Reinforcing informed medication prescription for low back pain in the emergency department (RIME): a controlled interrupted time series implementation study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Management guidelines for low back pain (LBP) recommend exclusion of serious pathology, followed by simple analgesics, superficial heat therapy, early mobilisation and patient education. An audit in a large metropolitan hospital emergency department (ED) revealed high rates of non-recommended medication prescription for LBP (65% of patients prescribed opioids, 17% prescribed benzodiazepines), high inpatient admission rates (20% of ED LBP patients), delayed patient mobilisation (on average 6 hours) and inadequate patient education (48% of patients). This study aims to improve medication prescription for LBP in this ED by implementing an intervention shown previously to improve guideline-based management of LBP in other Australian EDs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A controlled interrupted time series study will evaluate the intervention in the ED before (24 weeks; 20 March 2023-3 September 2023) and after (24 weeks; 27 November 2024-12 May 2024) implementation (12 weeks; 4 September 2023-26 November 2023), additionally comparing findings with another ED in the same health service. The multicomponent implementation strategy uses a formalised clinical flow chart to support clinical decision-making and aims to change clinician behaviour, through clinician education, provision of alternative treatments, educational resources, audit and feedback, supported by implementation champions. The primary outcome is the percentage of LBP patients prescribed non-recommended medications (opioids, benzodiazepines and/or gabapentinoids), assessed via routinely collected ED data. Anticipated sample size is 2000 patients (n=1000 intervention, n=1000 control) based on average monthly admissions of LBP presentations in the EDs. Secondary outcomes include inpatient admission rate, time to mobilisation, provision of patient education, imaging requests, representation to the ED within 6 months and healthcare costs. In nested qualitative research, we will study ED clinicians' perceptions of the implementation and identify how benefits can be sustained over time. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethical approval from the Metro North Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/2022/MNHA/87995). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences and educational workshops. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622001536752.

Perceptions and experiences of paramedics managing people with non-traumatic low back pain: a qualitative study of Australian paramedics.

BACKGROUND: Paramedics are often first providers of care to patients experiencing non-traumatic low back pain (LBP), though their perspectives and experiences with managing these cases remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study explored paramedic views of the management of non-traumatic LBP including their role and experience with LBP management, barriers to referral and awareness of ambulance service guidelines. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews conducted between January and April 2023. SETTING: New South Wales Ambulance service. PARTICIPANTS: A purposive sample of 30 paramedics of different specialities employed by New South Wales Ambulance were recruited. RESULTS: Paramedic accounts demonstrated the complexity, challenge, frustration and reward associated with managing non-traumatic LBP. Paramedics perceived that their primary role focused on the assessment of LBP, and that calls to ambulance services were often driven by misconceptions surrounding the management of LBP, and a person's pain severity. Access to health services, patient factors, defensive medicine, paramedic training and education and knowledge of guidelines influenced paramedic management of LBP. CONCLUSION: Paramedics often provide care to non-traumatic LBP cases yet depending on the type of paramedic speciality find these cases to be frustrating, challenging or rewarding to manage due to barriers to referral including access to health services, location, patient factors and uncertainty relating to litigation. Future research should explore patient perspectives towards ambulance service use for the management of their LBP.

