Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study evaluates biopsychosocial factors as mediators of the effect of chiropractic care on low back pain (LBP) intensity and interference for active-duty military members. Data from a multi-site, pragmatic clinical trial comparing six weeks of chiropractic care plus usual medical care to usual medical care alone for 750 US active-duty military members with LBP were analyzed using natural-effect, multiple-mediator modeling. Mediation of the adjusted mean effect difference on 12-week outcomes of PROMIS-29 pain interference and intensity by 6-week mediators of other PROMIS-29 physical, mental, and social health subdomains was evaluated. The effect difference on pain interference occurring through PROMIS-29 biopsychosocial factors (natural indirect effect = -1.59, 95% CI = -2.28 to -0.88) was 56% (95% CI = 35 to 96) of the total effect (-2.82, 95% CI = -3.98 to -1.53). The difference in effect on pain intensity occurring through biopsychosocial factors was smaller (natural indirect effect = -0.32, 95% CI = -0.50 to -0.18), equaling 26% (95% CI = 15 to 42) of the total effect (-1.23, 95% CI = -1.52 to -0.88). When considered individually, all physical, mental, and social health factors appeared to mediate the effect difference on pain interference and pain intensity with mental health factors having smaller effect estimates. In contrast with effects on pain interference, much of the effect of adding chiropractic care to usual medical care for US military members on pain intensity did not appear to occur through the PROMIS-29 biopsychosocial factors. Physical and social factors appear to be important intermediate measures for patients receiving chiropractic care for low back pain in military settings. Further study is needed to determine if the effect of chiropractic care on pain intensity for active-duty military occurs through other unmeasured factors, such as patient beliefs, or if the effect occurs directly.

Background Recent international health events have led to an increased proliferation of remotely delivered health interventions. Even with the pandemic seemingly coming under control, the experiences of the past year have fueled a growth in ideas and technology for increasing the scope of remote care delivery. Unfortunately, clinicians and health systems will have difficulty with the adoption and implementation of these interventions if ongoing and future clinical trials fail to report necessary details about execution, platforms, and infrastructure related to these interventions. The purpose was to develop guidance for reporting of telehealth interventions. Methods A working group from the US Pain Management Collaboratory developed guidance for complete reporting of telehealth interventions. The process went through 5-step process from conception to final checklist development with input for many stakeholders, to include all 11 primary investigators with trials in the Collaboratory. Results An extension focused on unique considerations relevant to telehealth interventions was developed for the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. Conclusion The Telehealth Intervention guideline encourages use of the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist as a valuable tool (TIDieR-Telehealth) to improve the quality of research through a reporting guide of relevant interventions that will help maximize reproducibility and implementation.

Background Healthcare systems (HCS) are challenged in adopting and sustaining comprehensive approaches to spine care that require coordination and collaboration among multiple service units. The integration of clinicians who provide first line, evidence-based, non-pharmacological therapies further complicates adoption of these care pathways. This cross-sectional study explored clinician perceptions about the integration of guideline-concordant care and optimal spine care workforce requirements within an academic HCS. Methods Spine care clinicians from Duke University Health System (DUHS) completed a 26-item online survey via Qualtrics on barriers and facilitators to delivering guideline concordant care for low back pain patients. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Results A total of 27 clinicians (57% response) responded to one or more items on the questionnaire, with 23 completing the majority of questions. Respondents reported that guidelines were implementable within DUHS, but no spine care guideline was used consistently across provider types. Guideline access and integration with electronic records were barriers to use. Respondents (81%) agreed most patients would benefit from non-pharmacological therapies such as physical therapy or chiropractic before receiving specialty referrals. Providers perceived spine patients expected diagnostic imaging (81%) and medication (70%) over non-pharmacological therapies. Providers agreed that receiving imaging (63%) and opioids (59%) benchmarks could be helpful but might not change their ordering practice, even if nudged by best practice advisories. Participants felt that an optimal spine care workforce would require more chiropractors and primary care providers and fewer neurosurgeons and orthopedists. In qualitative responses, respondents emphasized the following barriers to guideline-concordant care implementation: patient expectations, provider confidence with referral pathways, timely access, and the appropriate role of spine surgery. Conclusions Spine care clinicians had positive support for current tenets of guideline-concordant spine care for low back pain patients. However, significant barriers to implementation were identified, including mixed opinions about integration of non-pharmacological therapies, referral pathways, and best practices for imaging and opioid use.

Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a lumbosacral surgical emergency that has been associated with chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM) in case reports. However, identifying if there is a potential causal effect is complicated by the heightened incidence of CES among those with low back pain (LBP). The study hypothesis was that there would be no increase in the risk of CES in adults with LBP following CSM compared to a propensity-matched cohort following physical therapy (PT) evaluation without spinal manipulation over a three-month follow-up period. A query of a United States network (TriNetX, Inc.) was conducted, searching health records of more than 107 million patients attending academic health centers, yielding data ranging from 20 years prior to the search date (July 30, 2023). Patients aged 18 or older with LBP were included, excluding those with pre-existing CES, incontinence, or serious pathology that may cause CES. Patients were divided into two cohorts: (1) LBP patients receiving CSM or (2) LBP patients receiving PT evaluation without spinal manipulation. Propensity score matching controlled for confounding variables associated with CES. 67,220 patients per cohort (mean age 51 years) remained after propensity matching. CES incidence was 0.07% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.05-0.09%) in the CSM cohort compared to 0.11% (95% CI: 0.09-0.14%) in the PT evaluation cohort, yielding a risk ratio and 95% CI of 0.60 (0.42-0.86; p = .0052). Both cohorts showed a higher rate of CES during the first two weeks of follow-up. These findings suggest that CSM is not a risk factor for CES. Considering prior epidemiologic evidence, patients with LBP may have an elevated risk of CES independent of treatment. These findings warrant further corroboration. In the meantime, clinicians should be vigilant to identify LBP patients with CES and promptly refer them for surgical evaluation.

IntroductionAcute low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition with various non-surgical treatment options, yet no comprehensive network meta-analysis has systematically compared their relative efficacy for pain and disability. This study aims to fill that gap by synthesising available evidence on the efficacy of different types of non-surgical interventions for acute LBP, such as various medications, manual therapies and education-based therapies. Our coprimary objectives are to (1) compare each active treatment to an inert reference for measures of LBP and related disability and (2) rank the efficacy of treatments.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic search across multiple databases, including grey literature, to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating non-surgical treatments for acute LBP. Eligible studies must report on pain and/or disability outcomes in adults. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Risk of Bias tool, and the certainty of evidence will be graded using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We will use a frequentist network meta-analysis to pool standardised mean differences in pain and disability, employing random-effects models to account for heterogeneity. A qualitative analysis will assess study characteristics and transitivity, while a quantitative analysis will evaluate efficacy and inconsistency. Results will be presented using network geometry, p-scores, forest plots, funnel plots, Egger’s test, Q-statistics and league tables to visualise both direct and indirect evidence and to identify potential biases.Ethics and disseminationThis review protocol does not involve any primary research with human participants, animal subjects or medical record review. Consequently, this work did not require approval from an institutional review board or ethics committee. Results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conference(s). De-identified data will be made available in a public repository.

ObjectiveWe evaluate change in low back pain (LBP) intensity and interference as the mechanism by which chiropractic care affects other biopsychosocial factors in US active-duty military members.DesignWe conducted secondary, exploratory mediation analysis of pragmatic, multisite, clinical trial (NCT01692275) post results using natural effect modeling. Mediators were the 6-week values of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-29 pain interference and intensity. Outcomes were 12-week values of other PROMIS-29 biopsychosocial subdomains. Models evaluated overall and individual factor contribution and were adjusted for baseline age, sex, LBP duration, LBP intensity and mediator and outcome values.SettingThree US military treatment facilities.Participants750 US active-duty military members with LBP.InterventionsTrial participants received 6 weeks of treatment with chiropractic care plus usual medical care or usual medical care alone.ResultsIn multiple mediator models, pain interference and pain intensity explained much of the effect of chiropractic care on physical function (proportion mediated=0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.0), fatigue (0.62, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.0), sleep disturbance (0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.5) and social roles (0.81, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.0). Mental health was not evaluable due to the low prevalence of symptoms reported. The combined models of pain interference and pain intensity did not have a higher proportion mediated than the individual pain intensity models except for fatigue outcome models.ConclusionPain intensity appeared to be the mechanism by which much of the change in biopsychosocial factors occurred and should be considered a key clinical indicator for improvement in biopsychosocial health when chiropractic care is added to usual medical care for US active-duty military members.

Abstract Objective To examine patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with opioid use among Veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom/Iraqi Freedom/New Dawn (OEF/OIF/OND) who receive chiropractic care, and to explore the relationship between timing of a chiropractic visit and receipt of an opioid prescription. Methods Cross-sectional analysis of administrative data on OEF/OIF/OND veterans who had at least one visit to a Veterans Affairs (VA) chiropractic clinic between 2004 and 2014. Opioid receipt was defined as at least one prescription within a window of 90 days before to 90 days after the index chiropractic clinic visit. Results We identified 14,025 OEF/OIF/OND veterans with at least one chiropractic visit, and 4,396 (31.3%) of them also received one or more opioid prescriptions. Moderate/severe pain (odds ratio [OR] = 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.72–2.03), PTSD (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.41–1.69), depression (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.29–1.53), and current smoking (OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.26–1.52) were associated with a higher likelihood of receiving an opioid prescription. The percentage of veterans receiving opioid prescriptions was lower in each of the three 30-day time frames assessed after the index chiropractic visit than before. Conclusions Nearly one-third of OEF/OIF/OND veterans receiving VA chiropractic services also received an opioid prescription, yet the frequency of opioid prescriptions was lower after the index chiropractic visit than before. Further study is warranted to assess the relationship between opioid use and chiropractic care.

Background Veteran Response to Dosage in Chiropractic Therapy (VERDICT) was a pragmatic randomized trial testing chiropractic dosage effects in 766 veterans with chronic low back pain (CLBP) of ≥ 3 months. This cross-sectional analysis compares baseline characteristics of younger (18-to-64 years) and older veterans (≥ 65 years). Methods Data were collected from February 22, 2021 to May 21, 2025 via electronic health records and REDCap questionnaires. Descriptive statistics and tests of group differences were performed using SAS. Results VERDICT enrolled 188 older veterans (25%; mean 72 years) and 578 younger veterans (75%; mean 44 years). More female (24.7% vs. 10.6%, p  < .001), Black (18.9% vs. 12.2%), and Hispanic (11.8% vs. 3.7%, p  = .001) veterans comprised the younger cohort. Employment differed ( p  < .001) with older veterans retired (78.2% vs. 14.2%) and younger veterans employed (59% vs. 16.5%). About 14% lived rurally and period of military service was similar. Pain profiles were similar between younger and older veterans for > 5 years duration (78.4% vs. 73.4%), high-impact chronic pain (64.5% vs. 62.2%), mean pain interference [63.8(4.8) vs. 63.2(5.0)], and mean back-related disability (primary outcome) [11.9(5.2) vs. 13.3(4.9)]. Younger veterans scored significantly higher than older veterans for depression (44.8% vs. 31.4%, p  = .001), anxiety (41.5% vs. 20.7%, p  < .001), post-traumatic stress (38.4% vs. 17.6%, p  < .001), sleep disturbance (57.1% vs. 34.6%, p  < .001), and high-risk alcohol use (25.4% vs. 18.1%, p  = .05). Previous chiropractic use was similar (younger 75.4% vs. older 80.3%). Medications in past 3 months differed with younger veterans reporting cannabis (25.8% vs. 12.8%, p  < .001) and muscle relaxants (31.7% vs. 17.6%, p  < .001) and more older veterans reporting acetaminophen (63.3% vs. 49.3%, p  < .001) and gabapentin (34% vs. 20.1%, p  < .001). NSAIDs use was highest among both younger (62.8%) and older (56.9%) veterans. While two-thirds had tried exercise in the past 3 months, only 16% reported exercising for their pain condition, with older veterans more likely to report providers encouraging physical activity. Conclusions Similar pain profiles were reported among older and younger veterans seeking chiropractic care for CLBP within a clinical trial. However, potentially important age differences were noted in demographics, mental health and substance use, and CLBP treatments. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04087291. Date of Registration: 9/12/2019. Enrollment Duration: 2/22/2021 (first participant enrolled) through 5/10/2024 (last participant enrolled).

Background Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide and a significant component of healthcare expenditures. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been highlighted as a key resource to improve the quality of care. This study aimed to develop a clinical pathway for LBP based on CPGs in an academic health system. Methods We conducted a modified Delphi study of clinicians caring for patients with LBP who were asked to rate 21 CPG-informed seed statements through an online survey. The goal was to identify statements that achieved a minimum of 80% consensus among panelists. Results Thirty-five healthcare providers participated as panelists. The majority of participants were male (68.6%), had MD or DO (62.9%) degrees, and were clinicians (73.8%) working in neurosurgery (36.1%), orthopedics (25.7%), emergency medicine (14.3%), or physical therapy (11.4%). Initially, consensus was reached on 20 of 21 seed statements. One statement did not reach consensus in the initial round and was revised into two separate statements based on feedback from panelists. One of these statements achieved consensus in the second review round. All statements reaching consensus were incorporated into a care pathway consisting of diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment for LBP. Conclusion Healthcare providers across various disciplines supported statements interpreting current CPGs related to care for LBP. This study represents a step toward supporting guideline-concordant care for LBP. Additional research is needed to assess how such pathways impact actual clinical care.