distribution of patients with spinal disorders. We used a modified Delphi process. A literature search identified experts for the consensus panel and the panel was expanded by inviting spine surgeons known to be global opinion leaders. After creating a seed document of five hierarchical levels of surgical care, a four-step modified Delphi process (question validation, collection of factors, evaluation of factors, re-evaluation of factors) was performed. Of 78 invited experts, 19 participated in round 1, and of the 19, 14 participated in 2, and 12 in 3 and 4. Consensus was fairly heterogeneous for levels of care 2–4 (moderate resources). Only simple assessment methods based on the clinical skills of the medical personnel were considered feasible and safe in low-resource settings. Diagnosis, staging, and treatment were deemed feasible and safe in a specialized spine center. Accurate diagnostic workup was deemed feasible and safe for lower levels of care complexity (from level 3 upwards) compared to non-invasive procedures (level 4) and the full range of invasive procedures (level 5). This study introduces a five-level stratification scheme for the surgical care of spinal disorders. This stratification may provide input into the Global Spine Care Initiative care pathway that will be applied in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Purpose: Spinal disorders, including back and neck pain, are major causes of disability, economic hardship, and morbidity, especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries. Currently, there is no model of care to address this issue. This paper provides an overview of the papers from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI), which was convened to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable, spinal healthcare model for communities around the world with various levels of resources. Methods: Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders. Results: Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care. Conclusion: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. Graphical abstract: These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.[Figure not available: see fulltext.].

Purpose: The purpose of this report is to describe the development of a classification system that would apply to anyone with a spine-related concern and that can be used in an evidence-based spine care pathway. Methods: Existing classification systems for spinal disorders were assembled. A seed document was developed through round-table discussions followed by a modified Delphi process. International and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate. Results: Thirty-six experts from 15 countries participated. After the second round, there was 95% agreement of the proposed classification system. The six major classifications included: no or minimal symptoms (class 0); mild symptoms (i.e., neck or back pain) but no interference with activities (class I); moderate or severe symptoms with interference of activities (class II); spine-related neurological signs or symptoms (class III); severe bony spine deformity, trauma or pathology (class IV); and spine-related symptoms or destructive lesions associated with systemic pathology (class V). Subclasses for each major class included chronicity and severity when different interventions were anticipated or recommended. Conclusions: An international and interprofessional group developed a comprehensive classification system for all potential presentations of people who may seek care or advice at a spine care program. This classification can be used in the development of a spine care pathway, in clinical practice, and for research purposes. This classification needs to be tested for validity, reliability, and consistency among clinicians from different specialties and in different communities and cultures. Graphical abstract: These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.[Figure not available: see fulltext.].

Purpose: The purpose of this report is to describe the development of a list of resources necessary to implement a model of care for the management of spine-related concerns anywhere in the world, but especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries. Methods: Contents from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) Classification System and GSCI care pathway papers provided a foundation for the resources list. A seed document was developed that included resources for spine care that could be delivered in primary, secondary and tertiary settings, as well as resources needed for self-care and community-based settings for a wide variety of spine concerns (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, pathology and spinal diseases). An iterative expert consensus process was used using electronic surveys. Results: Thirty-five experts completed the process. An iterative consensus process was used through an electronic survey. A consensus was reached after two rounds. The checklist of resources included the following categories: healthcare provider knowledge and skills, materials and equipment, human resources, facilities and infrastructure. The list identifies resources needed to implement a spine care program in any community, which are based upon spine care needs. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first international and interprofessional attempt to develop a list of resources needed to deliver care in an evidence-based care pathway for the management of people presenting with spine-related concerns. This resource list needs to be field tested in a variety of communities with different resource capacities to verify its utility. Graphical abstract: These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.[Figure not available: see fulltext.].

The purpose of this report is to describe the development of an evidence-based care pathway that can be implemented globally. The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) care pathway development team extracted interventions recommended for the management of spinal disorders from six GSCI articles that synthesized the available evidence from guidelines and relevant literature. Sixty-eight international and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate. An iterative consensus process was used. After three rounds of review, 46 experts from 16 countries reached consensus for the care pathway that includes five decision steps: awareness, initial triage, provider assessment, interventions (e.g., non-invasive treatment; invasive treatment; psychological and social intervention; prevention and public health; specialty care and interprofessional management), and outcomes. The care pathway can be used to guide the management of patients with any spine-related concern (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spinal injury, neurological conditions, pathology, spinal diseases). The pathway is simple and can be incorporated into educational tools, decision-making trees, and electronic medical records. A care pathway for the management of individuals presenting with spine-related concerns includes evidence-based recommendations to guide health care providers in the management of common spinal disorders. The proposed pathway is person-centered and evidence-based. The acceptability and utility of this care pathway will need to be evaluated in various communities, especially in low- and middle-income countries, with different cultural background and resources. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. The Global Spine Care Initiative and this study were funded by grants from the Skoll Foundation and NCMIC Foundation. World Spine Care provided financial management for this project. The funders had no role in study design, analysis, or preparation of this paper. Sí

Study design This study uses the Taylor linearized variance estimation method to compute weighted unadjusted and adjusted prevalence of neck pain by occupation, with a cross-section data set from the 2009 to 2012 National Health Interview Survey. Objective The goal of this study was to explore occupational patterns of neck pain and the relationship between long work hours and neck pain in the working population in the United States. Summary of background data The past research has demonstrated that specific occupations have a high prevalence of neck pain. However, occupational patterns of neck pain in the United States have been understudied. Methods Risk of neck pain was estimated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression with odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as measures of association. Results After controlling for demographic, socioeconomic status, and behavior-related factors and compared with workers in architecture and engineering occupation group, the top 5 occupational groups with significantly higher relative prevalence of neck pain included: military specific (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.17-5.35); arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.34-2.17); life, physical, and social science (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.33-2.11); health care support (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.23-1.97); and installation, maintenance, and repair (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.21-1.96). Compared with those who worked 40 hours, people who worked 46 to 59 hours (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.30) and 60 or more hours of work per week (OR, 1.35; 95% CI-1.21, 1.51) were more likely to report neck pain. Conclusion This study adds to the evidence that an individual's occupation and work hours affect workers' risk for neck pain. This study indicates a need for new research efforts and public policies targeted to workers who are susceptible to neck pain in the United States. Level of evidence 1.

