Information is power: a qualitative study exploring the lived experiences of patients with degenerative cervical radiculopathy.

ABSTRACT: Degenerative cervical radiculopathy (DCR) can lead to severe pain, paraesthesia, and/or motor weakness, resulting in significant morbidity, disability, and reduced quality of life. Typically, individuals suffer from prolonged symptoms, with time to complete recovery spanning months to years. Little is known about the impact DCR has on peoples' lives. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the everyday experiences of individuals living with DCR. A qualitative study was conducted through an interpretivist lens exploring the experiences of participants. Participants were purposefully recruited and interviewed with 2 research team members. Transcripts were independently analyzed by 2 reviewers and coding was finalized by consensus. Analysis was performed using an interpretative phenomenological approach, with emergent themes mapped onto the 5 domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework. Eleven participants were interviewed between December 2021 and April 2022. Three themes emerged: the biopsychosocial impact of DCR, role of the health care provider, and uncertainty surrounding DCR. Pain and paraesthesia were the most common symptoms experienced by participants, leading to significant psychological distress and impact to daily activities, most notably driving, housecleaning, sleep, and ability to work. Participants described the uncertainty they experienced as a result of the unpredictable nature of DCR and the important role that health care providers play in their journey with DCR. Health care providers were seen acting as either a facilitator or a barrier to their recovery. The findings from this study can be used by clinicians providing patient-centered care to better understand the experiences of people with DCR.

Similar improvements in patient-reported outcomes for non-specific low back pain patients with and without lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms following a structured education and exercise therapy program.

BACKGROUND: People with nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) can also experience overlapping symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), but the impact on treatment outcomes is unknown. This study investigated differences in treatment outcomes for disability, back pain intensity, and leg pain intensity following an education and exercise therapy program for NSLBP patients with and without comorbid LSS symptoms. METHODS: This was a longitudinal analysis of 655 Danish participants in the GLA:D® Back program; an education and exercise therapy program for people with persistent NSLBP. Participants were classified as having comorbid LSS symptoms based on self-report. Linear mixed models were used to assess differences in change in disability (Oswestry Disability Index [0-100]) and back and leg pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale [0-10]) at 3-, 6-, and 12-months between those with and without LSS symptoms. RESULTS: 28% of participants reported LSS symptoms. No certain differences in change in disability or back pain intensity improvement were observed at any time-point between those with and without LSS symptoms. Participants with LSS symptoms had slightly greater improvement in leg pain intensity at 6- (-0.7, 95% CI -1.2 to -0.2) and 12-months (-0.6, 95% CI -1.2 to -0.1). CONCLUSION: Compared to those without LSS symptoms, patients with persistent NSLBP and LSS symptoms can expect similar improvements in disability and back pain intensity, and slightly greater improvements in leg pain intensity with treatment. Therefore, education and exercise therapy programs designed for NSLBP are likely helpful for those also experiencing LSS symptoms.

It might take a village: developing a rehabilitation program of care for degenerative cervical radiculopathy from the patient perspective.

PURPOSE: The aim of our study is to inform the development of a rehabilitation program of care from the perspectives of those suffering from degenerative cervical radiculopathy (DCR). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study, purposefully recruiting individuals with DCR. Transcripts from virtual semi-structured interviews were iteratively analyzed using interpretative phenomenological methods. RESULTS: Eleven participants were recruited and depicted their ideal rehabilitation program of care. Participants described the importance of a patient centered-approach, health care providers who were validating, reassuring and attentive, easier access to health services, a supportive and collaborative team environment, and receiving peer support. Furthermore, participants expressed that they would expect the program of care to result in their symptoms being less intense and intermittent. In consideration of the participant perspectives, the ideal rehabilitation program of care can be conceptualized by the enactive-biopsychosocial model, which provides a theoretical framework for developing and implementing the program of care. CONCLUSION: We obtained valuable information from individuals living with DCR regarding their preferences and expectations of a rehabilitation program of care. The participant descriptions will provide the groundwork for its development to meet patient needs and expectations. Future research to guide implementation will also be explored.

