Self-reported hard physical work combined with heavy smoking or overweight may result in so-called Modic changes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recently, the MRI finding of "Modic changes" has been identified as pathologic spinal condition that probably reflects a vertebral inflammatory process (VIP), which coincides with spinal pain in most. We hypothesized that heavy smoking in combination with macro- or repeated microtrauma could lead to VIP. The objectives were to investigate if combinations of self-reported heavy smoking, hard physical work, and overweight would be more strongly linked with VIP than with other spinal conditions, such as degenerated discs and non-specific low back pain (LBP).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Secondary analysis was made of a data base pertaining to a population-based cross-sectional study. A population-generated cohort of 412 40-yr old Danes provided questionnaire information on smoking, weight, height, type of work, and LBP. MRI was used to determine the presence/absence of disc degeneration and of VIP. Associations were tested between three explanatory variables (type of work, smoking, and body mass index) and four outcome variables (LBP in the past year, more persistent LBP in the past year, disc degeneration, and VIP). Associations with these four outcome variables were studied for each single explanatory variable and for combinations of two at a time, and, finally, in a multivariable analysis including all three explanatory variables.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were no significant associations between the single explanatory variables and the two pain variables or with disc degeneration. However, VIP was found in 15% of non-smokers vs. 26% of heavy smokers. Similarly, VIP was noted in 11% of those in sedentary jobs vs. 31% of those with hard physical work. Further, the prevalence of VIP in those, who neither smoked heavily nor had a hard physical job was 13%, 25% in those who either smoked heavily or had a hard physical job, and 41% in those who both smoked heavily and worked hard. The odds ratio was 4.9 (1.6–13.0) for those who were both heavy smokers and had a hard physical job as compared to those who were classified as "neither". Similar but weaker findings were noted for the combination of overweight and hard physical work but not for the combination of smoking and overweight.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Hard physical work in combination with either heavy smoking or overweight is strongly associated with VIP. If this finding can be reproduced in other studies, it may have consequences in relation to both primary and secondary prevention of LBP, because blue collar workers, who are most likely to experience the consequences of LBP, also are those who are most likely to smoke.</p

The Nordic maintenance care program:case management of chiropractic patients with low back pain--defining the patients suitable for various management strategies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Maintenance care is a well known concept among chiropractors, although there is little knowledge about its exact definition, its indications and usefulness. As an initial step in a research program on this phenomenon, it was necessary to identify chiropractors' rationale for their use of maintenance care. Previous studies have identified chiropractors' choices of case management strategies in response to different case scenarios. However, the rationale for these management strategies is not known. In other words, when presented with both the case, and different management strategies, there was consensus on how to match these, but if only the management strategies were provided, would chiropractors be able to define the cases to fit these strategies? The objective with this study was to investigate if there is a common pattern in Finnish chiropractors' case management of patients with low back pain (LBP), with special emphasis on long-term treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Information was obtained in a structured workshop. Fifteen chiropractors, members of the Finnish Chiropractors' Union, and present at the general assembly, participated throughout the entire workshop session. These were divided into five teams each consisting of 3 people. A basic case of a patient with low back pain was presented together with six different management strategies undertaken after one month of treatment. Each team was then asked to describe one (or several) suitable case(s) for each of the six strategies, based on the aspects of 1) symptoms/findings, 2) the low back pain history in the past year, and 3) other observations. After each session the people in the groups were changed. Responses were collected as key words on flip-over boards. These responses were grouped and counted.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There appeared to be consensus among the participants in relation to the rationale for at least four of the management strategies and partial consensus on the rationale for the remaining two. In relation to maintenance care, the patient's past history was important but also the doctor-patient relationship.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These results confirm that there is a pattern among Nordic chiropractors in how they manage patients with LBP. More information is needed to define the "cut-point" for the indication of prolonged care.</p

Maintenance care in chiropractic – what do we know?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Back problems are often recurring or chronic. It is therefore not surprising that chiropractors wish to prevent their return or reduce their impact. This is often attempted with a long-term treatment strategy, commonly called maintenance care. However, some aspects of maintenance care are considered controversial. It is therefore relevant to investigate the scientific evidence forming the basis for its use.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>A review of the literature was performed in order to obtain answers to the following questions: What is the exact definition of maintenance care, what are its indications for use, and how is it practised? How common is it that chiropractors support the concept of maintenance care, and how well accepted is it by patients? How frequently is maintenance care used, and what factors are associated with its use? Is maintenance care a clinically valid method of approach, and is it cost-effective for the patient?</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thirteen original studies were found, in which maintenance care was investigated. The relative paucity of studies, the obvious bias in many of these, the lack of exhaustive information, and the diversity of findings made it impossible to answer any of the questions.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There is no evidence-based definition of maintenance care and the indications for and nature of its use remains to be clearly stated. It is likely that many chiropractors believe in the usefulness of maintenance care but it seems to be less well accepted by their patients. The prevalence with which maintenance care is used has not been established. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of maintenance care for various types of conditions are unknown. Therefore, our conclusion is identical to that of a similar review published in 1996, namely that maintenance care is not well researched and that it needs to be investigated from several angles before the method is subjected to a multi-centre trial.</p