Purpose: The purpose of this review was to synthesize literature on the burden of spinal disorders in rural communities to inform the Global Spine Care Initiative care pathway and model of care for their application in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries. Methods: A systematic review was conducted. Inclusion criteria included all age groups with nonspecific low back pain, neck pain, and associated disorders, nonspecific thoracic spinal pain, musculoskeletal chest pain, radiculopathy, or spinal stenosis. Study designs included observational study design (case-control, cross-sectional, cohort, ecologic, qualitative) or review or meta-analysis. After study selection, studies with low or moderate risk of bias were qualitatively synthesized. Results: Of 1150 potentially relevant articles, 43 were eligible and included in the review. All 10 low and 18 moderate risk of bias studies were cross-sectional, 14 of which included rural residents only. All studies included estimates of low back pain prevalence, one included neck pain and one reported estimates for spinal disorders other than back or neck pain. The prevalence of low back pain appears greater among females and in those with less education, psychological factors (stress, anxiety, depression), and alcohol consumers. The literature is inconsistent as to whether back pain is more common in rural or urban areas. High risk of bias in many studies, lack of data on disability and other burden measures and few studies on conditions other than back and neck pain preclude a more comprehensive assessment of the individual and community-based burden of spinal disorders in less-developed communities. Conclusion: We identified few high-quality studies that may inform patients, providers, policymakers, and other stakeholders about spinal disorders and their burden on individuals and communities in most rural places of the developing world. These findings should be a call to action to devote resources for high-quality research to fill these knowledge gaps in medically underserved areas and low and middle-income countries. Graphical abstract: These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [Figure not available: see fulltext.].

The purpose of this review was to develop recommendations for the management of spinal disorders in low-income communities, with a focus on non-invasive pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies for non-specific low back and neck pain. We synthesized two evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back and neck pain. Our recommendations considered benefits, harms, quality of evidence, and costs, with attention to feasibility in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries. Clinicians should provide education and reassurance, advise patients to remain active, and provide information about self-care options. For acute low back and neck pain without serious pathology, primary conservative treatment options are exercise, manual therapy, superficial heat, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). For patients with chronic low back and neck pain without serious pathology, primary treatment options are exercise, yoga, cognitive behavioral therapies, acupuncture, biofeedback, progressive relaxation, massage, manual therapy, interdisciplinary rehabilitation, NSAIDs, acetaminophen, and antidepressants. For patients with spinal pain with radiculopathy, clinicians may consider exercise, spinal manipulation, or NSAIDs; use of other interventions requires extrapolation from evidence regarding effectiveness for non-radicular spinal pain. Clinicians should not offer treatments that are not effective, including benzodiazepines, botulinum toxin injection, systemic corticosteroids, cervical collar, electrical muscle stimulation, short-wave diathermy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and traction. Guidelines developed for high-income settings were adapted to inform a care pathway and model of care for medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries by considering factors such as costs and feasibility, in addition to benefits, harms, and the quality of underlying evidence. The selection of recommended conservative treatments must be finalized through discussion with the involved community and based on a biopsychosocial approach. Decision determinants for selecting recommended treatments include costs, availability of interventions, and cultural and patient preferences. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

This article summarizes relevant findings related to low back and neck pain from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) reports for the purpose of informing the Global Spine Care Initiative. We reviewed and summarized back and neck pain burden data from two studies that were published in Lancet in 2016, namely: “Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015” and “Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 315 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE), 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015.” In 2015, low back and neck pain were ranked the fourth leading cause of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) globally just after ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and lower respiratory infection {low back and neck pain DALYs [thousands]: 94 941.5 [95% uncertainty interval (UI) 67 745.5–128 118.6]}. In 2015, over half a billion people worldwide had low back pain and more than a third of a billion had neck pain of more than 3 months duration. Low back and neck pain are the leading causes of years lived with disability in most countries and age groups. Low back and neck pain prevalence and disability have increased markedly over the past 25 years and will likely increase further with population aging. Spinal disorders should be prioritized for research funding given the huge and growing global burden. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The purpose of this study was to synthesize recommendations on the use of common elective surgical and interventional procedures for individuals with persistent and disabling non-radicular/axial with or without myelopathy, radicular back pain, cervical myelopathy, symptomatic spinal stenosis, and fractures due to osteoporosis. This review was to inform a clinical care pathway on the patient presentations where surgical interventions could reasonably be considered. We synthesized recommendations from six evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and one appropriate use criteria guidance for the surgical and interventional management of persistent and disabling spine pain. Lower priority surgery/conditions include fusion for lumbar/non-radicular neck pain and higher priority surgery/conditions include discectomy/decompressive surgery for cervical or lumbar radiculopathy, cervical myelopathy, and lumbar spinal stenosis. Epidural steroid injections are less expensive than most surgeries with fewer harms; however, benefits are small and short lived. Vertebroplasty should be considered over kyphoplasty as an option for patients with severe pain and disability due to osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. Elective surgery and interventional procedures could be limited in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries due to a lack of resources and surgeons and thus surgical and interventional procedures should be prioritized within these settings. There are non-invasive alternatives that produce similar outcomes and are a recommended option where surgical procedures are not available. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

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.

