How is postoperative pain after hip and knee replacement managed? An analysis of two large hospitals in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesia regimens are recommended for the postoperative period after hip and knee replacement surgeries. However, there are no data on practice patterns for analgesic use in the immediate postoperative period after hip and knee replacements in Australia. OBJECTIVES: To describe analgesic prescribing patterns in the inpatient postoperative phase for patients undergoing hip and knee replacement. METHODS: Retrospective study of electronic medical record data from two major hospitals in Sydney, Australia. We identified analgesic medication prescriptions for all patients aged 18 years and older who underwent hip or knee replacement surgery in 2019. We extracted data on pain medications prescribed while in the ward up until discharge. These were grouped into distinct categories based on the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification. We described the frequency (%) of pain medications used by category and computed the average oral morphine equivalent daily dose (OMEDD) during hospitalisation. RESULTS: We identified 1282 surgeries in 1225 patients. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 69 (11.8) years; most (57.1%) were female. Over 99% of patients were prescribed opioid analgesics and paracetamol during their hospital stay. Most patients (61.4%) were managed with paracetamol and opioids only. The most common prescribed opioid was oxycodone (87.3% of patients). Only 19% of patients were prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs). The median (IQR) average daily OMEDD was 50.2 mg (30.3-77.9). CONCLUSION: We identified high use of opioids analgesics as the main strategies for pain control after hip and knee replacement in hospital. Other analgesics were much less frequently used, such as NSAIDs, and always in combination with opioids and paracetamol.

Racial and ethnic differences in the use of lumbar imaging, opioid analgesics and spinal surgery for low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is a substantial gap between evidence and clinical care for low back pain (LBP) worldwide despite recommendations of best practice specified in clinical practice guidelines. The aim of this systematic review was to identify disparities associated with race or ethnicity in the use of lumbar imaging, opioid analgesics, and spinal surgery in people with LBP. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: We included observational studies which compared the use of lumbar imaging, opioid analgesics, and spinal surgery for the management of non-serious LBP between people from different racial/ethnic populations. We searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from January 2000 to June 2021. Risk of bias of included studies was appraised in six domains. For each type of care, we pooled data stratified by race and ethnicity using random effects models. RESULTS: We identified 13 eligible studies; all conducted in the United States. Hispanic/Latino (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.49-0.96) and Black/African American (OR 0.59, 95%CI 0.46-0.75) people with LBP were less likely to be prescribed opioid analgesics than White people. Black/African Americans were less likely to undergo or be recommended spinal surgery for LBP (OR 0.47, 95%CI 0.33-0.67) than White people. There was a lack of high certainty evidence on racial/ethnic disparities in the use of lumbar imaging. CONCLUSION: This review reveals lower rate of the use of guideline-discordant care, especially opioid prescription and spinal surgery, in racial/ethnic minority populations with LBP in the United States. Future studies in other countries evaluating care equity for LBP are warranted. PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42021260668. SIGNIFICANCE: This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that people with low back pain from the minority racial/ethnic backgrounds were less likely to be prescribed opioid analgesics and undergo spinal surgery than the majority counterparts. Strategic interventions to improve the access to, and the value of, clinical care for minority populations with low back pain are warranted.

The environmental impact of health care for musculoskeletal conditions: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Health care has significant environmental impact. We performed a scoping review to map what is known about the environmental impact of health care for musculoskeletal conditions. METHODS: We included published papers of any design that measured or discussed environmental impact of health care or health support services for any musculoskeletal condition in terms of climate change or global warming (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions it produces). We searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to 2 May 2022 using keywords for environmental health and musculoskeletal conditions, and performed keyword searches using Google and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers screened studies. One author independently charted data, verified by a second author. A narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Of 12,302 publications screened and 73 identified from other searches, 122 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 49 were included (published 1994 to 2022). Of 24 original research studies, 11 measured environmental impact relating to climate change in orthopaedics (n = 10), and medical aids for the knee (n = 1), one measured energy expenditure of laminar versus turbulent airflow ventilation systems in operating rooms during simulated hip replacements and 12 measured waste associated with orthopaedic surgery but did not relate waste to greenhouse gas emissions or environmental effects. Twenty-one editorials described a need to reduce environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery (n = 9), physiotherapy (n = 9), podiatry (n = 2) or occupational therapy (n = 1). Four narrative reviews discussed sustainability relating to hand surgery (n = 2), orthopaedic surgery (n = 1) and orthopaedic implants (n = 1). CONCLUSION: Despite an established link between health care and greenhouse gas emissions we found limited empirical data estimating the impact of musculoskeletal health care on the environment. These data are needed to determine whether actions to lower the carbon footprint of musculoskeletal health care should be a priority and to identify those aspects of care that should be prioritised.

