Invasive Treatments for Low Back Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: This abbreviated version of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's Low Back Disorders guideline reviews the evidence and recommendations developed for invasive treatments used to manage low back disorders. METHODS: Comprehensive systematic literature reviews were accomplished with article abstraction, critiquing, grading, evidence table compilation, and guideline finalization by a multidisciplinary expert panel and extensive peer-review to develop evidence-based guidance. Consensus recommendations were formulated when evidence was lacking and often relied on analogy to other disorders for which evidence exists. A total of 47 high-quality and 321 moderate-quality trials were identified for invasive management of low back disorders. RESULTS: Guidance has been developed for the invasive management of acute, subacute, and chronic low back disorders and rehabilitation. This includes 49 specific recommendations. CONCLUSION: Quality evidence should guide invasive treatment for all phases of managing low back disorders.

Non-Invasive and Minimally Invasive Management of Low Back Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: This abbreviated version of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's (ACOEM) Low Back Disorders Guideline reviews the evidence and recommendations developed for non-invasive and minimally invasive management of low back disorders. METHODS: Systematic literature reviews were accomplished with article abstraction, critiquing, grading, evidence table compilation, and guideline finalization by a multidisciplinary expert panel and extensive peer-review to develop evidence-based guidance. Consensus recommendations were formulated when evidence was lacking. A total of 70 high-quality and 564 moderate-quality trials were identified for non-invasive low back disorders. Detailed algorithms were developed. RESULTS: Guidance has been developed for the management of acute, subacute, and chronic low back disorders and rehabilitation. This includes 121 specific recommendations. CONCLUSION: Quality evidence should guide treatment for all phases of managing low back disorders.

ACOEM practice guidelines: opioids for treatment of acute, subacute, chronic, and postoperative pain.

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's guidelines have been updated to develop more detailed guidance for treatment of acute, subacute, chronic, and postoperative pain with opioids. METHODS: Literature searches were performed using PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane Review, and Google Scholar without publication date limits. Of 264,617 articles' titles screened and abstracts reviewed, 263 articles met inclusion criteria. Of these, a total of 157 were of high and moderate quality addressing pain treatment. Comprehensive literature reviews were accomplished with article abstraction, critiquing, grading, evidence table compilation, and guideline finalization by a multidisciplinary expert panel to develop evidence-based guidance. RECOMMENDATIONS: No quality evidence directly supports histories, physical examinations, and opioid treatment agreements, although they are thought to be important. No quality trials were identified showing superiority of opioids, compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory and other medications for treatment of chronic, noncancer pain. The use of opioid-sparing treatments associated with lower doses of postoperative opioids is also associated with better long-term functional outcomes. Selective use of opioids is recommended for patients with acute and postoperative pain. Consensus recommendations also include consideration of carefully conducted trials of chronic opioid treatment for highly select patients with subacute and chronic pain and to maintenance opioid prescriptions only if documented objective functional gain(s) results. A strong and reproducible dose-response relationship identifies a recommended morphine equivalent dose limit of no more than 50 mg/day. Higher doses should be prescribed only with documented commensurately greater functional benefit(s), comprehensive monitoring for adverse effects, informed consent, and careful consideration of risk versus benefit of such treatment. Chronic opioid use should be accompanied by informed consent, a treatment agreement, tracking of functional benefits, drug screening, and attempts at tapering.

ACOEM practice guidelines: opioids and safety-sensitive work.

OBJECTIVE: ACOEM has updated the treatment guidelines concerning opioids. This report highlights the safety-sensitive work recommendation that has been developed. METHODS: Comprehensive literature reviews were accomplished with article abstraction, critiquing, grading, evidence table compilation, and guideline finalization by a multidisciplinary expert panel to develop evidence-based guidance. A total of 12 moderate-quality studies were identified to address motor vehicle crash risk, and none regarding other work among opioid-using patients. RESULTS: Acute or chronic opioid use is not recommended for patients who perform safety-sensitive jobs. These jobs include operating motor vehicles, other modes of transportation, forklift driving, overhead crane operation, heavy equipment operation and tasks involving high levels of cognitive function and judgment. CONCLUSION: Quality evidence consistently demonstrates increased risk of vehicle crashes and is recommended as the surrogate for other safety-sensitive work tasks.

Methodology to update the practice recommendations in the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines, second edition.

OBJECTIVE: To ensure that revisions to the second edition of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) guidelines are as valid and useful as possible. METHODS: The ACOEM Guideline Methodology Committee searched and synthesized the evidence-based medicine literature on systematic review and guideline development. The resulting process and tools were tested during guideline revision, and changes were made to the tools and process. RESULTS: The methodology specifies problem formulation, literature search methods, screening of studies, quality rating, summarization of the body of literature, recommendation drafting and rating, "first principles" of medical logic and ethics, training, expert panel review, stakeholder input, external review, pilot testing and Board of Directors approval. CONCLUSIONS: The process and tools developed are consistent with international guideline assessment criteria, robust, and internally and externally valid.