This study is based on data from the 2009–2012 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) of the civilian population of the US. The NHIS focuses on a number of health conditions, including low back pain. The objective of this study is to explore behavior-related factors associated with low back pain in the US adult population, including leisure-time physical activity, alcohol use, tobacco use, sleep duration and obesity. Low back pain is a prevalent musculoskeletal health disorder with profound impact on individuals, business and society. Addressing behavior-related factors holds the potential to reduce the burden of low back pain on a societal basis. In order to account for the complex sampling design of the NHIS, the Taylor linearized variance estimation methods were used to conduct weighted descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression analyses in exploring the relationships between low back pain and a set of behavior-related risk factors. This study shows associations between self-reported lower back pain and reported leisure-time physical inactivity, current or former smoking, current or former alcohol drinking, short sleep duration and obesity. This study identified a number of behavior-related factors that appear to have a significant relationship with low back pain. Public health policy makers and clinicians should consider these factors to reduce the burden of low back pain. This study supports the need for longitudinal study design in future research. Level of Evidence: 2

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 CONTEXT Spinal disorders contribute to the global burden of disease and are especially burdensome for medically underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). A model of care (MoC) that could be implemented in these regions may help to relieve this burden. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to develop a MoC for spine-related complaints that could be implemented globally, especially in medically underserved areas and LMICs. A secondary purpose was to develop recommendations to implement this MoC at a local level. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Expert consensus. METHODS The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) development team applied an evidence-based and expert consensus process to develop a MoC. A seed document was created by the lead authors using published GSCI papers to inform the process, which included a classification of spine-related complaints, a spine care pathway, resources lists to deliver primary or secondary or tertiary spine care. Evidence-based papers by the GSCI on the topics of rural health, psychological and social factors for spine pain, prevention strategies, assessment of spine-complaints, noninvasive and invasive treatments for spine disorders also informed this process. An international and multidisciplinary team of 70 experts were invited. Survey invitations were sent through Survey Monkey. Each expert who accepted the invitation reviewed and provided input to the MoC. The document was revised and the revision was redistributed for additional review and input. Items with no change requests were classified as ‘agreement.’ The document was revised further and the final draft was agreed upon by all coauthors after three consensus rounds. RESULTS Sixty-six experts participated, representing 23 countries, major geographic regions, a wide range of professional roles, and organization types from across the continuum of care. The GSCI MoC principles include: biopsychosocial approach, person and patient-centered care, multifactorial and functional values, best practices, collaboration among participants, proactive health care, obtaining health metrics, and that it should be self-sustaining. The model is tiered to address the variety of needs of the local community: self-care and community preventive care (needs of the majority), primary spine care (needs of many), secondary spine care (needs of some), and tertiary spine care (needs of few). Each level of spine care is integrated with the other to conserve resources so the patient receives the best possible care. The implementation recommendations include: identifying spine care needs in the local community, establishing a feasible plan, small scale implementation then full implementation and program evaluation. These flexible steps can be applied in a variety of settings and are especially well-suited to areas with low resources. The model and implementation strategies are compatible with the World Health Organization global strategy on integrated and people-centered health services and are applicable specifically to spine care. CONCLUSIONS The GSCI MoC offers a practical model for spine care that may be implemented in any region but especially in underserved areas. The eight transformative principles assist with the implementation of the MoC. Due to the flexibility and recommendations for local-engagement of the implementation plan, this model also has the potential for scaling up.

Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a common and potentially disabling condition in all adults, including those who are physically active. It currently is challenging for clinicians and patients to choose among the numerous treatment options. This review summarizes recommendations from recent clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews about common primary care and secondary care approaches to the management of chronic LBP. The best available evidence currently suggests that in the absence of serious spinal pathology, nonspinal causes, or progressive or severe neurologic deficits, the management of chronic LBP should focus on patient education, self-care, common analgesics, and back exercises. Short-term pain relief may be obtained from spinal manipulative therapy or acupuncture. For patients with psychological comorbidities, adjunctive analgesics, behavioral therapy, or multidisciplinary rehabilitation also may be appropriate. Given the importance of active participation in recovery, patient preference should be sought to help select from among the recommended treatment options.

Best evidence synthesis. To identify, critically appraise, and synthesize literature from 1980 through 2006 on noninvasive interventions for neck pain and its associated disorders. No comprehensive systematic literature reviews have been published on interventions for neck pain and its associated disorders in the past decade. We systematically searched Medline and screened for relevance literature published from 1980 through 2006 on the use, effectiveness, and safety of noninvasive interventions for neck pain and associated disorders. Consensus decisions were made about the scientific merit of each article; those judged to have adequate internal validity were included in our best evidence synthesis. Of the 359 invasive and noninvasive intervention articles deemed relevant, 170 (47%) were accepted as scientifically admissible, and 139 of these related to noninvasive interventions (including health care utilization, costs, and safety). For whiplash-associated disorders, there is evidence that educational videos, mobilization, and exercises appear more beneficial than usual care or physical modalities. For other neck pain, the evidence suggests that manual and supervised exercise interventions, low-level laser therapy, and perhaps acupuncture are more effective than no treatment, sham, or alternative interventions; however, none of the active treatments was clearly superior to any other in either the short-or long-term. For both whiplash-associated disorders and other neck pain without radicular symptoms, interventions that focused on regaining function as soon as possible are relatively more effective than interventions that do not have such a focus. Our best evidence synthesis suggests that therapies involving manual therapy and exercise are more effective than alternative strategies for patients with neck pain; this was also true of therapies which include educational interventions addressing self-efficacy. Future efforts should focus on the study of noninvasive interventions for patients with radicular symptoms and on the design and evaluation of neck pain prevention strategies.

