A diagnosis-based clinical decision rule for spinal pain part 2: review of the literature

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

Prevalence and Risk Factors Associated With Long-term Opioid Use After Injury Among Previously Opioid-Free Workers

Importance Using opioids for acute pain can lead to long-term use and associated morbidity and mortality. Injury has been documented as a gateway to long-term opioid use in some populations, but data are limited for injured workers. Objective To evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of long-term opioid use after injury among workers in Tennessee who were opioid free at the time of injury. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study identified injured workers aged 15 to 99 years who reported only 1 injury to the Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation from March 2013 to December 2015 and had no opioid prescription in the 60 days before injury. Participants were matched to their prescription history in Tennessee’s prescription drug monitoring program. Analysis was conducted from November 2017 to March 2018. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for associations of demographic, injury, and opioid use variables with long-term use. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was long-term opioid use, defined as having an opioid supplied for 45 or more days in the 90 days after injury. Results Among 58 278 injured workers who received opioids after injury (18 977 [32.5%] aged 15-34 years, 27 514 [47.2%] aged 35-54 years, and 11 787 [20.2%] aged 55-99 years; 32 607 [56.0%] men), 46 399 (79.6%) were opioid free at the time of injury. Among opioid-free injured workers, 1843 (4.0%) began long-term opioid use. After controlling for covariates, long-term use was associated with receiving 20 or more days’ supply in the initial opioid prescription compared with receiving less than 5 days’ supply (OR, 28.94; 95% CI, 23.44-35.72) and visiting 3 or more prescribers in the 90 days after injury compared with visiting 1 prescriber (OR, 14.91; 95% CI, 12.15-18.29). However, even just 5 days’ to 9 days’ supply was associated with an increase in the odds of long-term use compared with less than 5 days’ supply (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.56-2.14). Conclusions and Relevance In this study of injured workers, injury was associated with long-term opioid use. The number of days’ supply of the initial opioid prescription was the strongest risk factor of developing long-term use, highlighting the importance of careful prescribing for initial opioid prescriptions

A non-surgical approach to the management of lumbar spinal stenosis: A prospective observational cohort study

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

Early Action on HFCs Mitigates Future Atmospheric Change

As countries take action to mitigate global warming, both by ratifying the UNFCCC Paris Agreement and enacting the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol to manage hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), it is important to consider the relative importance of the pertinent greenhouse gases (GHGs), the distinct structure of their atmospheric impacts, and how the timing of potential GHG regulations would affect future changes in atmospheric temperature and ozone. Chemistry-climate model simulations demonstrate that HFCs could contribute substantially to anthropogenic climate change by the mid-21st century, particularly in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere i.e., global average warming up to 0.19K at 80hPa. Three HFC mitigation scenarios demonstrate the benefits of taking early action in avoiding future atmospheric change: more than 90 of the climate change impacts of HFCs can be avoided if emissions stop by 2030

A comparative analysis of chiropractic and general practitioner patients in North America: Findings from the joint Canada/United States survey of health, 2002–03

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

A scoping review of biopsychosocial risk factors and co-morbidities for common spinal disorders

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to identify risk factors, prognostic factors, and comorbidities associated with common spinal disorders. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature of common spinal disorders was performed through September 2016. To identify search terms, we developed 3 terminology groups for case definitions: 1) spinal pain of unknown origin, 2) spinal syndromes, and 3) spinal pathology. We used a comprehensive strategy to search PubMed for meta-analyses and systematic reviews of case-control studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials for risk and prognostic factors and cross-sectional studies describing associations and comorbidities. RESULTS: Of 3,453 candidate papers, 145 met study criteria and were included in this review. Risk factors were reported for group 1: non-specific low back pain (smoking, overweight/obesity, negative recovery expectations), non-specific neck pain (high job demands, monotonous work); group 2: degenerative spinal disease (workers\u27 compensation claim, degenerative scoliosis), and group 3: spinal tuberculosis (age, imprisonment, previous history of tuberculosis), spinal cord injury (age, accidental injury), vertebral fracture from osteoporosis (type 1 diabetes, certain medications, smoking), and neural tube defects (folic acid deficit, anti-convulsant medications, chlorine, influenza, maternal obesity). A range of comorbidities was identified for spinal disorders. CONCLUSION: Many associated factors for common spinal disorders identified in this study are modifiable. The most common spinal disorders are co-morbid with general health conditions, but there is a lack of clarity in the literature differentiating which conditions are merely comorbid versus ones that are risk factors. Modifiable risk factors present opportunities for policy, research, and public health prevention efforts on both the individual patient and community levels. Further research into prevention interventions for spinal disorders is needed to address this gap in the literature

