Predictors of Pain Management Strategies in Adults with Low-Back Pain: A Secondary Analysis of Amazon Mechanical Turk Survey Data.

Objective: To evaluate the associations between baseline demographics, health conditions, pain management strategies, and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) measures with pain management strategies at 3-month follow-up in respondents reporting current low-back pain (LBP). Study design: Cohort study of survey data collected from adults with LBP sampled from Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing panel. Methods: Demographics, health conditions, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-10 were included in the baseline survey. Respondents reporting LBP completed a more comprehensive survey inquiring about pain management strategies and several HRQoL measures. Bivariate then multivariate logistic regression estimated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between baseline characteristics and pain management utilization at 3-month follow-up. Model fit statistics were evaluated to assess the predictive value. Results: The final cohort included 717 respondents with completed surveys. The most prevalent pain management strategy at follow-up was other care (n = 474), followed by no care (n = 94), conservative care only (n = 76), medical care only (n = 51), and medical and conservative care combined (n = 22). The conservative care only group had higher (better) mental and physical health PROMIS-10 scores as opposed to the medical care only and combination care groups, which had lower (worse) physical health scores. In multivariate models, estimated ORs (95% CIs) for the association between baseline and follow-up pain management ranged from 4.6 (2.7-7.8) for conservative care only to 16.8 (6.9-40.7) for medical care only. Additional significant baseline predictors included age, income, education, workman's compensation claim, Oswestry Disability Index score, and Global Chronic Pain Scale grade. Conclusions: This study provides important information regarding the association between patient characteristics, HRQoL measures, and LBP-related pain management utilization.

Guideline-concordant utilization of magnetic resonance imaging in adults receiving chiropractic manipulative therapy vs other care for radicular low back pain: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (LMRI) is often performed early in the course of care, which can be discordant with guidelines for non-serious low back pain. Our primary hypothesis was that adults receiving chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) for incident radicular low back pain (rLBP) would have reduced odds of early LMRI over 6-weeks' follow-up compared to those receiving other care (a range of medical care, excluding CSMT). As a secondary hypothesis, CSMT recipients were also expected to have reduced odds of LMRI over 6-months' and 1-years' follow-up. METHODS: A national 84-million-patient health records database including large academic healthcare organizations (TriNetX) was queried for adults age 20-70 with rLBP newly-diagnosed between January 31, 2012 and January 31, 2022. Receipt or non-receipt of CSMT determined cohort allocation. Patients with prior lumbar imaging and serious pathology within 90 days of diagnosis were excluded. Propensity score matching controlled for variables associated with LMRI utilization (e.g., demographics). Odds ratios (ORs) of LMRI over 6-weeks', 6-months', and 1-years' follow-up after rLBP diagnosis were calculated. RESULTS: After matching, there were 12,353 patients per cohort (mean age 50 years, 56% female), with a small but statistically significant reduction in odds of early LMRI in the CSMT compared to other care cohort over 6-weeks' follow-up (9%, 10%, OR [95% CI] 0.88 [0.81-0.96] P = 0.0046). There was a small but statistically significant increase in odds of LMRI among patients in the CSMT relative to the other care cohort over 6-months' (12%, 11%, OR [95% CI] 1.10 [1.02-1.19], P < 0.0174) and 1-years' follow-up (14%, 12%, OR [95% CI] 1.21 [1.13-1.31], P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that patients receiving CSMT for newly-diagnosed rLBP are less likely to receive early LMRI than patients receiving other care. However, CSMT recipients have a small increase in odds of LMRI over the long-term. Both cohorts in this study had a relatively low rate of early LMRI, possibly because the data were derived from academic healthcare organizations. The relationship of these findings to other patient care outcomes and cost should be explored in a future randomized controlled trial. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/t9myp ).

Risk of Treatment Escalation in Recipients vs Nonrecipients of Spinal Manipulation for Musculoskeletal Cervical Spine Disorders: An Analysis of Insurance Claims.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between treatment escalation and spinal manipulation in a retrospective cohort of people diagnosed with musculoskeletal disorders of the cervical spine. METHODS: We used retrospective analysis of insurance claims data (2012-2018) from a single Fortune 500 company. After isolating the first episode of care, we categorized 58 147 claims into 7951 unique patient episodes. Treatment escalation included claims where imaging, injection, emergency room, or surgery was present. Modified Poisson regression was used to determine the relative risk of treatment escalation comparing recipients vs nonrecipients of spinal manipulation, adjusted for age, sex, episode duration, and risk scores. RESULTS: The sample was 55% women, with a mean age of 44 years (range, 18-103). Treatment escalation was present in 42% of episodes overall: 2448 (46%) associated with other care and 876 (26%) associated with spinal manipulation. The estimated risk of any treatment escalation was 2.38 times higher in those who received other care than in those who received spinal manipulation (95% confidence interval, 2.22-2.55, P = .001). CONCLUSION: Among episodes of care associated with neck pain diagnoses, those associated with other care had twice the risk of any treatment escalation compared with those associated with spinal manipulation. In the United States, over 90% of spinal manipulation is provided by doctors of chiropractic; therefore, these findings are relevant and should be considered in addressing solutions for neck pain. Additional research investigating the factors influencing treatment escalation is necessary to moderate the use of high-cost and guideline-incongruent procedures in people with neck pain.

Three Patterns of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Back Pain and Their Association With Imaging Studies, Injection Procedures, and Surgery: A Cohort Study of Insurance Claims.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between procedures and care patterns in back pain episodes by analyzing health insurance claims. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of insurance claims data from a single Fortune 500 company. The 3 care patterns we analyzed were initial spinal manipulative therapy, delayed spinal manipulative therapy, and no spinal manipulative therapy. The 3 procedures analyzed were imaging studies, injection procedures, and back surgery. We considered "escalated care" to be any claims with diagnostic imaging, injection procedures, or back surgery. Modified-Poisson regression modeling was used to determine relative risk of escalated care. RESULTS: There were 83 025 claims that were categorized into 10 372 unique patient first episodes. Spinal manipulative therapy was present in 2943 episodes (28%). Initial spinal manipulation was present in 2519 episodes (24%), delayed spinal manipulation was present in 424 episodes (4%), and 7429 (72%) had no evidence of spinal manipulative therapy. The estimated relative risk, adjusted for age, sex, and risk score, for care escalation (eg, imaging, injections, or surgery) was 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.75, P < .001) for initial spinal manipulation and 1.22 (95% confidence interval 1.10-1.35, P < .001) for delayed spinal manipulation with no spinal manipulation used as the reference group. CONCLUSION: For claims associated with initial episodes of back pain, initial spinal manipulative therapy was associated with an approximately 30% decrease in the risk of imaging studies, injection procedures, or back surgery compared with no spinal manipulative therapy. The risk of imaging studies, injection procedures, or back surgery in episodes in the delayed spinal manipulative therapy group was higher than those without spinal manipulative therapy.