Public and patient perceptions of diagnostic labels for non-specific low back pain: a content analysis.

PURPOSE: An online randomised experiment found that the labels lumbar sprain, non-specific low back pain (LBP), and episode of back pain reduced perceived need for imaging, surgery and second opinions compared to disc bulge, degeneration, and arthritis among 1447 participants with and without LBP. They also reduced perceived seriousness of LBP and increased recovery expectations. METHODS: In this study we report the results of a content analysis of free-text data collected in our experiment. We used two questions: 1. When you hear the term [one of the six labels], what words or feelings does this make you think of? and 2. What treatment (s) (if any) do you think a person with [one of the six labels] needs? Two independent reviewers analysed 2546 responses. RESULTS: Ten themes emerged for Question1. Poor prognosis emerged for disc bulge, degeneration, and arthritis, while good prognosis emerged for lumbar sprain, non-specific LBP, and episode of back pain. Thoughts of tissue damage were less common for non-specific LBP and episode of back pain. Feelings of uncertainty frequently emerged for non-specific LBP. Twenty-eight treatments emerged for Question2. Surgery emerged for disc bulge, degeneration, and arthritis compared to lumbar sprain, non-specific LBP, and episode of back pain. Surgery did not emerge for non-specific LBP and episode of back pain. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that clinicians should consider avoiding the labels disc bulge, degeneration and arthritis and opt for labels that are associated with positive beliefs and less preference for surgery, when communicating with patients with LBP.

Paramedic care for back pain: A review of Australian and New Zealand clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is one of the most common reasons for a person to call an ambulance service, yet how ambulance services manage back pain has not been described. METHODS: Australian-state and New Zealand ambulance service jurisdiction websites were searched between 25th January to 3rd February 2022. Pain management guidelines were included where no specific back pain guideline was found. Identified guidelines were screened, appraised using AGREE II tool and recommendations on pharmacological and non-pharmacological management of back pain, ambulance transport and alerting features were extracted, summarised, and compared to two primary care guidelines. RESULTS: Nine guidelines were identified including four back pain and 5 pain management guidelines. All four back pain guidelines recommend paracetamol or ibuprofen as analgesic options to manage back pain. These guidelines recommend transport to the emergency department when there are alerting features for serious disease, lack of pain control or where the patient is unable to ambulate. 2 out of 9 ambulance guidelines were recommended for use in their existing format following quality appraisal using AGREE II tool. Ambulance guidelines scored significantly lower than primary care guidelines for back pain. CONCLUSION: Ambulance service guidelines for back pain recommend advice, reassurance, paracetamol and referral to primary care.

Effect of diagnostic labelling on management intentions for non-specific low back pain: A randomized scenario-based experiment.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic labels may influence treatment intentions. We examined the effect of labelling low back pain (LBP) on beliefs about imaging, surgery, second opinion, seriousness, recovery, work, and physical activities. METHODS: Six-arm online randomized experiment with blinded participants with and without LBP. Participants received one of six labels: 'disc bulge', 'degeneration', 'arthritis', 'lumbar sprain', 'non-specific LBP', 'episode of back pain'. The primary outcome was the belief about the need for imaging. RESULTS: A total of 1375 participants (mean [SD] age, 41.7 years [18.4 years]; 748 women [54.4%]) were included. The need for imaging was rated lower with the labels 'episode of back pain' (4.2 [2.9]), 'lumbar sprain' (4.2 [2.9]) and 'non-specific LBP' (4.4 [3.0]) compared to the labels 'arthritis' (6.0 [2.9]), 'degeneration' (5.7 [3.2]) and 'disc bulge' (5.7 [3.1]). The same labels led to higher recovery expectations and lower ratings of need for a second opinion, surgery and perceived seriousness compared to 'disc bulge', 'degeneration' and 'arthritis'. Differences were larger amongst participants with current LBP who had a history of seeking care. No differences were found in beliefs about physical activity and work between the six labels. CONCLUSIONS: 'Episode of back pain', 'lumbar sprain' and 'non-specific LBP' reduced need for imaging, surgery and second opinion compared to 'arthritis', 'degeneration' and 'disc bulge' amongst public and patients with LBP as well as reducing the perceived seriousness of LBP and enhancing recovery expectations. The impact of labels appears most relevant amongst those at risk of poor outcomes (participants with current LBP who had a history of seeking care).