The Nordic Maintenance Care Program - Time intervals between treatments of patients with low back pain: how close and who decides?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The management of chiropractic patients with acute and chronic/persistent conditions probably differs. However, little is known on this subject. There is, for example, a dearth of information on maintenance care (MC). Thus it is not known if patients on MC are coerced to partake in a program of frequent treatments over a long period of time, or if they are actively involved in designing their own individualized treatment program.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>It was the purpose of this study to investigate how chiropractic patients with low back pain were scheduled for treatment, with special emphasis on MC. The specific research questions were: 1. How many patients are on maintenance care? 2) Are there specific patterns of intervals between treatments for patients and, if so, do they differ between MC patients and non-MC patients? 3. Who decides on the next treatment, the patient, the chiropractor or both, and are there any differences between MC patients and non-MC patients?</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Chiropractic students, who during their summer holidays were observers in chiropractic clinics in Norway and Denmark, recorded whether patients were classified by the treating chiropractor as a MC-patient or not, dates for last and subsequent visits, and made a judgement on whether the patient or the chiropractor decided on the next appointment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Observers in the study were 16 out of 30 available students. They collected data on 868 patients from 15 Danish and 13 Norwegian chiropractors. Twenty-two percent and 26%, respectively, were classified as MC patients. Non-MC patients were most frequently seen within 1 week. For MC patients, the previous visit was most often 2-4 weeks prior to the actual visit, and the next appointment between 1 and 3 months. This indicates a gradual increase in intervals. The decision of the next visit was mainly made by the chiropractor, also for MC patients. However, the study samples of chiropractors appear not to be representative of the general Danish and Norwegian chiropractic profession and the patients may also have been non-representative.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There were two distinctly different patterns for the time period between visits for MC patients and non-MC patients. For non-MC patients, the most frequent interval between visits was one week and for MC patients, the period was typically between two weeks and three months. It was primarily the chiropractor who made the next visit-decision. However, these results can perhaps not be extrapolated to other groups of patients and chiropractors.</p

The Nordic Maintenance Care Program – An interview study on the use of maintenance care in a selected group of Danish chiropractors

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although maintenance care appears to be relatively commonly used among chiropractors, the indications for its use are incompletely understood. A questionnaire survey was recently carried out among Swedish chiropractors in order to identify their choice of various management strategies, including maintenance care. That study revealed a common pattern of choice of strategies. However, it would be necessary to verify these findings in another study population and to obtain some additional information best collected through an interview.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>The main aim of the present study was to attempt to reproduce the findings in the Swedish study and to obtain more information on the use of maintenance care.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>A group of 11 chiropractors were selected because they used maintenance care. They were interviewed using the questionnaire from the previous Swedish survey. The questionnaire consisted of a simple description of a hypothetical patient with low back pain and nine possible ways in which the case could develop ("scenarios"). They could choose between six different management strategies for each scenario. In addition, the chiropractors were encouraged to provide their own definition of maintenance care in an open-ended question. Interviews were taped, transcribed and analyzed. For the open-ended question, statements were identified relating to six pre hoc defined topics on the inclusion criteria/rationale for maintenance care, the frequency of treatments, and the duration of the maintenance care program.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The open-ended question revealed that in patients with low back pain, maintenance care appears to be offered to prevent new events. The rationale was to obtain optimal spinal function. There appears to be no common convention on the frequency of treatments and duration of the treatment program was not mentioned by any of the interviewees.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results from the questionnaire in the Danish survey showed that the response pattern for the nine scenarios was similar to that obtained in the Swedish survey. There seems to be relative agreement between chiropractors working in different countries and sampled through different methods in relation to their choice of management strategies in patients with low back pain. However, more precise information is needed on the indications for maintenance care and its treatment program, before proceeding to studying its clinical validity.</p

The clinical aspects of the acute facet syndrome: results from a structured discussion among European chiropractors

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The term 'acute facet syndrome' is widely used and accepted amongst chiropractors, but poorly described in the literature, as most of the present literature relates to chronic facet joint pain. Therefore, research into the degree of consensus on the subject amongst a large group of chiropractic practitioners was seen to be a useful contribution.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>During the annual congress of The European Chiropractors Union (ECU) in 2008, the authors conducted a workshop involving volunteer chiropractors. Topics were decided upon in advance, and the participants were asked to form into groups of four or five. The groups were asked to reach consensus on several topics relating to a basic case of a forty-year old man, where an assumption was made that his pain originated from the facet joints. First, the participants were asked to agree on a maximum of three keywords on each of four topics relating to the presentation of pain: 1. location, 2. severity, 3. aggravating factors, and 4. relieving factors. Second, the groups were asked to agree on three orthopaedic and three chiropractic tests that would aid in diagnosing pain from the facet joints. Finally, they were asked to agree on the number, frequency and duration of chiropractic treatment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thirty-four chiropractors from nine European countries participated. They described the characteristics of an acute, uncomplicated facet syndrome as follows: local, ipsilateral pain, occasionally extending into the thigh with pain and decreased range of motion in extension and rotation both standing and sitting. They thought that the pain could be relieved by walking, lying with knees bent, using ice packs and taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and aggravated by prolonged standing or resting. They also stated that there would be no signs of neurologic involvement or antalgic posture and no aggravation of pain from sitting, flexion or coughing/sneezing.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The chiropractors attending the workshop described the characteristics of an acute, uncomplicated lumbar facet syndrome in much the same way as chronic pain from the facet joints has been described in the literature. Furthermore, the acute, uncomplicated facet syndrome was considered to have an uncomplicated clinical course, responding quickly to spinal manipulative therapy.</p