The lives of those suffering from cervical radiculopathy are significantly impacted.Incorporating patient perspectives in the development of care plans can lead to the inclusion of interventions considered patient-centered and may improve implementation, adherence, and outcomes.Participants described their preferences and expectations of a rehabilitation program of care that may assist in its future development to meet patient needs and expectations.From participants' perspectives, the ideal rehabilitation program of care would be framed by the enactive-biopsychosocial model, thus providing a theoretical context for its development and implementation.

Characteristics associated with comorbid lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis: an analysis of 9,136 good life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D®) participants.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have found that lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) often co-occurs with knee or hip OA and can impact treatment response. However, it is unclear what participant characteristics may be helpful in identifying individuals with these co-occurring conditions. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore characteristics associated with comorbid symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) enrolled in a primary care education and exercise program. METHODS: Sociodemographic, clinical characteristics, health status measures, and a self-report questionnaire on the presence of LSS symptoms was collected at baseline from the Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark primary care program for knee and hip OA. Cross-sectional associations between characteristics and the presence of comorbid LSS symptoms were assessed separately in participants with primary complaint of knee and hip OA, using domain-specific logistic models and a logistic model including all characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 6,541 participants with a primary complaint of knee OA and 2,595 participants with a primary complaint of hip OA were included, of which 40% and 50% reported comorbid LSS symptoms, respectively. LSS symptoms were associated with similar characteristics in knee and hip OA. Sick leave was the only sociodemographic variable consistently associated with LSS symptoms. For clinical characteristics, back pain, longer symptom duration and bilateral or comorbid knee or hip symptoms were also consistently associated. Health status measures were not consistently related to LSS symptoms. CONCLUSION: Comorbid LSS symptoms in people with knee or hip OA undergoing a primary care treatment program of group-based education and exercise were common and associated with a similar set of characteristics. These characteristics may help to identify people with co-occurring LSS and knee or hip OA, which can be used to help guide clinical decision-making.

Eligibility Criteria of Participants in Randomized Controlled Trials Assessing Conservative Management of Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants in randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing conservative management for cervical radiculopathy (CR), to determine if any consensus exists within the literature. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A 2012 systematic review identified a lack of uniformity for the eligibility criteria of participants in RCTs evaluating conservative interventions for CR. Since then, a large number of RCTs have been published, signaling the need for an updated evaluation of this topic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We electronically searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception to June 15, 2022, to identify RCTs assessing conservative management of CR. Information extracted was analyzed to determine the level of homogeneity and/or heterogeneity of the inclusion and exclusion criteria across studies. RESULTS: Seventy-six RCTs met our inclusion criteria with 68 distinct trials identified. The inclusion of arm pain with or without another symptom ( i.e. numbness, paresthesia, or weakness) was required in 69.12% of trials, 50% of trials required participants to exhibit neck symptoms, and 73.53% of studies required some form of clinical examination findings, but inconsistencies existed for the number and type of tests used. Furthermore, 41.18% of trials included imaging, with 33.82% of trials requiring magnetic resonance imaging findings. The most common exclusion criteria included were the presence of red flags and cervical myelopathy in 66.18% and 58.82% of trials, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is still a lack of uniformity for the inclusion/exclusion criteria of trials assessing the conservative management of CR, with some improvements noted compared with the 2012 review. Based on the current literature assessing the diagnostic utility of clinical symptoms and confirmatory tests, we proposed inclusion criteria for trials assessing conservative interventions. Future research should aim to develop standardized classification criteria to improve consistency among studies.

Conservative Management of Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of conservative interventions compared with other interventions, placebo/sham interventions, or no intervention on disability, pain, function, quality of life, and psychological impact in adults with cervical radiculopathy (CR). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception to June 15, 2022 to identify studies that were randomized controlled trials, had at least one conservative treatment arm, and diagnosed participants with CR through confirmatory clinical examination and/or diagnostic tests. Studies were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the quality of the evidence was rated using the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Of the 2561 records identified, 59 trials met our inclusion criteria (n = 4108 participants). Due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity, the findings were synthesized narratively. There is very-low certainty evidence supporting the use of acupuncture, prednisolone, cervical manipulation, and low-level laser therapy for pain and disability in the immediate to short-term, and thoracic manipulation and low-level laser therapy for improvements in cervical range of motion in the immediate term. There is low to very-low certainty evidence for multimodal interventions, providing inconclusive evidence for pain, disability, and range of motion. There is inconclusive evidence for pain reduction after conservative management compared with surgery, rated as very-low certainty. DISCUSSION: There is a lack of high-quality evidence, limiting our ability to make any meaningful conclusions. As the number of people with CR is expected to increase, there is an urgent need for future research to help address these gaps.