STUDY DESIGN: Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance to primary care clinicians about how to best assess and treat patients with neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a need to translate the results of clinical and epidemiologic studies into meaningful and practical information for clinicians. METHODS: Based on best evidence syntheses of published studies on the risk, prognosis, assessment, and management of people with neck pain and its associated disorders, plus additional research projects and focused literature reviews reported in this supplement, the 12-member multidisciplinary Scientific Secretariat of the Neck Pain Task Force followed a 4-step approach to develop practical guidance for clinicians. RESULTS: The Neck Pain Task Force recommends that people seeking care for neck pain should be triaged into 4 groups: Grade I neck pain with no signs of major pathology and no or little interference with daily activities; Grade II neck pain with no signs of major pathology, but interference with daily activities; Grade III neck pain with neurologic signs of nerve compression; Grade IV neck pain with signs of major pathology. In the emergency room after blunt trauma to the neck, triage should be based on the NEXUS criteria or the Canadian C-spine rule. Those with a high risk of fracture should be further investigated with plain radiographs and/or CT-scan. In ambulatory primary care, triage should be based on history and physical examination alone, including screening for red flags and neurologic examination for signs of radiculopathy. Exercises and mobilization have been shown to provide some degree of short-term relief of Grade I or Grade II neck pain after a motor vehicle collision. Exercises, mobilization, manipulation, analgesics, acupuncture, and low-level laser have been shown to provide some degree of short-term relief of Grade I or Grade II neck pain without trauma. Those with confirmed Grade III and severe persistent radicular symptoms might benefit from corticosteroid injections or surgery. Those with confirmed Grade IV neck pain require management specific to the diagnosed pathology. CONCLUSION: The best available evidence suggests initial assessment for neck pain should focus on triage into 4 grades, and those with common neck pain (Grade I and Grade II) might be offered the listed noninvasive treatments if short-term relief is desired. Language: en

Best evidence synthesis. To undertake a best evidence synthesis on course and prognosis of neck pain and its associated disorders in the general population. Knowing the course of neck pain guides expectations for recovery. Identifying prognostic factors assists in planning public policies, formulating interventions, and promoting lifestyle changes to decrease the burden of neck pain. 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 literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain. Findings fromstudiesmeeting criteria for scientific validity were abstracted into evidence tables and included in a best evidence synthesis. We found 226 articles on the course and prognostic factors in neck pain and its associated disorders. After critical review, 70 (31) of these were accepted on scientific merit. Six studies related to course and 7 to prognostic factors in the general population. Between half and three quarters of persons in these populations with current neck pain will report neck pain again 1 to 5 years later. Younger age predicted better outcome. General exercise was unassociated with outcome, although regular bicycling predicted poor outcome in 1 study. Psychosocial factors, including psychologic health, coping patterns, and need to socialize, were the strongest prognostic factors. Several potential prognostic factors have not been well studied, including degenerative changes, genetic factors, and compensation policies. 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 this symptom. General exercise was not prognostic of better outcome; however, several psychosocial factors were prognostic of outcome.

Study DesignBest evidence synthesis.ObjectiveTo critically appraise and synthesize the literature on assessment of neck pain.Summary of Background DataThe published literature on assessment of neck pain is large and of variable quality. There have been no prior systematic reviews of this literature.MethodsThe Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders conducted a critical review of the literature (published 1980- 2006) on assessment tools and screening protocols for traumatic and nontraumatic neck pain.ResultsWe found 359 articles on assessment of neck pain. After critical review, 95 (35%) were judged scientifically admissible. Screening protocols have high predictive values to detect cervical spine fracture in alert, low-risk patients seeking emergency care after blunt neck trauma. Computerized tomography (CT) scans had better validity (in adults and elderly) than radiographs in assessing high-risk and/or multi-injured blunt trauma neck patients. In the absence of serious pathology, clinical physical examinations are more predictive at excluding than confirming structural lesions causing neurologic compression. One exception is the manual provocation test for cervical radiculopathy, which has high positive predictive value. There was no evidence that specific MRI findings are associated with neck pain, cervicogenic headache, or whiplash exposure. No evidence supports using cervical provocative discography, anesthetic facet, or medial branch blocks in evaluating neck pain. Reliable and valid self-report questionnaires are useful in assessing pain, function, disability, and psychosocial status in individuals with neck pain.ConclusionThe scientific evidence supports screening protocols in emergency care for low-risk patients; and CT-scans for high-risk patients with blunt trauma to the neck. In nonemergency neck pain without radiculopathy, the validity of most commonly used objective tests is lacking. There is support for subjective self-report assessment in monitoring patients’ course, response to treatment, and in clinical research.

Study design Best evidence synthesis. Objective To report on gaps in the literature and make methodologic recommendations based on our review of the literature on frequency and risk factors, assessment, intervention, and course and prognostic factors for neck pain and its associated disorders. Summary of background data The scientific literature on neck pain is large and of variable quality. We reviewed 1203 studies and judged 46% to be of sufficient scientific validity to be included in the best evidence synthesis. Scientific quality varied across study topics, and fundamental questions remain about important issues. Methods 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. Results We outline a large number of gaps in the current literature. For example, we found important gaps in our knowledge about neck pain in children (risk factors, screening criteria to rule out serious injury, management, course and prognosis); and in the prevention of neck pain-related activity limitations. Few studies addressed the impact of culture or social policies (such as governmental health policies or insurance compensation policies) on neck pain. A number of important questions remain about the effectiveness of commonly used interventions for neck pain. Conclusion 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 whiplash-associated disorders. We identify a number of gaps in the current knowledge, and provide recommendations for the conduct of future studies.