Symptomatic reactions, clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction associated with upper cervical chiropractic care: A prospective, multicenter, cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Observational studies have previously shown that adverse events following manipulation to the neck and/or back are relatively common, although these reactions tend to be mild in intensity and self-limiting. However, no prospective study has examined the incidence of adverse reactions following spinal adjustments using upper cervical techniques, and the impact of this care on clinical outcomes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Consecutive new patients from the offices of 83 chiropractors were recruited for this practice-based study. Clinical outcome measures included 1) Neck pain disability index (100-point scale), 2) Oswestry back pain index (100-point scale), 3) 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) for neck, headache, midback, and low back pain, 4) treatment satisfaction, and 5) Symptomatic Reactions (SR). Data were collected at baseline, and after approximately 2 weeks of care. A patient reaching sub-clinical status for pain and disability was defined as a follow-up score <3 NRS and <10%, respectively. A SR is defined as a new complaint not present at baseline or a worsening of the presenting complaint by >30% based on an 11-point numeric rating scale occurring <24 hours after any upper cervical procedure.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 1,090 patients completed the study having 4,920 (4.5 per patient) office visits requiring 2,653 (2.4 per patient) upper cervical adjustments over 17 days. Three hundred thirty- eight (31.0%) patients had SRs meeting the accepted definition. Intense SR (NRS ≥8) occurred in 56 patients (5.1%). Outcome assessments were significantly improved for neck pain and disability, headache, mid-back pain, as well as lower back pain and disability (<it>p </it><0.001) following care with a high level (mean = 9.1/10) of patient satisfaction. The 83 chiropractors administered >5 million career upper cervical adjustments without a reported incidence of serious adverse event.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Upper cervical chiropractic care may have a fairly common occurrence of mild intensity SRs short in duration (<24 hours), and rarely severe in intensity; however, outcome assessments were significantly improved with less than 3 weeks of care with a high level of patient satisfaction. Although our findings need to be confirmed in subsequent randomized studies for definitive risk-benefit assessment, the preliminary data shows that the benefits of upper cervical chiropractic care may outweigh the potential risks.</p

Law professors want hearing, vote on Garland

Dear Senator Fischer and Senator Sasse, We write this as citizens, but we all teach at the University of Nebraska College of Law. We hold different political viewpoints and disagree frequentIy with each other on political and legal issues. As law professors, however, we share a deep commitment to the rule of law and an impartial judiciary. We therefore urge you to hold confirmation hearings and a vote on President Obama\u27s Supreme Court nominee, Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland

Disparities in self-reported postpartum depression among Asian, Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander women in Hawai‘i: Pregnancy, Risk, Assessment, and Monitoring System (PRAMS), 2004-2007

Postpartum depression affects 10–20% of women and causes significant morbidity and mortality among mothers, children, families, and society, but little is known about postpartum depression among the individual Asian and Pacific Islander racial/ethnic groups. This study sought to identify the prevalence of postpartum depression among common Asian and Pacific Islander racial/ethnic groups. Data from the Hawaii Pregnancy Risk Assessment and Monitoring System (PRAMS), a population-based surveillance system on maternal behaviors and experiences before, during, and after the birth of a live infant, were analyzed from 2004 through 2007 and included 7,154 women. Questions on mood and interest in activities since giving birth were combined to create a measure of Self-reported Postpartum Depressive Symptoms (SRPDS). A series of generalized logit models with maternal race or ethnicity adjusted for other sociodemographic characteristics evaluated associations between SRPDS and an intermediate level of symptoms as possible indicators of possible SRPDS. Of all women in Hawaii with a recent live birth, 14.5% had SRPDS, and 30.1% had possible SRPDS. The following Asian and Pacific Islander racial or ethnic groups were studied and found to have higher odds of SRPDS compared with white women: Korean (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.8;95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0–4.0), Filipino (AOR = 2.2;95% CI: 1.7–2.8), Chinese (AOR = 2.0;95% CI: 1.5–2.7), Samoan (AOR = 1.9;95% CI: 1.2–3.2), Japanese (AOR = 1.6;95% CI: 1.2–2.2), Hawaiian (AOR = 1.7;95% CI: 1.3–2.1), other Asian (AOR = 3.3;95% CI: 1.9–5.9), other Pacific Islander (AOR = 2.2;95% CI: 1.5–3.4), and Hispanic (AOR = 1.9;95% CI: 1.1–3.4). Women who had unintended pregnancies (AOR = 1.4;95% CI: 1.2–1.6), experienced intimate partner violence (AOR = 3.7;95% CI: 2.6–5.5), smoked (AOR = 1.5;95% CI: 1.2–2.0), used illicit drugs (AOR = 1.9;95% CI: 1.3–3.9), or received Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) benefits during pregnancy (AOR = 1.4;95% CI: 1.2–2.6) were more likely to have SRPDS. Several groups also were at increased risk for possible SRPDS, although this risk was not as prominent as seen with the risk for SRPDS. One in seven women reported SRPDS, and close to a third reported possible SRPDS. Messages about postpartum depression should be incorporated into current programs to improve screening, treatment, and prevention of SRPDS for women at risk

Pain patterns and descriptions in patients with radicular pain: Does the pain necessarily follow a specific dermatome?

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