Associations between comorbid lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms and treatment outcomes in 6,813 patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis following a patient education and exercise therapy program.

Objective: People with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) can experience comorbid lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), but the impact on treatment outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate associations between comorbid LSS symptoms and changes in pain, function, and quality of life following a patient education and exercise therapy program. Design: This was a longitudinal analysis of 6813 participants in the Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D®) program; a structured patient education and exercise therapy program for knee and hip OA. Participants were classified as having comorbid LSS symptoms based on self-report symptom items. Linear mixed models were used to assess differences in change in pain, function, and quality of life outcomes (0 worst to 100 best) at 3- and 12-month follow-up. Results: 15% and 23% of knee and hip OA participants had comorbid LSS symptoms, respectively. Knee participants with comorbid LSS symptoms had smaller improvement in pain at 3-months (-1.7, 95% CI -3.3 to -0.1) and hip participants with comorbid LSS symptoms had greater improvement in function at 3- (2.5, 95% CI 0.5 to 5.0) and 12-months (3.8, 95% CI 0.9 to 6.6), when compared to those without LSS symptoms. These differences were not clinically significant and no differences in other outcomes were observed. Conclusion: Knee or hip OA patients with comorbid LSS symptoms should expect similar improvements in knee- or hip-related pain, function, and quality of life outcomes when undergoing a patient education and exercise therapy program compared to those without LSS symptoms.

Adherence to spinal imaging guidelines and utilization of lumbar spine diagnostic imaging for low back pain at a Canadian Chiropractic College: a historical clinical cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic imaging is useful for assessing low back pain (LBP) when a clinician suspects a specific underlying pathology. Evidence-based imaging guidelines assist clinicians in appropriately determining the need for imaging when assessing LBP. A previous study reported high adherence to three clinical guidelines, with utilization rate of 12.3% in imaging of LBP patients attending a chiropractic teaching clinic. A new imaging guideline for spinal disorders has been published and used in teaching. Thus, the aims of our study were to assess the adherence to the new guideline and X-ray utilization in new episodes of LBP. METHODS: We conducted a historical clinical cohort study using patient electronic health record audits at seven teaching clinics over a period of 20 months. Records of patients who were at least 18 years of age, presented with a new onset of LBP, and consented to data collection were included. Abstracted data included patient demographics, the number and type of red flags, and the decision to image. Rate of guideline adherence (proportion of those not recommended for imaging, given no red flags) and rate of image utilization were descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: We included 498 patients in this study. At least 81% of included patients had one or more red flags reported. The most commonly reported individual red flag was age ≥ 50 (43.8%) followed by pain at rest (15.7%). In those referred for imaging, age ≥ 50 (93.3%) was the most frequently reported red flag. No red flag(s) were identified in 93 patient records, and none were referred for imaging of their LBP, yielding an adherence rate of 100% (95% CI 96, 100%). A total of 17 of 498 patients were recommended for imaging for their low back pain, resulting in an imaging utilization rate of 3.4% (95% CI 1.8, 5.0%). CONCLUSION: The imaging utilization rate was 3.4%, lower than 12.3% previously reported at a chiropractic teaching clinic. None without red flags were referred for imaging, yielding a 100%, adherence rate to current LBP imaging guidelines. Future research should consider currency of guideline, accuracy of red flags and factors influencing clinicians' decision, when assessing imaging adherence rates.

Nonoperative management of degenerative cervical radiculopathy: protocol of a systematic review.