A Virtual Hospital Model of Care for Low Back Pain, Back@Home: Protocol for a Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Type-I Study.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) was the fifth most common reason for an emergency department (ED) visit in 2020-2021 in Australia, with >145,000 presentations. A total of one-third of these patients were subsequently admitted to the hospital. The admitted patient care accounts for half of the total health care expenditure on LBP in Australia. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of the Back@Home study is to assess the effectiveness of a virtual hospital model of care to reduce the length of admission in people presenting to ED with musculoskeletal LBP. A secondary aim is to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of the virtual hospital and our implementation strategy. We will also investigate rates of traditional hospital admission from the ED, representations and readmissions to the traditional hospital, demonstrate noninferiority of patient-reported outcomes, and assess cost-effectiveness of the new model. METHODS: This is a hybrid effectiveness-implementation type-I study. To evaluate effectiveness, we plan to conduct an interrupted time-series study at 3 metropolitan hospitals in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Eligible patients will include those aged 16 years or older with a primary diagnosis of musculoskeletal LBP presenting to the ED. The implementation strategy includes clinician education using multimedia resources, staff champions, and an "audit and feedback" process. The implementation of "Back@Home" will be evaluated over 12 months and compared to a 48-month preimplementation period using monthly time-series trends in the average length of hospital stay as the primary outcome. We will construct a plot of the observed and expected lines of trend based on the preimplementation period. Linear segmented regression will identify changes in the level and slope of fitted lines, indicating immediate effects of the intervention, as well as effects over time. The data will be fully anonymized, with informed consent collected for patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: As of December 6, 2023, a total of 108 patients have been cared for through Back@Home. A total of 6 patients have completed semistructured interviews regarding their experience of virtual hospital care for nonserious back pain. All outcomes will be evaluated at 6 months (August 2023) and 12 months post implementation (February 2024). CONCLUSIONS: This study will serve to inform ongoing care delivery and implementation strategies of a novel model of care. If found to be effective, it may be adopted by other health districts, adapting the model to their unique local contexts. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/50146.

Clinical care standards for the management of low back pain: a scoping review.

The objective of this study is to compare and contrast the quality statements and quality indicators across clinical care standards for low back pain. Searches were performed in Medline, guideline databases, and Google searches to identify clinical care standards for the management of low back pain targeting a multidisciplinary audience. Two independent reviewers reviewed the search results and extracted relevant information from the clinical care standards. We compared the quality statements and indicators of the clinical care standards to identify the consistent messages and the discrepancies between them. Three national clinical care standards from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom were included. They provided from 6 to 8 quality statements and from 12 to 18 quality indicators. The three standards provide consistent recommendations in the quality statements related to imaging, and patient education/advice and self-management. In addition, the Canadian and Australian standards also provide consistent recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. However, the three clinical care standards differ in the statements related to psychological assessment, opioid analgesics, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies. The three national clinical care standards provide consistent recommendations on imaging and patient education/advice, self-management of the condition, and two standards (Canadian and Australian) agree on recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. The standards differ in the quality statements related to psychological assessment, opioid prescription, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies.

The effectiveness of allied health and nurse practitioner models-of-care in managing musculoskeletal conditions in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal conditions are the most common health condition seen in emergency departments. Hence, the most effective approaches to managing these conditions is of interest. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of allied health and nursing models of care for the management of musculoskeletal pain in ED. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and LILACS databases were searched from inception to March 2023 for published randomised trials that compared the effectiveness of allied health and nursing models of care for musculoskeletal conditions in ED to usual ED care. Trials were eligible if they enrolled participants presenting to ED with a musculoskeletal condition including low back pain, neck pain, upper or lower limb pain and any soft tissue injury. Trials that included patients with serious pathology (e.g. malignancy, infection or cauda equina syndrome) were excluded. The primary outcome was patient-flow; other outcomes included pain intensity, disability, hospital admission and re-presentation rates, patient satisfaction, medication prescription and adverse events. Two reviewers performed search screening, data extraction, quality and certainty of evidence assessments. RESULTS: We identified 1746 records and included 5 randomised trials (n = 1512 patients). Only one trial (n = 260) reported on patient-flow. The study provides very-low certainty evidence that a greater proportion of patients were seen within 20 min when seen by a physician (98%) than when seen by a nurse (86%) or physiotherapist (77%). There was no difference in pain intensity and disability between patients managed by ED physicians and those managed by physiotherapists. Evidence was limited regarding patient satisfaction, inpatient admission and ED re-presentation rates, medication prescription and adverse events. The certainty of evidence for secondary outcomes ranged from very-low to low, but generally did not suggest a benefit of one model over another. CONCLUSION: There is limited research to judge the effectiveness of allied health and nursing models of care for the management of musculoskeletal conditions in ED. Currently, it is unclear as to whether allied health and nurse practitioners are more effective than ED physicians at managing musculoskeletal conditions in ED. Further high-quality trials investigating the impact of models of care on service and health outcomes are needed.