The manuscript submitted does not contain information about medical device(s)/drug(s). Corporate/Industry, Foundation and Professional and Organizational funds were received in support of the Neck Pain Task Force. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript. Reprinted with permission from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Haldeman S, Carroll LJ, Cassidy JD, The Empowerment of People With Neck Pain: Introduction, The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders, SPINE, Volume 33, Number 4S, pp S8–S13

STUDY DESIGN: Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: 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). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. Language: en

Background context The economic burden of low back pain (LBP) is very large and appears to be growing. It is not possible to impact this burden without understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the research on which these costs are calculated. Purpose To conduct a systematic review of LBP cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Study design/setting Systematic review of the literature. Methods Medline was searched to uncover studies about the direct or indirect costs of LBP published in English from 1997 to 2007. Data extracted for each eligible study included study design, population, definition of LBP, methods of estimating costs, year of data, and estimates of direct, indirect, or total costs. Results were synthesized descriptively. Results The search yielded 147 studies, of which 21 were deemed relevant; 4 other studies and 2 additional abstracts were found by searching reference lists, bringing the total to 27 relevant studies. The studies reported on data from Australia, Belgium, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, and the United States. Nine studies estimated direct costs only, nine indirect costs only, and nine both direct and indirect costs, from a societal (n=18) or private insurer (n=9) perspective. Methodology used to derive both direct and indirect cost estimates differed markedly among the studies. Among studies providing a breakdown on direct costs, the largest proportion of direct medical costs for LBP was spent on physical therapy (17%) and inpatient services (17%), followed by pharmacy (13%) and primary care (13%). Among studies providing estimates of total costs, indirect costs resulting from lost work productivity represented a majority of overall costs associated with LBP. Three studies reported that estimates with the friction period approach were 56% lower than with the human capital approach. Conclusions Several studies have attempted to estimate the direct, indirect, or total costs associated with LBP in various countries using heterogeneous methodology. Estimates of the economic costs in different countries vary greatly depending on study methodology but by any standards must be considered a substantial burden on society. This review did not identify any studies estimating the total costs of LBP in the United States from a societal perspective. Such studies may be helpful in determining appropriate allocation of health-care resources devoted to this condition.

STUDY DESIGN. Systematic review. OBJECTIVE. To determine whether results and conclusions on the effectiveness of exercise for workers with neck pain vary with the Cochrane Back Review Group Guidelines and best-evidence synthesis review methods. To identify methodologic weaknesses associated with these review methods that may impact on the validity of their results. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. The Cochrane Back Review Group Guidelines and best-evidence synthesis have different approaches to appraising trial quality and incorporating quality into data synthesis. The impact of different review methods on the reproducibility and validity of review results is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS. Systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases, without language restrictions. Twelve trials were selected. Two review methods were used to appraise trial quality and to incorporate quality into data synthesis. As recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group Guidelines, trials were assigned quality scores using a scale. Results of all 12 trials were stratified into levels of evidence according to their scores. Based on these results, no treatment recommendation could be formulated. Best-evidence synthesis critically appraised methodology; trials were accepted on the strength of their scientific merit or rejected due to risk of bias. According to the 4 trials accepted for best-evidence synthesis, workers should be activated with exercise given its beneficial effect on patient-perceived recovery. Both the Cochrane Back Review Group Guidelines and best-evidence synthesis reviews were found to have weaknesses associated with their methods. CONCLUSIONS. Review results and conclusions are sensitive to methods for appraising trial quality and incorporating quality into data synthesis when the evidence consists largely of low-quality trials. Both the Cochrane Back Review Group Guidelines and best-evidence synthesis methods were found to have strengths and methodologic weaknesses that healthcare decision-makers should be aware of when interpreting systematic reviews. © 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

The validation of diagnostic testing is critical to understanding disease and scientifically advancing treatment. Recent surveys have found that many studies on diagnostic validity are poorly designed or executed, resulting in exaggerated or biased results regarding diagnostic accuracy [1]. In the world of axial pain syndromes many questionable diagnoses are made in clinical practice. Which of these may be right or wrong is usually unknown. With serious diseases, such as infection or tumor, the clinician may conclusively determine the correct diagnosis. Yet, in the overwhelming majority of axial pain syndromes there is little evidence supporting confidence in diagnostic test validity. The clinician may be left with little more to judge diagnostic accuracy than the clinical course revealing no serious destructive process, the possible evolution of generalized central-pain illness, or perhaps, the response to specific treatments. This issue of The Spine Journal presents another attempt to resolve disputed claims between different camps purporting high diagnostic certainty in axial pain. Dr. Bogduk and colleagues (pages 22‐26, this issue) point out that one study in 1988 [2] ‘‘claimed that manual examination of the neck had 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity for diagnosing painful zygapophyseal joints.’’ This is, of course, an astounding rate for any clinical test. These authors believe, and it stands to reason, that manual medicine techniques are not nearly that accurate. However, the same authors then contend that the same diagnosis is ‘‘diagnosed definitively’’ by their own method of facet injections: an equally unlikely proposition. Nonetheless, the authors go on to compare the outcome of manual testing, whose proponents claim high accuracy, against anesthetic blocks, which Dr. Bogduk and colleagues claim is the actual ‘‘definitive’’ determinant of a true-positive or negative study. Their results show that manual testing and injection testing results are frequently at odds. As Abraham Lincoln noted when both Federal and Confederate partisans claimed God was on their side: one side may be wrong, or the other may be wrong, but certainly both cannot be right. The diagnostic injection method used in this study as the gold standard for the diagnosis was comparative anesthetic injections: a ‘‘positive’’ joint being one in which pain relief was obtained with anesthetic blockade with both short (lignocaine) and long (bupivacaine) acting anesthetic and