Background: Degenerative cervical radiculopathy (DCR) is a common condition which, due to the aging global population, is expected to worsen over time. For the majority of patients with DCR, surgical intervention is not required as nonoperative management is sufficient for symptom improvement. However, there are significant gaps within the literature as the majority of past systematic reviews assessing conservative interventions are outdated, or omit relevant studies due to strict inclusion/exclusion criteria. Therefore, an updated understanding of the effectiveness of noninvasive nonoperative management for DCR is required. Methods: We will search MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception, as well as hand-search reference lists of included studies and previous systematic reviews, to identify peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials on this topic. Discussion: The results of this review will provide an understanding of the effectiveness of various nonoperative interventions. The quality of evidence will also be assessed using the GRADE approach. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021249699.

Contexte: la radiculopathie cervicale dégénérative (DCR) est une affection courante qui, en raison du vieillissement de la population mondiale, devrait s'aggraver avec le temps. Pour la majorité des patients atteints de DCR, une intervention chirurgicale n'est pas nécessaire, car la prise en charge non opératoire est suffisante pour l'amélioration des symptômes. Cependant, il existe des lacunes importantes dans les publications scientifiques, car la majorité des examens systématiques antérieurs évaluant les interventions conservatrices sont obsolètes ou omettent des études pertinentes en raison de critères d'inclusion et exclusion stricts. Par conséquent, une compréhension actualisée de l'efficacité de la prise en charge non invasive et non opératoire de la DCR est nécessaire. Méthodologie: nous effectuerons des recherches dans MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, PsycINFO et CINAHL depuis le début, et entreprendrons des recherches manuelles dans les listes de références des études incluses et des examens systématiques précédents, afin de déterminer les essais contrôlés randomisés et évalués par des pairs sur ce sujet. Discussion: les résultats de cet examen permettront de comprendre l'efficacité de diverses interventions non opératoires. La qualité des preuves sera également évaluée à l'aide de l'approche GRADE. Enregistrement d'examen systématique: PROSPERO CRD42021249699.

Consensus on a standardised treatment pathway algorithm for lumbar spinal stenosis: an international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative spinal condition in older adults associated with disability, diminished quality of life, and substantial healthcare costs. Individual symptoms and needs vary. With sparse and sometimes inconsistent evidence to guide clinical decision-making, variable clinical care may lead to unsatisfactory patient outcomes and inefficient use of healthcare resources. METHODS: A three-phase modified Delphi study comprising four consensus rounds was conducted on behalf of the International Taskforce for the Diagnosis and Management of LSS to develop a treatment algorithm based on multi-professional international expert consensus. Participants with expertise in the assessment and management of people with LSS were invited using an international distribution process used for two previous Delphi studies led by the Taskforce. Separate treatment pathways for patients with different symptom types and severity were developed and incorporated into a proposed treatment algorithm through consensus rounds 1 to 3. Agreement with the proposed algorithm was evaluated in the final consensus round. RESULTS: The final algorithm combines stratified and stepped approaches. When indicated, immediate investigation and surgery is advocated. Otherwise, a stepped approach is suggested when self-directed care is unsatisfactory. This starts with tailored rehabilitation, then more complex multidisciplinary care, investigations and surgery options if needed. Treatment options in each step depend on clinical phenotype and symptom severity. Treatment response guides pathway entrance and exit points. Of 397 study participants, 86% rated their agreement ≥ 4 for the proposed algorithm on a 0-6 scale, of which 22% completely agreed. Only 7% disagreed. Over 70% of participants felt that the algorithm would be useful for clinicians in public healthcare (both primary care and specialist settings) and in private healthcare settings, and that a simplified version would help patients in shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: International and multi-professional agreement was achieved for a proposed LSS treatment algorithm developed through expert consensus. The algorithm advocates different pathway options depending on clinical indications. It is not intended as a treatment protocol and will require evaluation against current care for clinical and cost-effectiveness. It may, however, serve as a clinical guide until evidence is sufficient to inform a fully stratified care model.

