Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeThis 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.MethodsWe 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.”ResultsIn 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.ConclusionLow 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.Graphical abstractThese slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

This prospective, community-based, active surveillance study aimed to report the incidence of moderate, severe, and serious adverse events (AEs) after chiropractic (n = 100) / physiotherapist (n = 50) visit in offices throughout North America between October-2015 and December-2017. Three content-validated questionnaires were used to collect AE information: two completed by the patient (pre-treatment [T 0 ] and 2–7 days post-treatment [T 2 ]) and one completed by the provider immediately post-treatment [T 1 ]. Any new or worsened symptom was considered an AE and further classified as mild, moderate, severe or serious. From the 42 participating providers (31 chiropractors; 11 physiotherapists), 3819 patient visits had complete T 0 and T 1 assessments. The patients were on average 50±18 years of age and 62.5% females. Neck/back pain was the most common presenting condition (70.0%) with 24.3% of patients reporting no condition/preventative care. From the patients visits with a complete T 2 assessment (n = 2136 patient visits, 55.9%), 21.3% reported an AE, of which: 7.9% were mild, 6.2% moderate, 3.7% severe, 1.5% serious, and 2.0% had missing severity rating. The most common symptoms reported with moderate or higher severity were discomfort/pain, stiffness, difficulty walking and headache. This study provides valuable information for patients and providers regarding incidence and severity of AEs following patient visits in multiple community-based professions. These findings can be used to inform patients of what AEs may occur and future research opportunities can focus on mitigating common AEs.

The purpose of this review was to identify risk factors, prognostic factors, and comorbidities associated with common spinal disorders. A scoping review of the literature of common spinal disorders was performed through September 2016. To identify search terms, we developed 3 terminology groups for case definitions: 1) spinal pain of unknown origin, 2) spinal syndromes, and 3) spinal pathology. We used a comprehensive strategy to search PubMed for meta-analyses and systematic reviews of case-control studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials for risk and prognostic factors and cross-sectional studies describing associations and comorbidities. Of 3,453 candidate papers, 145 met study criteria and were included in this review. Risk factors were reported for group 1: non-specific low back pain (smoking, overweight/obesity, negative recovery expectations), non-specific neck pain (high job demands, monotonous work); group 2: degenerative spinal disease (workers' compensation claim, degenerative scoliosis), and group 3: spinal tuberculosis (age, imprisonment, previous history of tuberculosis), spinal cord injury (age, accidental injury), vertebral fracture from osteoporosis (type 1 diabetes, certain medications, smoking), and neural tube defects (folic acid deficit, anti-convulsant medications, chlorine, influenza, maternal obesity). A range of comorbidities was identified for spinal disorders. Many associated factors for common spinal disorders identified in this study are modifiable. The most common spinal disorders are co-morbid with general health conditions, but there is a lack of clarity in the literature differentiating which conditions are merely comorbid versus ones that are risk factors. Modifiable risk factors present opportunities for policy, research, and public health prevention efforts on both the individual patient and community levels. Further research into prevention interventions for spinal disorders is needed to address this gap in the literature.

PurposeThe purpose of this review was to develop recommendations for non-invasive management of pain due to osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) that could be applied in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and best evidence synthesis of systematic reviews on the non-invasive management of OVCF. Eligible reviews were critically appraised using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Low risk of bias systematic reviews and high-quality primary studies that were identified in the reviews were used to develop recommendations.ResultsFrom 6 low risk of bias systematic reviews and 14 high-quality primary studies we established that for acute pain management, in addition to rest and analgesic medication, orthoses may provide temporary pain relief, in addition to early mobilization. Calcitonin can be considered as a supplement to analgesics; however, cost is of concern. Once acute pain control is achieved, exercise can be effective for improving function and quality of life.ConclusionThe findings from this study will help to inform the GSCI care pathway and model of care for use in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries. Conservative management of acute pain and recovery of function in adults with OVCF should include early mobilization, exercise, spinal orthosis for pain relief, and calcitonin for analgesic-refractory acute pain.Graphical AbstractThese slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Background Chronic spinal pain is prevalent, expensive and long-lasting. Several provider-based nonpharmacologic therapies have now been recommended for chronic low-back pain (CLBP) and chronic neck pain (CNP). However, healthcare and coverage policies provide little guidance or evidence regarding the long-term use of this care. To provide one glimpse into the long-term use of nonpharmacologic provider-based care, this study examines the predictors of visit frequency in a large sample of patients with CLBP and CNP using ongoing chiropractic care. Methods Observational data were collected from a large national sample of chiropractic patients in the US with non-specific CLBP and CNP. Visit frequency was defined as average number of chiropractic visits per month over the 3-month study period. Potential baseline predictor variables were entered into two sets of multi-level models according to a defined causal theory—in this case, Anderson’s Behavioral Model of Health Services Use. Results Our sample included 852 patients with CLBP and 705 with CNP. Visit frequency varied significantly by chiropractor/clinic, so our models controlled for this clustering. Patients with either condition used an average of 2.3 visits per month. In the final models visit frequency increased (0.44 visits per month, p  = .008) for those with CLBP and some coverage for chiropractic, but coverage had little effect on visits for patients with CNP. Patients with worse function or just starting care also had more visits and those near to ending care had fewer visits. However, visit frequency was also determined by the chiropractor/clinic where treatment was received. Chiropractors who reported seeing more patients per day also had patients with higher visit frequency, and the patients of chiropractors with 20 to 30 years of experience had fewer visits per month. In addition, after controlling for both patient and chiropractor characteristics, the state in which care was received made a difference, likely through state-level policies and regulations. Conclusions Chiropractic patients with CLBP and CNP use a range of visit frequencies for their ongoing care. The predictors of these frequencies could be useful for understanding and developing policies for ongoing provider-based care.

IntroductionThe increasing prevalence of coexisting health conditions poses a challenge to healthcare providers and healthcare systems. Spinal pain (eg, neck and back pain) and spinal pathologies (eg, osteoporotic fractures and degenerative spinal disease) exist concurrently with other non-spinal health conditions (NSHC). However, the scope of what associations may exist among these co-occurring conditions is unclear. Therefore, this scoping review aims to map the epidemiological literature that reports associations between spine-related pain and pathologies (SPPs) and NSHCs.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will follow the JBI protocol and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. We will systematically search the literature using key words and MeSH terms for SPPs and NSHCs. Terminology/vocabulary for NSHCs will include those for communicable and non-communicable diseases as reported by WHO Global Burden of Disease reports. Five databases will be searched from inception: MEDLINE, EMBASE, APA PsycInfo, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection. Papers published in English, in peer-reviewed journals, including measures of association between SPPs and NSHCs and using observational epidemiologic study designs will be included. Excluded will be studies of cadaveric, animal or health behaviours; studies with no measures of association and non-observational epidemiologic studies. Results will include the number of studies, the studies that have evaluated the measures of association and the frequency of the studied associations between SPPs and NSHCs. Results will be reported in tables and diagrams. Themes of comorbidities will be synthesised into a descriptive report.Ethics and disseminationThis scoping review was deemed exempt from ethics review. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of the literature that reports associations between SPPs and NSHCs to inform future research initiatives and practices. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and research conferences.Registration detailshttps://osf.io/w49u3.

Objectives. We sought to estimate the effects of recreational physical activity and back exercises on low back pain, related disability, and psychological distress among patients randomized to chiropractic or medical care in a managed care setting. Methods. Low back pain patients (n=681) were randomized and followed for 18 months. Participation in recreational physical activities, use of back exercises, and low back pain, related disability, and psychological distress were measured at baseline, at 6 weeks, and at 6, 12, and 18 months. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was used to estimate adjusted associations of physical activity and back exercises with concurrent and subsequent pain, disability, and psychological distress. Results. Participation in recreational physical activities was inversely associated—both cross-sectionally and longitudinally—with low back pain, related disability, and psychological distress. By contrast, back exercise was positively associated—both cross-sectionally and longitudinally—with low back pain and related disability. Conclusions. These results suggest that individuals with low back pain should refrain from specific back exercises and instead focus on nonspecific physical activities to reduce pain and improve psychological health.

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

Background Since the 1990s, spine disorders have remained the leading cause of global disability, disproportionately affecting economically marginalized individuals, rural populations, women, and older people. Back pain related disability is projected to increase the most in remote regions where lifestyle and work are increasingly sedentary, yet resources and access to comprehensive healthcare is generally limited. To help tackle this worldwide health problem, World Spine Care Canada, and the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) launched a four-phase project aiming to address the profound gap between evidence-based spine care and routine care delivered to people with spine symptoms or concerns in communities that are medically underserved. Phase 1 conclusions and recommendations led to the development of a model of care that included a triaging system and spine care pathways that could be implemented and scaled in underserved communities around the world. Methods The current research protocol describes a site-specific customization and pre-implementation study (Phase 2), as well as a feasibility study (Phase 3) to be conducted in Cross Lake, an Indigenous community in northern Manitoba, Canada. Design: Observational pre-post design using a participatory mixed-methods approach. Relationship building with the community established through regular site visits will enable pre- and post-implementation data collection about the model of spine care and provisionally selected implementation strategies using a community health survey, chart reviews, qualitative interviews, and adoption surveys with key partners at the meso (community leaders) and micro (clinicians, patients, community residents) levels. Recruitment started in March 2023 and will end in March 2026. Surveys will be analyzed descriptively and interviews thematically. Findings will inform co-tailoring of implementation support strategies with project partners prior to evaluating the feasibility of the new spine care program. Discussion Knowledge generated from this study will provide essential guidance for scaling up, sustainability and impact (Phase 4) in other northern Canada regions and sites around the globe. It is hoped that implementing the GSCI model of care in Cross Lake will help to reduce the burden of spine problems and related healthcare costs for the local community, and serve as a scalable model for programs in other settings.

PurposeThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsClinicians 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.ConclusionGuidelines 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.Graphical abstractThese slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.