Background context: The growing recognition of cervical manipulation as a treatment of neck pain and cervicogenic headaches has lead to increased interest in potential complications that may result from this treatment approach. Recent surveys have reported that many neurologists will encounter cases of vertebral artery dissection that occur at various times after cervical manipulation, whereas most practitioners of spinal manipulation are of the opinion that these events are extremely rare. We asked the question whether these differences in perception could be explained in part by referral or selection bias. Purpose: To assess the effect of referral bias on the differences in perceived incidence of vertebral artery dissection after cervical manipulation between neurologists and chiropractors in Canada. Study design: This study was a retrospective review of cases where neurological symptoms consistent with cerebrovascular ischemia were reported by chiropractors in Canada. Methods: An analysis of data from a chiropractic malpractice insurance carrier (Canadian Chiropractic Protective Association [CCPA]) and results of a survey of chiropractors was performed to determine the likelihood that a vertebral artery dissection after cervical manipulation would be reported to practicing chiropractors. This was compared with the likelihood that a neurologist would be made aware of such a complication. Results: For the 10-year period 1988 to 1997, there were 23 cases of vertebral artery dissection after cervical manipulation reported to the CCPA that represents 85% of practicing chiropractors in Canada. Based on the survey, an estimated 134,466,765 cervical manipulations were performed during this 10-year period. This gave a calculated rate of vertebral artery dissection after manipulation of 1:5,846,381 cervical manipulations. Based on the number of practicing chiropractors and neurologists during the period of this study, 1 of every 48 chiropractors and one of every two neurologists would have been made aware of a vascular complication from cervical manipulation that was reported to the CCPA during their practice lifetime. Conclusions: The perceived risk after cervical manipulation by chiropractors and neurologists is related to the probability that a practitioner will be made aware of such an incident. The difference in the number of chiropractors (approximately 3,840 in 1997) and neurologists (approximately 4,000 in 1997) in active practice and the fact that each patient who has a stroke after manipulation will likely be seen by only one chiropractor but by three or more neurologists partly explains the difference in experience and the perception of risk of these two professions. This selection or referral bias is important in shaping the clinical opinions of the various disciplines and distorts discussion on the true incidence of these complications of cervical manipulation. The nature of this study, however, describes the likelihood that a clinician will be made aware of such an event and cannot be interpreted as describing the actual risk of stroke after manipulation.

Background context: The acceptance of spinal manipulation as a reasonable method of treating certain patients with spinal pain over the past decade has led to a renewed interest and increased use of these techniques performed in conjunction with commonly used medications and procedures. Manual therapy is increasingly being used in conjunction with anesthetics, sedatives or analgesics as well as local, epidural and intra-articular injections. Purpose: This report provides a review of the literature and presents a description of current clinical practice methods for the application of the different techniques of medication-assisted spinal manipulation therapy followed by a discussion of the current clinical support and the published indications, contraindications and complications for each of these procedures. Study design/setting: This technical report integrates a literature review with information gathered through personal interviews, review of medicine-assisted manipulation courses and observations of clinical procedures. Methods: A PubMed search from 1966 to the present was performed to identify appropriate articles concerning the combination of spinal manipulation therapy with such medical procedures as the use of anesthetic, conscious sedation, local injection of analgesic, anti-inflammatory and proliferant agents and intra-articular injections. Additional articles and information were gathered through review of pertinent references, attendance of various technique specific seminars and communication with experts familiar with these procedures. Results: Four categories of medication-assisted manipulation were identified: manipulation under general anesthesia or sedation, manipulation under epidural anesthesia with or without epidural steroid injection, manipulation under joint anesthesia/analgesia, and manipulation with injectants, such as steroids or proliferant agents. The literature consists primarily of case reports and case series with two randomized controlled trials and one cohort study. Conclusions: Medicine-assisted spinal manipulation therapies have a relatively long history of clinical use and have been reported in the literature for over 70 years. However, evidence for the effectiveness of these protocols remains largely anecdotal, based on case series mimicking many other surgical and conservative approaches for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes of musculoskeletal origin. There is, however, sufficient theoretical basis and positive results from case series to warrant further controlled trials on these techniques.

Study Design. A retrospective review of 64 medicolegal records describing cerebrovascular ischemia after cervical spine manipulation was conducted. Objectives. To describe 64 cases of cerebrovascular accidents temporally associated with cervical spine ma nipulation therapy in terms of patient characteristics, potential risk factors, nature of complication, and neurologic sequelae. Summary of Background Data. Approximately 117 cases of postmanipulation cerebrovascular ischemia have been reported in the English language literature. Proposed risk factors include age, gender, migraine headaches, hypertension, diabetes, birth control pills, cervical spondylosis, and smoking, it is often assumed that these complications may be avoided by clinically screening patients and by premanipulation positioning of the head and neck to evaluate the patency of the vertebral arteries. Method. Three researchers using a uniform data abstraction instrument performed an independent review of 64 previously unpublished medicolegal records describing cerebrovascular ischemia after cervical spine manipulation. These cases were referred to a single physician for review over a 16-year period from across the United States and Canada. Descriptive statistics were calculated for characteristics of the patients and the complications. Means and standard deviations were computed for continuous variables. Frequencies and proportions were calculated for categorical variables. Results. This study was unable to identify factors from the clinical history and physical examination of the patient that would assist a pysician attempting to isolate the patient at risk of cerebral ischemia after cervical manipulation. Conclusion. Cerebrovascular accidents after manipulation appear to be unpredictable and should be considered an inherent, idiosyncratic, and rare complication of this treatment approach.