Correction: Who are the chiropractic students favouring a limitless scope of practice? Exploring the relationship with personality, magical thinking, and academic achievement

Following the publication of the original article [1], it has been brought to our attention that several of the provided references are mismatched in the Background section and are incorrectly recorded in the Reference section..

The Nordic back pain subpopulation program: predicting outcome among chiropractic patients in Finland

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In a previous Swedish study it was shown that it is possible to predict which chiropractic patients with persistent LBP will not report definite improvement early in the course of treatment, namely those with LBP for altogether at least 30 days in the past year, who had leg pain, and who did not report definite general improvement by the second treatment. The objectives of this study were to investigate if the predictive value of this set of variables could be reproduced among chiropractic patients in Finland, and if the model could be improved by adding some new potential predictor variables.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study was a multi-centre prospective outcome study with internal control groups, carried out in private chiropractic practices in Finland. Chiropractors collected data at the 1st, 2^ndand 4^thvisits using standardized questionnaires on new patients with LBP and/or radiating leg pain. Status at base-line was identified in relation to pain and disability, at the 2^ndvisit in relation to disability, and "definitely better" at the 4^thvisit in relation to a global assessment. The Swedish questionnaire was used including three new questions on general health, pain in other parts of the spine, and body mass index.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The Swedish model was reproduced in this study sample. An alternative model including leg pain (yes/no), improvement at 2^ndvisit (yes/no) and BMI (underweight/normal/overweight or obese) was also identified with similar predictive values. Common throughout the testing of various models was that improvement at the 2^ndvisit had an odds ratio of approximately 5. Additional analyses revealed a dose-response in that 84% of those patients who fulfilled none of these (bad) criteria were classified as "definitely better" at the 4^thvisit, vs. 75%, 60% and 34% of those who fulfilled 1, 2 or all 3 of the criteria, respectively.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>When treating patients with LBP, at the first visits, the treatment strategy should be different for overweight/obese patients with leg pain as it should be for all patients who fail to improve by the 2^ndvisit. The number of predictors is also important.</p

Who are the chiropractic students favouring a limitless scope of practice? Exploring the relationship with personality, magical thinking, and academic achievement

Introduction: Some chiropractors seem to have an inflated belief in the powers of spinal manipulation (SMT), for example aiming at preventing future spinal degeneration and health problems, activities that are without supporting evidence. Non-evidenced health beliefs have been shown to be associated with a tendency toward magical thinking. Holding such beliefs about SMT is associated with a limitless scope of practice (LLSoP). Recent studies have shown that “chiropractic conservatism” (ChiroCon) is also associated with such approaches. We wanted to understand ChiroCon and these attitudes toward SMT by exploring three different factors: intolerance to uncertainty, academic achievement, and tendency toward magical thinking and how they relate to ChiroCon and LLSoP. Method: A cross-sectional survey of 243 chiropractic students from an Australian chiropractic program was conducted in May 2020. Students answered a questionnaire involving a patient case-scenario for LLSoP, levels of ChiroCon, validated questionnaires on (i) Intolerance of uncertainty, (ii) Academic achievement, and (iii) Magical thinking. LLSoP was defined as wanting to treat with SMT a 5-year-old asymptomatic child for future (i) Musculoskeletal (MSK) problems and/or (ii) Non-musculoskeletal diseases. Logistic regression models were used to confirm if there was an association between ChiroCon and LLSoP and to explore associations between LLSoP and (i) Intolerance of uncertainty, (ii) Academic achievement, and (iii) Magical thinking. We repeated the same analyses using ChiroCon as the outcome variable. Results: We confirmed that chiropractic students in the more extreme ChiroCon group were more likely to want to prevent future spinal disorders in an asymptomatic 5-year-old child as compared to those with lower levels (OR = 3.9, (95%CI 1.97–7.72). This was also the case for the prevention of future diseases in the same child (OR = 6.9, (95%CI 3.11–15.06). Of the three predictor variables, magical belief was positively associated with both ChiroCon and LLSoP. Conclusion: Not surprisingly, ChiroCon is closely related to LLSoP and both were linked to magical thinking. Therefore, the questionnaire ‘Magical Health Beliefs’ could be a useful instrument to screen future chiropractic students to prevent a mismatch between student and institution. Depending on the outlook of the school, some schools would welcome these students, whereas other institutions would want to avoid them in their education program