Current Evidence for Diagnosis of Common Conditions Causing Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Standardized Terminology Recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate and summarize current evidence for diagnosis of common conditions causing low back pain and to propose standardized terminology use. METHODS: A systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted from inception through December 2018. Electronic databases searched included PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Index to Chiropractic Literature. Methodological quality was assessed with the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. RESULTS: Of the 3995 articles screened, 36 (8 systematic reviews and 28 individual studies) met final eligibility criteria. Diagnostic criteria for identifying likely discogenic, sacroiliac joint, and zygapophyseal (facet) joint pain are supported by clinical studies using injection-confirmed tissue provocation or anesthetic procedures. Diagnostic criteria for myofascial pain, sensitization (central and peripheral), and radicular pain are supported by expert consensus-level evidence. Criteria for radiculopathy and neurogenic claudication are supported by studies using combined expert-level consensus and imaging findings. CONCLUSION: The absence of high-quality, objective, gold-standard diagnostic methods limits the accuracy of current evidence-based criteria and results in few high-quality studies with a low risk of bias in patient selection and reference standard diagnosis. These limitations suggest practitioners should use evidence-based criteria to inform working diagnoses rather than definitive diagnoses for low back pain. To avoid the unnecessary complexity and confusion created by multiple overlapping and nonspecific terms, adopting International Association for the Study of Pain terminology and definitions is recommended.

Development of an Evidence-Based Practical Diagnostic Checklist and Corresponding Clinical Exam for Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to use scientific evidence to develop a practical diagnostic checklist and corresponding clinical exam for patients presenting with low back pain (LBP). METHODS: An iterative process was conducted to develop a diagnostic checklist and clinical exam for LBP using evidence-based diagnostic criteria. The checklist and exam were informed by a systematic review focused on summarizing current research evidence for office-based clinical evaluation of common conditions causing LBP. RESULTS: Diagnostic categories contained within the checklist and exam include nociceptive pain, neuropathic pain, and sensitization. Nociceptive pain subcategories include discogenic, myofascial, sacroiliac, and zygapophyseal (facet) joint pain. Neuropathic pain categories include neurogenic claudication, radicular pain, radiculopathy, and peripheral entrapment (piriformis and thoracolumbar syndrome). Sensitization contains 2 subtypes, central and peripheral sensitization. The diagnostic checklist contains individual diagnostic categories containing evidence-based criteria, applicable examination procedures, and checkboxes to record clinical findings. The checklist organizes and displays evidence for or against a working diagnosis. The checklist may help to ensure needed information is obtained from a patient interview and exam in a variety of primary spine care settings (eg, medical, chiropractic). CONCLUSION: The available evidence informs reasonable working diagnoses for many conditions causing or contributing to LBP. A practical diagnostic process including an exam and checklist is offered to guide clinical evaluation and demonstrate evidence for working diagnoses in clinical settings.

Chiropractic Integration into Private Sector Medical Facilities: A Multisite Qualitative Case Study.

OBJECTIVES: Chiropractic care may have value in improving patient outcomes and decreasing opioid use, but little is known about the impetus for or process of incorporating these services into conventional medical settings. The purpose of this qualitative study was to describe organizational structures, care processes, and perceived value of chiropractic integration within U.S. private sector medical facilities. DESIGN: Multisite, comparative organizational case study. SETTINGS: Nine U.S. private sector medical facilities with on-site chiropractic care, including five hospitals and four clinics. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and thirty-five key facility stakeholders including doctors of chiropractic (DCs), non-DC clinicians, support staff, administrators, and patients. METHODS: Researchers conducted 2-day site visits to all settings. Qualitative data were collected from audio-recorded, semi-structured, role-specified, individual interviews; standardized organizational data tables; and archival document review. A three-member, interdisciplinary team conducted thematic content analysis of verbatim transcripts using an existing conceptual framework and emergent codes. RESULTS: These nine medical facilities had unique organizational structures and reasons for initiating chiropractic care in their settings. Across sites, DCs were sought to take an evidence-based approach to patient care, work collaboratively within a multidisciplinary team, engage in interprofessional case management, and adopt organizational mission and values. Chiropractic clinics were implemented within existing human resources, physical plant, information technology, and administrative support systems, and often expanded over time to address patient demand. DCs usually were co-located with medical providers and integrated into the collaborative management of patients with musculoskeletal and co-morbid conditions. Delivery of chiropractic services was perceived to have high value among patients, medical providers, and administration. Patient clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, provider productivity, and cost offset were identified as markers of clinic success. CONCLUSION: A diverse group of U.S. private sector medical facilities have implemented chiropractic clinics, and a wide variety of facility stakeholders report high satisfaction with the care provided.

Integration of Doctors of Chiropractic Into Private Sector Health Care Facilities in the United States: A Descriptive Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the demographic, facility, and practice characteristics of doctors of chiropractic (DCs) working in private sector health care settings in the United States. METHODS: We conducted an online, cross-sectional survey using a purposive sample of DCs (n = 50) working in integrated health care facilities. The 36-item survey collected demographic, facility, chiropractic, and interdisciplinary practice characteristics, which were analyzed with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The response rate was 76% (n = 38). Most respondents were men and mid-career professionals with a mean 21 years of experience in chiropractic. Doctors of chiropractic reported working in hospitals (40%), multispecialty offices (21%), ambulatory clinics (16%), or other (21%) health care settings. Most (68%) were employees and received salary compensation (59%). The median number of DCs per setting was 2 (range 1-8). Most DCs used the same health record as medical staff and worked in the same clinical setting. More than 60% reported co-management of patients with medical professionals. Integrated DCs most often received and made referrals to primary care, physical medicine, pain medicine, orthopedics, and physical or occupational therapy. Although in many facilities the DCs were exclusive providers of spinal manipulation (43%), in most, manipulative therapies also were delivered by physical therapists and osteopathic or medical physicians. Informal face-to-face consultations and shared health records were the most common communication methods. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors of chiropractic are working in diverse medical settings within the private sector, in close proximity and collaboration with many provider types, suggesting a diverse role for chiropractors within conventional health care facilities.