Background context: The notion that headaches may originate from disorders of the cervical spine and can be relieved by treatments directed at the neck is gaining recognition among headache clinicians but is often neglected in the spine literature. Purpose: To review and summarize the literature on cervicogenic headaches in the following areas: historical perspective, diagnostic criteria, epidemiology, pathogenesis, differential diagnosis, and treatment. Study design/setting: A systematic literature review of cervicogenic headache was performed. Methods: Three computerized medical databases (Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL], Mantis) were searched for the terms “cervicogenic” and “headache.” After cross-referencing, we retrieved 164 unique citations; 48 citations were added from other sources, for a total of 212 citations, although all were not used. Results: Hilton described the concept of headaches originating from the cervical spine in 1860. In 1983 Sjaastad introduced the term “cervicogenic headache” (CGH). Diagnostic criteria have been established by several expert groups, with agreement that these headaches start in the neck or occipital region and are associated with tenderness of cervical paraspinal tissues. Prevalence estimates range from 0.4% to 2.5% of the general population to 15% to 20% of patients with chronic headaches. CGH affects patients with a mean age of 42.9 years, has a 4:1 female disposition, and tends to be chronic. Almost any pathology affecting the cervical spine has been implicated in the genesis of CGH as a result of convergence of sensory input from the cervical structures within the spinal nucleus of the trigeminal nerve. The main differential diagnoses are tension type headache and migraine headache, with considerable overlap in symptoms and findings between these conditions. No specific pathology has been noted on imaging or diagnostic studies which correlates with CGH. CGH seems unresponsive to common headache medication. Small, noncontrolled case series have reported moderate success with surgery and injections. A few randomized controlled trials and a number of case series support the use of cervical manipulation, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and botulinum toxin injection. Conclusions: There remains considerable controversy and confusion on all matters pertaining to the topic of CGH. However, the amount of interest in the topic is growing, and it is anticipated that further research will help to clarify the theory, diagnosis, and treatment options for patients with CGH. Until then, it is essential that clinicians maintain an open, cautious, and critical approach to the literature on cervicogenic headaches.

COMMENTARY ON: Haas M, Spegman A, Peterson D, et al. Dose-response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic cervicogenic headache: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Spine J 2010;10:117–128 ( in this issue ).

Study Design: Best evidence synthesis. Reprinted from methodological im 2010 Task Force o 2008;S214-S220. Williams & Wilkin From the a De Alberta Centre for Health, University b Department of of Medicine, Univ c Centre of Re comes (CREIDO Solutions, Toronto ments of Public H and Evaluation, Health Care and O Institute, Toronto, Canada. d Institute for W Health Sciences, U e Department o School of Medici Surgery Service, S f Departments and Program of Medicine and Gra University, New Y paedic Center (O New York, NY. g Institute of E Sweden. S244 Objective: To report on gaps in the literature and make methodologic recommendations based on our review of the literature on frequency and risk factors, assessment, intervention, and course and prognostic factors for neck pain and its associated disorders. Summary of Background Data: The scientific literature on neck pain is large and of variable quality. We reviewed 1203 studies and judged 46% to be of sufficient scientific validity to be included in the best evidence synthesis. Scientific quality varied across study topics, and fundamental questions remain about important issues. Methods: 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. Carroll LJ et al. Research priorities and plications. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000n Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine Reprinted with permission from Lippincott s. partment of Public Health Sciences, and the Injury Control and Research, School of Public of Alberta, Canada. Public Health Sciences, John A. Burns School ersity of Hawaii at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI. search Expertise in Improved Disability Out), University Health Network Rehabilitation Western Hospital, Toronto, Canada; Departealth Sciences and Health Policy, Management University of Toronto, Canada; Division of utcomes Research, Toronto Western Research Canada; Institute for Work & Health, Toronto, ork and Health, Toronto; Department of Public niversity of Toronto, Canada. f Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University ne, CA; Orthopaedic Spine Center and Spinal tanford University Hospital and Clinics, CA. of Orthopedics and Environmental Medicine Ergonomics and Biomechanics, School of duate School of Arts and Science, New York ork, NY; Occupational and Industrial OrthoIOC), New York University Medical Center, nvironmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, h Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto; Institute for Work & Health, Toronto; Centre of Research Excellence in Improved Disability Outcomes (CREIDO), University Health Network Rehabilitation Solutions, Toronto Western Hospital; Division of Health Care Outcomes and Research, Toronto Western Research Institute, Canada. i Centre of Research Expertise in Improved Disability Outcomes (CREIDO), University Health Network Rehabilitation Solutions, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Canada; Division of Health Care and Outcomes Research, Toronto Western Research Institute, Toronto, Canada; Departments of Public Health Sciences and Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Canada. j Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia; Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare in BC, Canada. k Endocrinology, Analgesia and Inflammation, Merck & Co. Rahway, NJ. l Department of Neurology, University of California, Irvine, CA; Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. The manuscript submitted does not contain information about medical device(s)/drug(s). Corporate/Industry, Foundation, and Professional Organizational funds were received in support of this work. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Linda J. Carroll, 4075 RTF, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E1 (e-mail: lcarroll@ualberta.ca). 0161-4754/$36.00 Copyright © 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.11.024 S245 Carroll et al Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics Research Implications Volume 32, Number 2S Results: We outline a large number of gaps in the current literature. For example, we found important gaps in our knowledge about neck pain in children (risk factors, screening criteria to rule out serious injury, management, course and prognosis); and in the prevention of neck pain-related activity limitations. Few studies addressed the impact of culture or social policies (such as governmental health policies or insurance compensation policies) on neck pain. A number of important questions remain about the effectiveness of commonly used interventions for neck pain. Conclusion: 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 whiplash-associated disorders. We identify a number of gaps in the current knowledge, and provide recommendations for the conduct of future studies. (JManipulative Physiol Ther 2009;32:S244-S251)

COMMENTARY ON Schofield DJ, Shrestha RN, Percival R, et al. The personal and national costs of early retirement because of spinal disorders: impacts on income, taxes, and government support payments. Spine J 2012;12:1111–8 ( in this issue ).

COMMENTARY ON Fryer G, Adams JH. Magnetic resonance imaging of subjects with acute unilateral neck pain and restricted motion: a prospective case series. Spine J 2011;11:171–6 ( in this issue ).