A content analysis of online information about the benefits and harms of spine surgery.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether online information about the benefits and harms of surgery contains an accurate description of evidence. OBJECTIVE: To describe the proportion of webpages containing information about surgery for spinal pain (decompression and fusion) that accurately described the evidence on the benefits of surgery, described harms, and provided quantitative estimates of these harms. METHODS: We performed a content analysis of webpages containing information about spine surgery. Two reviewers identified webpages and extracted data. Primary outcomes were the proportion of webpages that accurately described the evidence on the benefits, described harms, and provided quantitative estimates of these harms. RESULTS: We included 117 webpages. Only 29 (25%) webpages accurately described the evidence on the benefits of spine surgery, and more webpages on decompression accurately described the evidence compared to webpages on fusion (31% vs 15%, difference in proportions = 16%; 95% CI: 2%, 31%). Harms of surgery were described in most webpages (n = 76, 65%), but a much smaller proportion of webpages (n = 18, 15%) provided a quantitative estimate for the mentioned harms. CONCLUSIONS: Most webpages failed to accurately describe the benefits and harms of decompression and fusion surgeries for spinal pain. Unbiased consumer resources and educating the public on how to critically evaluate health claims are important steps to improve knowledge on the benefits and harms of spine surgery.

Second opinions for spinal surgery: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Second opinions have the goal of clarifying uncertainties around diagnosis or management, particularly when healthcare decisions are complex, unpleasant, and carry considerable risks. Second opinions might be particularly useful for people recommended surgery for their back pain as surgery has at best a limited role in the management of back pain. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review. Two independent researchers screened PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and CINAHL from inception to May 6th, 2021. Studies of any design published in any language were eligible provided they described a second opinion intervention for people with spinal pain (low back or neck pain with or without radicular pain) either considering surgery or to whom surgery had been recommended. We assessed the methodological quality with the Downs & Black scale. Outcomes were: i) characteristics of second opinion services for people considering or who have been recommended spinal surgery, ii) agreement between first and second opinions in terms of diagnoses, need for surgery and type of surgery, iii) whether they reduce surgery and improve patient outcomes; and iv) the costs and healthcare use associated with these services. Outcomes were presented descriptively. RESULTS: We screened 6341 records, read 27 full-texts, and included 12 studies (all observational; 11 had poor methodological quality; one had fair). Studies described patient, doctor, and insurance-initiated second opinion services. Diagnostic agreement between first and second opinions varied from 53 to 96%. Agreement for need for surgery between first and second opinions ranged from 0 to 83%. Second opinion services may reduce surgery rates in the short-term, but it is unclear whether these reductions are sustained in the long-term or if patients only delay surgery. Second opinion services may reduce costs and healthcare use (e.g. imaging), but might increase others (e.g. injections). CONCLUSIONS: Second opinion services typically recommend less surgical treatments compared to first opinions and may reduce surgery rates in the short-term, but it is unclear whether these reductions are sustained in the long-term or if patients only delay surgery. There is a need for high-quality randomised trials to determine the value of second opinion services for reducing spinal surgery.

Many people admitted to hospital with a provisional diagnosis of nonserious back pain are subsequently found to have serious pathology as the underlying cause.

To determine the proportion of patients admitted to the hospital for back pain who have nonserious back pain, serious spinal, or serious other pathology as their final diagnosis. The proportion of nonserious back pain admissions will be used to plan for future 'virtual hospital' admissions. Electronic medical record data between January 2016 and September 2020 from three emergency departments (ED) in Sydney, Australia were used to identify inpatient admissions. SNOMED-CT-AU diagnostic codes were used to select ED patients aged 18 and older with an admitting diagnosis related to nonserious back pain. The inpatient discharge diagnosis was determined from the primary ICD-10-AM codes by two independent clinician-researchers. Inpatient admissions were then analysed by sociodemographic and hospital admission variables. A total of 38.1% of patients admitted with a provisional diagnosis of nonserious back pain were subsequently diagnosed with a specific pathology likely unsuitable for virtual care; 14.2% with a serious spinal pathology (e.g., fracture and infection) and 23.9% a serious pathology beyond the lumbar spine (e.g., pathological fracture and neoplasm). A total of 57% of admissions were identified as nonserious back pain, likely suitable for virtual care. A challenge for implementing virtual care in this setting is screening for patients with serious pathology. Protocols need to be developed to reduce the risk of patients being admitted to virtual hospitals with serious pathology as the cause of their back pain. Key Points • Among admitted patients provisionally diagnosed in ED with non-serious back pain, 38.1% were found to have 'serious spinal pathologies' or 'serious pathologies beyond the lumbar spine' at discharge. • Spinal fractures were the most common serious spinal pathology, accounting for 9% of all provisional 'non-serious back pain' admissions from ED. • 57% of back pain admissions were confirmed to be non-serious back pain and may be suitable to virtual hospital care; the challenge is discriminating these patients from those with serious pathology.

Efficacy and safety of antidepressants for the treatment of back pain and osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for back and osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 15 November and updated on 12 May 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy or safety, or both of any antidepressant drug with placebo (active or inert) in participants with low back or neck pain, sciatica, or hip or knee osteoarthritis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data. Pain and disability were primary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). A random effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Safety (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and proportion of participants who withdrew from trials owing to adverse events) was a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: 33 trials (5318 participants) were included. Moderate certainty evidence showed that serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) reduced back pain (mean difference -5.30, 95% confidence interval -7.31 to -3.30) at 3-13 weeks and low certainty evidence that SNRIs reduced osteoarthritis pain (-9.72, -12.75 to -6.69) at 3-13 weeks. Very low certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced sciatica at two weeks or less (-18.60, -31.87 to -5.33) but not at 3-13 weeks (-17.50, -42.90 to 7.89). Low to very low certainty evidence showed that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) did not reduce sciatica at two weeks or less (-7.55, -18.25 to 3.15) but did at 3-13 weeks (-15.95, -31.52 to -0.39) and 3-12 months (-27.0, -36.11 to -17.89). Moderate certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced disability from back pain at 3-13 weeks (-3.55, -5.22 to -1.88) and disability due to osteoarthritis at two weeks or less (-5.10, -7.31 to -2.89), with low certainty evidence at 3-13 weeks (-6.07, -8.13 to -4.02). TCAs and other antidepressants did not reduce pain or disability from back pain. CONCLUSION: Moderate certainty evidence shows that the effect of SNRIs on pain and disability scores is small and not clinically important for back pain, but a clinically important effect cannot be excluded for osteoarthritis. TCAs and SNRIs might be effective for sciatica, but the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020158521.

The effectiveness of hip arthroscopic surgery for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of hip arthroscopic surgery for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI). DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We performed electronic database searches in MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Scopus, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to July 10th 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing hip arthroscopic surgery to a placebo/sham surgery and other non-operative comparators (e.g. no intervention, physiotherapy, etc.). Two authors independently selected studies, rated risk of bias, extracted data, and judged overall certainty of evidence using GRADE. Hip-specific quality of life (QoL) at 12 months was the primary outcome. RESULTS: We identified three RCTs (n = 650 participants). There is high certainty evidence from three RCTs (n = 574 participants) that hip arthroscopic surgery provided superior outcomes compared to non-operative care for hip-specific QoL at 12 months (mean difference (MD): 11.02 points, 95% CI 4.83-17.21). Low quality evidence suggests that arthroscopic surgery provided similar outcomes to non-operative care for hip-specific QoL at 24 months (MD: 6.3, 95% CI -6.1 to 18.7). CONCLUSION: Hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI provides superior outcomes compared to non-operative care at 12 months, but not at 24 months. Placebo trials are needed to establish the efficacy of hip arthroscopic surgery.

What does best practice care for musculoskeletal pain look like? Eleven consistent recommendations from high-quality clinical practice guidelines: systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify common recommendations for high-quality care for the most common musculoskeletal (MSK) pain sites encountered by clinicians in emergency and primary care (spinal (lumbar, thoracic and cervical), hip/knee (including osteoarthritis [OA] and shoulder) from contemporary, high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). DESIGN: Systematic review, critical appraisal and narrative synthesis of MSK pain CPG recommendations. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Included MSK pain CPGs were written in English, rated as high quality, published from 2011, focused on adults and described development processes. Excluded CPGs were for: traumatic MSK pain, single modalities (eg, surgery), traditional healing/medicine, specific disease processes (eg, inflammatory arthropathies) or those that required payment. DATA SOURCES: Four scientific databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Physiotherapy Evidence Database) and four guideline repositories. RESULTS: 6232 records were identified, 44 CPGs were appraised and 11 were rated as high quality (low back pain: 4, OA: 4, neck: 2 and shoulder: 1). We identified 11 recommendations for MSK pain care: ensure care is patient centred, screen for red flag conditions, assess psychosocial factors, use imaging selectively, undertake a physical examination, monitor patient progress, provide education/information, address physical activity/exercise, use manual therapy only as an adjunct to other treatments, offer high-quality non-surgical care prior to surgery and try to keep patients at work. CONCLUSION: These 11 recommendations guide healthcare consumers, clinicians, researchers and policy makers to manage MSK pain. This should improve the quality of care of MSK pain.

Care for low back pain: can health systems deliver?

Low back pain is the leading cause of years lived with disability globally. In 2018, an international working group called on the World Health Organization to increase attention on the burden of low back pain and the need to avoid excessively medical solutions. Indeed, major international clinical guidelines now recognize that many people with low back pain require little or no formal treatment. Where treatment is required the recommended approach is to discourage use of pain medication, steroid injections and spinal surgery, and instead promote physical and psychological therapies. Many health systems are not designed to support this approach. In this paper we discuss why care for low back pain that is concordant with guidelines requires system-wide changes. We detail the key challenges of low back pain care within health systems. These include the financial interests of pharmaceutical and other companies; outdated payment systems that favour medical care over patients' self-management; and deep-rooted medical traditions and beliefs about care for back pain among physicians and the public. We give international examples of promising solutions and policies and practices for health systems facing an increasing burden of ineffective care for low back pain. We suggest policies that, by shifting resources from unnecessary care to guideline-concordant care for low back pain, could be cost-neutral and have widespread impact. Small adjustments to health policy will not work in isolation, however. Workplace systems, legal frameworks, personal beliefs, politics and the overall societal context in which we experience health, will also need to change.

Les lombalgies sont la principale cause d'années de vie vécues avec une incapacité dans le monde. En 2018, un groupe de travail international a invité l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé à attirer l'attention sur la charge que représentent les lombalgies et sur la nécessité d'éviter le recours excessif aux solutions médicales. En effet, selon les dernières recommandations cliniques internationales, de nombreux cas de lombalgie ne nécessitent pas ou peu de traitement formel. Lorsqu'un traitement est requis, il est recommandé de limiter la prise d'analgésiques, les injections de stéroïdes et la chirurgie rachidienne, et d'encourager plutôt les thérapeutiques physiques et psychologiques. Très souvent, les systèmes de santé ne sont pas conçus pour appliquer cette approche. Dans cet article, nous abordons les raisons pour lesquelles un changement des systèmes s'impose si l'on veut prendre en charge les lombalgies suivant les recommandations. Nous détaillons les principales difficultés de la prise en charge des lombalgies dans le cadre des systèmes de santé. Il s'agit notamment des intérêts financiers des laboratoires pharmaceutiques, entre autres; des systèmes de paiement obsolètes qui privilégient la prise en charge médicale à l'autogestion par les patients; et de croyances et traditions médicales profondément ancrées parmi les médecins et la population. Nous donnons des exemples internationaux de solutions, de politiques et de pratiques prometteuses pour les systèmes de santé confrontés de plus en plus souvent à une prise en charge inefficace des lombalgies. Nous suggérons des politiques qui, sans incidence sur les coûts, en transférant les ressources allouées aux soins inutiles vers des soins conformes aux recommandations, pourraient avoir un impact considérable. De petits ajustements des politiques de santé ne suffiront cependant pas. Les systèmes des milieux professionnels, les cadres juridiques, les croyances personnelles, les politiques et le contexte sociétal global dans lequel s'inscrit la santé devront également changer.