Prevalence of multimorbid degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with knee or hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal multimorbidity is common and coexisting lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) has been reported. The aim of this review was to report the prevalence of multimorbid degenerative LSS with knee or hip OA based on clinical and/or imaging case definitions. METHODS: Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL up to May 2021. Studies involving adults with cross-sectional data to estimate the prevalence of co-occurring LSS with knee or hip OA were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Results were stratified according to index and comorbid condition, and by case definitions (imaging, clinical, and combined). RESULTS: Ten studies from five countries out of 3891 citations met the inclusion criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 44 to 2,857,999 (median 230) and the mean age in the included studies range from 61 to 73 years (median 66 years). All studies were from secondary care or mixed settings. Nine studies used a combined definition of LSS and one used a clinical definition. Imaging, clinical, and combined case definitions of knee and hip OA were used. The prevalence of multimorbid LSS and knee or hip OA ranged from 0 to 54%, depending on the specified index condition and case definitions used. Six studies each provided prevalence data for index LSS and comorbid knee OA (prevalence range: 5 to 41%) and comorbid hip OA (prevalence range: 2 to 35%). Two studies provided prevalence data for index knee OA and comorbid LSS (prevalence range 17 to 54%). No studies reporting prevalence data for index hip OA and comorbid LSS were found. Few studies used comparable case definitions and all but one study were rated as high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that multimorbid LSS with knee or hip OA occurs in people (0 to 54%), although results are based on studies with high risk of bias and surgical populations. Variability in LSS and OA case definitions limit the comparability of studies and prevalence estimates should therefore be interpreted with caution. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ( CRD42020177759 ).

Non-operative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a growing health problem in older adults. We updated our previous Cochrane review (2013) to determine the effectiveness of non-operative treatment of LSS with neurogenic claudication. DESIGN: A systematic review. DATA SOURCES: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Index to Chiropractic Literature databases were searched and updated up to 22 July 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We only included randomised controlled trials published in English where at least one arm provided data on non-operative treatment and included participants diagnosed with neurogenic claudication with imaging confirmed LSS. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 1. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used for evidence synthesis. RESULTS: Of 15 200 citations screened, 156 were assessed and 23 new trials were identified. There is moderate-quality evidence from three trials that: Manual therapy and exercise provides superior and clinically important short-term improvement in symptoms and function compared with medical care or community-based group exercise; manual therapy, education and exercise delivered using a cognitive-behavioural approach demonstrates superior and clinically important improvements in walking distance in the immediate to long term compared with self-directed home exercises and glucocorticoid plus lidocaine injection is more effective than lidocaine alone in improving statistical, but not clinically important improvements in pain and function in the short term. The remaining 20 new trials demonstrated low-quality or very low-quality evidence for all comparisons and outcomes, like the findings of our original review. CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-quality evidence that a multimodal approach which includes manual therapy and exercise, with or without education, is an effective treatment and that epidural steroids are not effective for the management of LSS with neurogenic claudication. All other non-operative interventions provided insufficient quality evidence to make conclusions on their effectiveness. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020191860.

Noninvasive management of soft tissue disorders of the shoulder: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Objective of this study is to develop an evidence-based guideline for the noninvasive management of soft tissue disorders of the shoulder (shoulder pain), excluding major pathology. METHODS: This guideline is based on high-quality evidence from seven systematic reviews. Multidisciplinary experts considered the evidence of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences when formulating recommendations. Target audience is clinicians; target population is adults with shoulder pain. RESULTS: When managing patients with shoulder pain, clinicians should (a) rule out major structural or other pathologies as the cause of shoulder pain and reassure patients about the benign and self-limited nature of most soft tissue shoulder pain; (b) develop a care plan in partnership with the patient; (c) for shoulder pain of any duration, consider low-level laser therapy; multimodal care (heat/cold, joint mobilization, and range of motion exercise); cervicothoracic spine manipulation and mobilization for shoulder pain when associated pain or restricted movement of the cervicothoracic spine; or thoracic spine manipulation; (d) for shoulder pain >3-month duration, consider stretching and/or strengthening exercises; laser acupuncture; or general physician care (information, advice, and pharmacological pain management if necessary); (e) for shoulder pain with calcific tendinitis on imaging, consider shock-wave therapy; (f) for shoulder pain of any duration, do not offer ultrasound; taping; interferential current therapy; diacutaneous fibrolysis; soft tissue massage; or cervicothoracic spine manipulation and mobilization as an adjunct to exercise (i.e., range of motion, strengthening and stretching exercise) for pain between the neck and the elbow at rest or during movement of the arm; (g) for shoulder pain >3-month duration, do not offer shock-wave therapy; and (h) should reassess the patient's status at each visit for worsening of symptoms or new physical, mental, or psychological symptoms, or satisfactory recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Our evidence-based guideline provides recommendations for non-invasive management of shoulder pain. The impact of the guideline in clinical practice requires further evaluation. SIGNIFICANCE: Shoulder pain of any duration can be effectively treated with laser therapy, multimodal care (i.e., heat/cold, joint mobilization, range of motion exercise), or cervicothoracic manipulation and mobilization. Shoulder pain (>3 months) can be effectively treated with exercises, laser acupuncture, or general physician care (information, advice, and pharmacological pain management if necessary).

Non-Surgical Interventions for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Leading To Neurogenic Claudication: A Clinical Practice Guideline.

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) causing neurogenic claudication (NC) is increasingly common with an aging population and can be associated with significant symptoms and functional limitations. We developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on nonsurgical management of patients with LSS causing NC. Using the GRADE approach, a multidisciplinary guidelines panel based recommendations on evidence from a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews published through June 2019, or expert consensus. The literature monitored up to October 2020. Clinical outcomes evaluated included pain, disability, quality of life, and walking capacity. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with LSS (congenital and/or acquired, lateral recess or central canal, with or without low back pain, with or without spondylolisthesis) causing NC. The guidelines panel developed 6 recommendations based on randomized controlled trials and 5 others based on professional consensus, summarized in 3 overarching recommendations: (Grade: statements are all conditional/weak recommendations) Recommendation 1. For patients with LSS causing NC, clinicians and patients may initially select multimodal care nonpharmacological therapies with education, advice and lifestyle changes, behavioral change techniques in conjunction with home exercise, manual therapy, and/or rehabilitation (moderate-quality evidence), traditional acupuncture on a trial basis (very low-quality evidence), and postoperative rehabilitation (supervised program of exercises and/or educational materials encouraging activity) with cognitive-behavioral therapy 12 weeks postsurgery (low-quality evidence). Recommendation 2. In patients LSS causing NC, clinicians and patients may consider a trial of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors or tricyclic antidepressants. (very low-quality evidence). Recommendation 3. For patients LSS causing NC, we recommend against the use of the following pharmacological therapies: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methylcobalamin, calcitonin, paracetamol, opioids, muscle relaxants, pregabalin (consensus-based), gabapentin (very low-quality), and epidural steroidal injections (high-quality evidence). PERSPECTIVE: This guideline, on the basis of a systematic review of the evidence on the nonsurgical management of lumbar spine stenosis, provides recommendations developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel. Safe and effective non-surgical management of lumbar spine stenosis should be on the basis of a plan of care tailored to the individual and the type of treatment involved, and multimodal care is recommended in most situations.

Responsiveness of Outcome Measures in Nonsurgical Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Secondary Analysis From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial on nonsurgical interventions for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the responsiveness of the Self-Paced Walking Test (SPWT), Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (SSS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and determine their minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in nonsurgical LSS patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Limited information is available about the responsiveness of these tests in nonsurgical LSS population. METHODS: A total of 180 participants completed the SPWT, SSS, and ODI at baseline, 2, and 6 months. Responsiveness was assessed by distribution-based method, including effect size and standardized response mean, and anchor-based method, using the patient global index of change (PGIC) as the external anchor to distinguish responders and non-responders. Areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated along with MCIDs for "minimal" and "moderate improvement" subgroups. RESULTS: The following values represent 2- and 6-month analyses of each outcome measure, respectively. Standard effect sizes: 0.48 and 0.50 for SPWT, -0.42 and -0.36 for SSS, and -0.29 and -0.25 for ODI. Spearman correlation coefficients between PGIC and outcomes were: 0.44 and 0.39 for SPWT, -0.53 and -0.55 for SSS, and -0.46 and -0.54 for ODI. MCIDs for the "minimal improvement" subgroup were: 375.9 and 319.3 ms for SPWT, -5.3 and -5.8 points for SSS, and -9.3 and -10.8 points for ODI. AUCs was 0.68 to 0.76. MCIDs for the "moderate improvement" subgroup were: 344.2 and 538.2 m for SPWT, -5.5 and -7.5 points for SSS, and -9.1 and -13.6 points for ODI. AUCs ranged from 0.68 to 0.76. CONCLUSION: The SPWT, SSS, and ODI are responsive outcome measures to assess nonsurgical patients with LSS. This finding, along with the reported MCIDs, can help clinicians to monitor changes in their patients' walking and physical function over time and make clinical decisions. They also provide researchers with reference for future studies in LSS.Level of Evidence: 2.