Cauda equina syndrome has been implicated as a potential complication of spinal manipulation. A review of the literature from 1911 to 1989 revealed ten reported cases of cauda equina syndrome in patients undergoing manipulation without anesthesia. This article presents three new cases where a temporal association was found between the onset of cauda equina symptoms and lumbar manipulation. The type of manipulation administered and the relationship between the treatment and symptoms is reviewed. In each of these cases both the chiropractic practitioner and the emergency room physician failed to comprehend the nature of the problem and take appropriate action. As a consequence, the patients went untreated for several days. This may have led to residual symptomatology. It is concluded that patients who present with bowel or bladder disturbances, leg weakness, or rectal and genital sensory changes after manipulation, be recognized as experiencing a cauda equina syndrome.

Background context Low back pain (LBP) is associated with high health-care utilization and lost productivity. Numerous interventions are routinely used, although few are supported by strong evidence. Cost utility analyses (CUAs) may be helpful to inform decision makers. Purpose To conduct a systematic review of CUAs of interventions for LBP. Study design Systematic review. Methods A search strategy combining medical subject headings and free text related to LBP and health economic evaluations was executed in MEDLINE. Cost utility analyses combined with randomized controlled trials for LBP were included. Studies that were published before 1998, non-English, decision analyses, and duplicate reports were excluded. Search results were evaluated by two reviewers, who extracted data independently related to clinical study design, economic study design, direct cost components, utility results, cost results, and CUA results. Results The search produced 319 citations, and of these 15 met eligibility criteria. Most were from the United Kingdom (n=8), published in the past 3 years (n=12), studied chronic LBP or radiculopathy (n=13), and had a follow-up >12 months (n=13). Combined, there were 33 study groups who received a mean 2.1 interventions, most commonly education (n=17), exercise therapy (n=13), spinal manipulation therapy (n=7), surgery (n=7), and usual care from a general practitioner (n=7). Mean baseline utility was 0.57, improving to 0.67 at follow-up; the mean difference in utility improvement between study groups was 0.04. Based on available data and converted to US dollars, the cost per quality-adjusted life year ranged from $304 to $579,527, with a median of $13,015. Conclusions Few CUAs were identified for LBP, and there was heterogeneity in the interventions compared, direct cost components measured, indirect costs, other methods, and results. Reporting quality was mixed. Currently published CUAs do not provide sufficient information to assist decision makers. Future CUAs should attempt to measure all known direct cost components relevant to LBP, estimate indirect costs such as lost productivity, have a follow-up period sufficient to capture meaningful changes, and clearly report methods and results to facilitate interpretation and comparison.

STUDY DESIGN: Iterative discussion and consensus by a multidisciplinary task force scientific secretariat reviewing scientific evidence on neck pain and its associated disorders. OBJECTIVE: To provide an integrated model for linking the epidemiology of neck pain with its management and consequences, and to help organize and interpret existing knowledge, and to highlight gaps in the current literature. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The wide variability of scientific and clinical approaches to neck pain described in the literature requires a unified conceptual model for appropriate interpretation of the research evidence. METHODS: The 12-member Scientific Secretariat of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders critically reviewed and eventually accepted as scientifically admissible a total of 552 scientific papers. The group met face-to-face on 18 occasions and had frequent additional telephone conference meetings over a 6-year period to discuss and interpret this literature and to agree on a conceptual model, which would accommodate findings. Models and definitions published in the scientific literature were discussed and repeatedly modified until the model and case definitions presented here were finally approved by the group. RESULTS: Our new conceptual model is centered on the person with neck pain or who is at risk for neck pain. Neck pain is viewed as an episodic occurrence over a lifetime with variable recovery between episodes. The model outlines the options available to individuals who are dealing with neck pain, along with factors that determine options, choices, and consequences. The short- and long-term impacts of neck pain are also considered. Finally, the model includes a 5-axis classification of neck pain studies based on how subjects were recruited into each study. CONCLUSION: The Scientific Secretariat found the conceptual model helpful in interpreting the available scientific evidence. We believe it can assist people with neck pain, researchers, clinicians, and policy makers in framing their questions and decisions.

STUDY DESIGN Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE To identify, critically appraise, and synthesize literature from 1980 through 2006 on surgical interventions for neck pain alone or with radicular pain in the absence of serious pathologic disease. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA There have been no comprehensive systematic literature or evidence-based reviews published on this topic. METHODS We systematically searched Medline for literature published from 1980 to 2006 on percutaneous and open surgical interventions for neck pain. Publications on the topic were also solicited from experts in the field. Consensus decisions were made about the scientific merit of each article; those judged to have adequate internal validity were included in our Best Evidence Synthesis. RESULTS Of the 31,878 articles screened, 1203 studies were relevant to the Neck Pain Task Force mandate and of these, 31 regarding treatment by surgery or injections were accepted as scientifically admissible. Radiofrequency neurotomy, cervical facet injections, cervical fusion and cervical arthroplasty for neck pain without radiculopathy are not supported by current evidence. We found there is support for short-term symptomatic improvement of radicular symptoms with epidural corticosteroids. It is not clear from the evidence that long-term outcomes are improved with the surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy compared to nonoperative measures. However, relatively rapid and substantial symptomatic relief after surgical treatment seems to be reliably achieved. It is not evident that one open surgical technique is clearly superior to others for radiculopathy. Cervical foramenal or epidural injections are associated with relatively frequent minor adverse events (5%-20%); however, serious adverse events are very uncommon (

Scott Haldeman, DC, MD, PhD,1 Linda Carroll, PhD,2 J. David Cassidy, DC, PhD, DrMedSc,3 Jon Schubert, CMA,4 and Ake Nygren, DDS, MD, DrMedSc5 1Department of Neurology, University of California, Irvine, CA; Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 2Department of Public Health Sciences, and Alberta Center for Injury Control and Research, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Canada 3Department of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto an Division of Health Outcomes and Research, Toronto Western Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada 4CEO–SGI, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada 5Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Division of Rehabilitation Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden