Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Clinical care standards for the management of low back pain: a scoping review.
Alves, Gabriel S; Vera, Gustavo E Z; Maher, Chris G; Ferreira, Giovanni E; Machado, Gustavo C; Buchbinder, Rachelle; Pinto, Rafael Z; Oliveira, Crystian B.
Afiliação
  • Alves GS; Faculty of Medicine, University of Western São Paulo (UNOESTE), Presidente Prudente, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
  • Vera GEZ; Faculty of Medicine, University of Western São Paulo (UNOESTE), Presidente Prudente, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
  • Maher CG; Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney Local Health District, Level 10N, King George V Building, Missenden Road, P. O. Box M179, Camperdown, 2050, Australia.
  • Ferreira GE; Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
  • Machado GC; Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney Local Health District, Level 10N, King George V Building, Missenden Road, P. O. Box M179, Camperdown, 2050, Australia.
  • Buchbinder R; Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
  • Pinto RZ; Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney Local Health District, Level 10N, King George V Building, Missenden Road, P. O. Box M179, Camperdown, 2050, Australia.
  • Oliveira CB; Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Rheumatol Int ; 44(7): 1197-1207, 2024 Jul.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38421427
ABSTRACT
The objective of this study is to compare and contrast the quality statements and quality indicators across clinical care standards for low back pain. Searches were performed in Medline, guideline databases, and Google searches to identify clinical care standards for the management of low back pain targeting a multidisciplinary audience. Two independent reviewers reviewed the search results and extracted relevant information from the clinical care standards. We compared the quality statements and indicators of the clinical care standards to identify the consistent messages and the discrepancies between them. Three national clinical care standards from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom were included. They provided from 6 to 8 quality statements and from 12 to 18 quality indicators. The three standards provide consistent recommendations in the quality statements related to imaging, and patient education/advice and self-management. In addition, the Canadian and Australian standards also provide consistent recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. However, the three clinical care standards differ in the statements related to psychological assessment, opioid analgesics, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies. The three national clinical care standards provide consistent recommendations on imaging and patient education/advice, self-management of the condition, and two standards (Canadian and Australian) agree on recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. The standards differ in the quality statements related to psychological assessment, opioid prescription, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Dor Lombar Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: Oceania Idioma: En Revista: Rheumatol Int Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Brasil

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Dor Lombar Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: Oceania Idioma: En Revista: Rheumatol Int Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Brasil