The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial. OBJECTIVES: We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders. GLOBAL SUMMIT: The Global Summit took place on September 14-15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus. RESULTS: We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.

Prevalence of multimorbid degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) are prevalent conditions in the aging population and published literature suggests they share many symptoms and often are present at the same time in patients. However, no prevalence estimates of multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA are currently available. The primary objective of this systematic review is therefore to estimate the prevalence of multimorbid LSS with knee and/or hip OA using radiological, clinical, and combined case definitions. METHODS: This systematic review protocol has been designed according to the guidelines from the Cochrane Collaboration and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. A comprehensive search will be performed in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL. Forward citation tracking will be performed in Web of Science. No restriction for publication date and language will be applied in the literature search, but only articles in English will be included. The search strategy will include the following domains: LSS, knee OA, and hip OA. Retrieved citations will be screened by two authors independently. Disagreements will be discussed until consensus, and a third reviewer will be consulted if consensus cannot be reached. Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias assessment will be done by two authors independently, using a standardized data extraction form and a modified risk of bias tool for prevalence studies. Meta-analysis estimating prevalence with 95% CI will be performed using a random effects model. Meta-regression analyses will be performed to investigate the impact of the following covariates: LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and other patient characteristics on prevalence estimates for multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA. DISCUSSION: The results of this review will provide the first estimates of the prevalence of multimorbid LSS and hip and knee OA based on various case definitions. The impact of covariates such as LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and patient characteristics on prevalence estimates will also be presented. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, awaiting registration.

Multimodal non-surgical intervention for individuals with knee osteoarthritis: a retrospective case series.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to review the pain and functional outcomes of a multimodal intervention in three patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). This study explores how manual therapy can be delivered within an evidence-based framework for the management of knee OA. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for three patients with knee OA who underwent a standardized multimodal intervention including education, exercise, and manual therapy. Changes in pain intensity and function from baseline to post-intervention were calculated and compared to thresholds for minimal clinically important differences. RESULTS: One participant met the threshold for clinically significant improvement in pain and two participants for function. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Combined education, exercise, and manual therapy delivered over a 6-week period improved function in two of the three patients reviewed. Higher quality research is required to explore whether this multimodal intervention may improve outcomes in individuals with knee OA.

INTRODUCTION: Le but de cette étude est d'examiner les résultats en matière de douleur et de fonction d'une intervention multimodale chez trois patients atteints d'arthrose du genou. Cette étude explore comment la thérapie manuelle peut être dispensée dans un cadre fondé sur des données probantes pour la prise en charge de l'arthrose du genou. MÉTHODES: On a examiné les dossiers médicaux de trois patients atteints d'arthrose du genou qui ont subi une intervention multimodale normalisée comprenant l'éducation, l'exercice et la thérapie manuelle. Les changements concernant l'intensité de la douleur et la fonction entre le début et la fin de l'intervention ont été calculés et comparés aux seuils pour connaître les différences minimales importantes sur le plan clinique. RÉSULTATS: Un participant a atteint le seuil d'amélioration significative du point de vue clinique pour ce qui est de la douleur et deux participants pour ce qui est de la fonction. Aucun effet indésirable n'a été signalé. CONCLUSION: L'éducation, l'exercice et la thérapie manuelle combinés sur une période de six semaines ont amélioré les fonctions chez deux des trois patients examinés. Des recherches de meilleure qualité sont nécessaires pour déterminer si cette intervention multimodale peut améliorer les résultats chez les personnes atteintes d'arthrose du genou.