Congruence between decisions to initiate chiropractic spinal manipulation for low back pain and appropriateness criteria in North America.

BACKGROUND: Recent U.S. practice guidelines recommend spinal manipulation for some patients with low back pain. If followed, these guidelines are likely to increase the number of persons referred for chiropractic care. Concerns have been raised about the appropriate use of chiropractic care, but systematic data are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To determine the appropriateness of chiropractors' decisions to use spinal manipulation for patients with low back pain. DESIGN: Retrospective review of chiropractic office records against preset criteria for appropriateness that were developed from a systematic review of the literature and a nine-member panel of chiropractic and medical specialists. Appropriateness criteria reflect the expected balance between risk and benefit. SETTING: 131 of 185 (71%) chiropractic offices randomly sampled from sites in the United States and Canada. PATIENTS: 10 randomly selected records of patients presenting with low back pain from each office (1310 patients total). MEASUREMENTS: Sociodemographic data on patients and chiropractors; use of health care services by patients; assessment of the decision to initiate spinal manipulation as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate. RESULTS: Of the 1310 patients who sought chiropractic care for low back pain, 1088 (83%) had spinal manipulation. For 859 of these patients (79%), records contained data sufficient to determine whether care was congruent with appropriateness criteria. Care was classified as appropriate in 46% of cases, uncertain in 25% of cases, and inappropriate in 29% of cases. Patients who did not undergo spinal manipulation were less likely to have a presentation judged appropriate and were more likely to have a presentation judged inappropriate than were patients who did undergo spinal manipulation (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of chiropractic spinal manipulation judged to be congruent with appropriateness criteria is similar to proportions previously described for medical procedures; thus, the findings provide some reassurance about the appropriate application of chiropractic care. However, more than one quarter of patients were treated for indications that were judged inappropriate. The number of inappropriate decisions to use chiropractic spinal manipulation should be decreased.

Use of chiropractic services from 1985 through 1991 in the United States and Canada.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this paper is to describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of chiropractic patients and to document chiropractic visit rates in 6 sites in the United States and Canada. METHODS: Random samples of chiropractors from 5 US sites and 1 Canadian site were selected. A record abstraction system was developed to obtain demographic and clinical data from office charts. RESULTS: Of the 185 eligible chiropractors sampled, 131 (71%) participated. Sixty-eight percent of the selected charts showed that care was sought for low back pain, while 32% recorded care for other reasons. Spinal manipulative therapy was recorded in 83% of all charts. There was a greater than 2-fold difference in the median number of visits related to low back pain per episode of care across sites. The chiropractic visit rates in the US sites and Ontario are estimated to be 101.2 and 140.9 visits per 100 person-years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The chiropractic use rate in these sites is twice that of estimates made 15 years ago. The great majority of patients receive care for musculoskeletal conditions of the back and neck. The number of visits per episode varies appreciably by site.

The state of the art of research on chiropractic education.

OBJECTIVE: To review the current status of research on chiropractic education, including barriers to chiropractic educational research, and provide recommendations for future research activities. DESIGN: Narrative literature review with annotated bibliography and formal consensus statements using a modified nominal group process. METHODS: A literature search from January 1985 to May 1996. The following databases were searched: Medline, Chirolars, CINAHL and ERIC. Keywords included student selection, curriculum, student learning, faculty development, performance assessment, instruction, accreditation, program evaluation, interdisciplinary education, institutional culture, governance and leadership. Conference proceedings and the personal files of the authors were searched for relevant citations. A modified nominal group process was used to generate recommendations by the education study group. RESULTS: The vast majority of current chiropractic educational research studies are descriptive in nature and receive no external funding. These studies are usually presented at chiropractic conferences and published in chiropractic journals. The annotated bibliography identifies key studies and potential models for future research. The education study group recommended that the chiropractic profession should embrace a patient-centered approach to health care and engage in research concerning all components of the educational process including assessment of students, faculty and educational programs. CONCLUSION: The field of chiropractic educational research should develop its theory and science by defining research issues and questions for investigation and then underpin them with appropriate research methodology. Studies of the chiropractic educational process is critical to the future of chiropractic education and practice.

The appropriateness of chiropractic spinal manipulation for low back pain: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal manipulation is an efficacious therapy for some patients with low back pain (LBP). In this pilot study, we tested the feasibility of assessing the appropriateness of chiropractic spinal manipulation for patients with LBP. METHODS: Criteria for the appropriate and inappropriate use of spinal manipulation for low back pain were developed using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Two separate expert panels, one multidisciplinary and one all chiropractic, each rated a comprehensive array of clinical scenarios for appropriateness. A random sample of practicing chiropractors was selected, and data were collected from ten randomly selected office records from each participating clinician. Assessment of the appropriateness for the use of spinal manipulation was made by comparing the care delivered with the appropriateness criteria determined by each expert panel. RESULTS: Eight of thirteen (62%) eligible chiropractors agreed to participate. For the remainder, by the multidisciplinary panel's criteria, 38% of care was appropriate and 26% of care was inappropriate. By the all-chiropractic panel's criteria, the same cases were judged 74% appropriate and 7% inappropriate. The two panel's appropriateness ratings were in agreement on 48% of all cases. CONCLUSIONS: In this geographic area, the rate of appropriate care is between 38% and 74% and the rate of inappropriate care is between 7% and 19%, depending on the criteria used to assess appropriateness. Data from other geographic areas of the U.S. will be needed before inferences to a larger population may be drawn, and we have demonstrated that such a study is feasible.