El dolor lumbar es la causa principal de vivir con discapacidad durante años en todo el mundo. En 2018, un grupo de trabajo internacional pidió a la Organización Mundial de la Salud que prestara más atención a la carga del dolor lumbar y a la necesidad de evitar soluciones excesivamente médicas. De hecho, las principales directrices clínicas internacionales reconocen ahora que muchas personas con dolor lumbar requieren poco o ningún tratamiento formal. Cuando se requiere tratamiento, el enfoque recomendado es desalentar el uso de analgésicos, inyecciones de esteroides y cirugía de la columna vertebral y, en su lugar, promover las terapias físicas y psicológicas. Muchos sistemas de salud no están diseñados para apoyar este enfoque. En este documento, se expone por qué el cuidado del dolor lumbar de acuerdo con las directrices requiere cambios en todo el sistema. Se detallan los retos clave de la atención del dolor lumbar en los sistemas de salud. Estos incluyen los intereses financieros de las compañías farmacéuticas y de otro tipo, los sistemas de pago obsoletos que favorecen la atención médica por encima del autocuidado de los pacientes, así como las tradiciones y las creencias médicas profundamente arraigadas sobre la atención del dolor de espalda entre los médicos y el público general. Se presentan ejemplos internacionales de soluciones prometedoras y de políticas y prácticas para los sistemas de salud que se enfrentan a una carga cada vez mayor de la atención ineficaz para el dolor lumbar. Se sugieren políticas que, al desplazar los recursos de la atención innecesaria a la atención acorde con las directrices para el dolor lumbar, podrían ser neutras en cuanto a costes y tener un impacto generalizado. Sin embargo, los pequeños ajustes en la política sanitaria no funcionarán de forma aislada. Los sistemas del lugar de trabajo, los marcos jurídicos, las creencias personales, la política y el contexto social general en el que vivimos la salud también tendrán que cambiar.

Risk factors for low back pain and sciatica: an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a highly prevalent condition and it is associated with significant disability and work absenteeism worldwide. A variety of environmental and individual characteristics have been reported to increase the risk of LBP. To our knowledge, there has been no previous attempt to summarize the evidence from existing systematic reviews of risk factors for LBP or sciatica. PURPOSE: To provide an overview of risk factors for LBP, we completed an umbrella review of the evidence from existing systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN: An umbrella review was carried out. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed PsychINFO, and CINAHL databases. To focus on the most recent evidence, we only included systematic reviews published in the last 5 years (2011-2016) examining any risk factor for LBP or sciatica. Only systematic reviews of cohort studies enrolling participants without LBP and sciatica at baseline were included. The methodological quality of the reviews was assessed independently by two review authors, using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool. RESULTS: We included 15 systematic reviews containing 134 cohort studies. Four systematic reviews were of high methodological quality and 11 were of moderate quality. Of the 54 risk factors investigated, 38 risk factors were significantly associated with increased risk of LBP or sciatica in at least one systematic review and the odds ratios ranged from 1.26 to 13.00. Adverse risk factors included characteristics of the individual (eg, older age), poor general health (eg, smoking), physical stress on spine (eg, vibration), and psychological stress (eg, depression). CONCLUSION: Poor general health, physical and psychological stress, and characteristics of the person increase risk for a future episode of LBP or sciatica.

Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions.

Many clinical practice guidelines recommend similar approaches for the assessment and management of low back pain. Recommendations include use of a biopsychosocial framework to guide management with initial non-pharmacological treatment, including education that supports self-management and resumption of normal activities and exercise, and psychological programmes for those with persistent symptoms. Guidelines recommend prudent use of medication, imaging, and surgery. The recommendations are based on trials almost exclusively from high-income countries, focused mainly on treatments rather than on prevention, with limited data for cost-effectiveness. However, globally, gaps between evidence and practice exist, with limited use of recommended first-line treatments and inappropriately high use of imaging, rest, opioids, spinal injections, and surgery. Doing more of the same will not reduce back-related disability or its long-term consequences. The advances with the greatest potential are arguably those that align practice with the evidence, reduce the focus on spinal abnormalities, and ensure promotion of activity and function, including work participation. We have identified effective, promising, or emerging solutions that could offer new directions, but that need greater attention and further research to determine if they are appropriate for large-scale implementation. These potential solutions include focused strategies to implement best practice, the redesign of clinical pathways, integrated health and occupational interventions to reduce work disability, changes in compensation and disability claims policies, and public health and prevention strategies.

Clinician, patient and general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain: protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about how to reduce unnecessary imaging for low back pain. Understanding clinician, patient and general public beliefs about imaging is critical to developing strategies to reduce overuse. OBJECTIVE: To synthesise qualitative research that has explored clinician, patient or general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a qualitative evidence synthesis of relevant qualitative research exploring clinician, patient and general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain. Exclusions will be studies not using qualitative methods and studies not published in English. Studies will be identified using sensitive search strategies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO. Two reviewers will independently apply inclusion and exclusion criteria, extract data, and use the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool to assess the quality of included studies. To synthesise the data we will use a narrative synthesis approach that involves developing a theoretical model, conducting a preliminary synthesis, exploring relations in the data, and providing a structured summary. We will code the data using NVivo. At least two reviewers will independently apply the thematic framework to extracted data. Confidence in synthesis findings will be evaluated using the GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required to conduct this review. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017076047.