Spinal manipulation for low-back pain.

PURPOSE: To review the use, complications, and efficacy of spinal manipulation as a treatment for low-back pain. DATA IDENTIFICATION: Articles were identified through a MEDLINE search, review of articles' bibliographies, and advice from expert orthopedists and chiropractors. STUDY SELECTION: All studies reporting use and complications of spinal manipulation and all controlled trials of the efficacy of spinal manipulation were analyzed. Fifty-eight articles, including 25 controlled trials, were retrieved. DATA ANALYSIS: Data on the use and complications of spinal manipulation were summarized. Controlled trials of efficacy were critically appraised for study quality. Data from nine studies were combined using the confidence profile method of meta-analysis to estimate the effect of spinal manipulation on patients' pain and functional outcomes. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Chiropractors provide most of the manipulative therapy used in the United States for patients with low-back pain. Serious complications of lumbar manipulation, including paraplegia and death, have been reported. Although the occurrence rate of these complications is unknown, it is probably low. For patients with uncomplicated, acute low-back pain, the difference in probability of recovery at 3 weeks favoring treatment with spinal manipulation is 0.17 (for example, increase in recovery from 50% to 67%; 95% probability limits of estimate, 0.07 to 0.28). For patients with low-back pain and sciatic nerve irritation, the difference in probabilities of recovery at 4 weeks is 0.098 (probability limits, -0.016 to 0.209). CONCLUSIONS: Spinal manipulation is of short-term benefit in some patients, particularly those with uncomplicated, acute low-back pain. Data are insufficient concerning the efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic low-back pain.

Proposal for establishing structure and process in the development of implicit chiropractic standards of care and practice guidelines.

With the advent of health care's "era of accountability", the chiropractic profession is now faced with generating implicit standards and guidelines for care or having it done for us by outside agencies. Already we see chiropractic groups in individual states and provinces being pressured into naive efforts of guideline development. Current knowledge and experience are available through recent health care literature that clearly defines the structure and process of guideline development and offers suggestions on how to measure outcomes of those processes. In addition, the United States Congress has directed a new federal agency to oversee this activity and monitor outcomes of quality improvement programs. The time has come for the chiropractic profession to define its exact role in health care delivery and develop implicit standards of care and practice guidelines. This sentinel effort should be managed by a commissioned body of empaneled experts that generally represent the academic and clinical chiropractic profession. A protocol for selection of these panelists and the panel chairperson needs to be developed and memorialized. Appropriate methodology (with definitions) needs to be developed for the process of standards/guideline development. Adherence to the accepted structure and process of guideline development will ensure the continuity of this dynamic process in the coming generations. This proposal offers a preliminary definition of the structure and process, including a "seed" policy statement and decision flow chart, specific to guideline development. Once the structure and process of guideline development for chiropractic are defined, the profession can then present this product to federal and state agencies, private sector health care purchasers, patient advocacy groups and other stakeholders of chiropractic care.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Functional outcomes of low back pain: comparison of four treatment groups in a randomized controlled trial.

The revised Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire (ROLBPQ) and Roland-Morris Activity Scale (RMAS) were compared in a randomized controlled trial of chiropractic manipulation, stroking massage, corset and transcutaneous muscular stimulation (TMS). This trial employed specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, including nonspecific low back pain for a duration of 3 wk to 6 months and ages between 18 and 55. We had the opportunity to ask 85 patients to answer the questionnaires. Sixty-three patients, who completed the initial and final evaluations, were used for data analysis. Both ROLBPQ and RMAS showed good internal consistency with alpha coefficients ranging from .77 to .93. Both instruments showed a significant difference between the chiropractic manipulation and massage groups (p less than .05). RMAS was able to further show significant differences between the chiropractic manipulation and TMS groups, and between the corset and massage groups, but the ROLBPQ failed to do so. RMAS also showed that chiropractic manipulation had a better but nonsignificant result than corset, possibly due to insufficient sample size and/or duration of treatment. We conclude that both instruments are reliable for measuring low back pain disability, and chiropractic manipulation has a superior short-term benefit when compared to stroking massage and TMS in subacute low back pain patients. In addition, it appears that RMAS is preferable in a clinical trial situation for subacute low back pain because it is more sensitive than ROLBPQ to detect changes.