Clinicians' Perspective on Implementing Virtual Hospital Care for Low Back Pain: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Alternate "hospital avoidance" models of care are required to manage the increasing demand for acute inpatient beds. There is currently a knowledge gap regarding the perspectives of hospital clinicians on barriers and facilitators to a transition to virtual care for low back pain. We plan to implement a virtual hospital model of care called "Back@Home" and use qualitative interviews with stakeholders to develop and refine the model. OBJECTIVE: We aim to explore clinicians' perspectives on a virtual hospital model of care for back pain (Back@Home) and identify barriers to and enablers of successful implementation of this model of care. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 19 purposively sampled clinicians involved in the delivery of acute back pain care at 3 metropolitan hospitals. Interview data were analyzed using the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: A total of 10 Theoretical Domains Framework domains were identified as important in understanding barriers and enablers to implementing virtual hospital care for musculoskeletal back pain. Key barriers to virtual hospital care included patient access to videoconferencing and reliable internet, language barriers, and difficulty building rapport. Barriers to avoiding admission included patient expectations, social isolation, comorbidities, and medicolegal concerns. Conversely, enablers of implementing a virtual hospital model of care included increased health care resource efficiency, clinician familiarity with telehealth, as well as a perceived reduction in overmedicalization and infection risk. CONCLUSIONS: The successful implementation of Back@Home relies on key stakeholder buy-in. Addressing barriers to implementation and building on enablers is crucial to clinicians' adoption of this model of care. Based on clinicians' input, the Back@Home model of care will incorporate the loan of internet-enabled devices, health care interpreters, and written resources translated into community languages to facilitate more equitable access to care for marginalized groups.

Continued Opioid Use and Adverse Events Following Provision of Opioids for Musculoskeletal Pain in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of continued opioid use or serious adverse events (SAEs) following opioid therapy in the emergency department (ED) for musculoskeletal pain is unclear. The aim of this review was to examine the prevalence of continued opioid use and serious adverse events (SAEs) following the provision of opioids for musculoskeletal pain in the emergency department (ED) or at discharge. METHODS: Records were searched from MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from inception to 7 October 2022. We included randomised controlled trials and observational studies enrolling adult patients with musculoskeletal pain who were administered and/or prescribed opioids in the ED. Continued opioid use and opioid misuse data after day 4 since ED discharge were extracted. Adverse events were coded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), and those rated as grades 3-4 (severe or life-threatening) and grade 5 (death) were considered SAEs. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. RESULTS: Seventy-two studies were included. Among opioid-naïve patients who received an opioid prescription, 6.8-7.0% reported recent opioid use at 3-12 months after discharge, 4.4% filled ≥ 5 opioid prescriptions and 3.1% filled > 90-day supply of opioids within 6 months. The prevalence of SAEs was 0.02% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 0.2%] in the ED and 0.1% (95% CI 0, 1.5%) within 2 days. One study observed 42.9% of patients misused opioids within 30 days after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Around 7% of opioid-naïve patients with musculoskeletal pain receiving opioid therapy continue opioid use at 3-12 months after ED discharge. SAEs following ED administration of an opioid were uncommon; however, studies only monitored patients for 2 days. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: 10.31219/osf.io/w4z3u.

Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common presentation across different healthcare settings. Clinicians need to confidently be able to screen and identify people presenting with low back pain with a high suspicion of serious or specific pathology (e.g. vertebral fracture). Patients identified with an increased likelihood of having a serious pathology will likely require additional investigations and specific treatment. Guidelines recommend a thorough history and clinical assessment to screen for serious pathology as a cause of low back pain. However, the diagnostic accuracy of recommended red flags (e.g. older age, trauma, corticosteroid use) remains unclear, particularly those used to screen for vertebral fracture. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags used to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. Where possible, we reported results of red flags separately for different types of vertebral fracture (i.e. acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, vertebral traumatic fracture, vertebral stress fracture, unspecified vertebral fracture). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 July 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered primary diagnostic studies if they compared results of history taking or physical examination (or both) findings (index test) with a reference standard test (e.g. X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), single-photon emission computerised tomography (SPECT)) for the identification of vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. We included index tests that were presented individually or as part of a combination of tests. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data for diagnostic two-by-two tables from the publications or reconstructed them using information from relevant parameters to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive (+LR) and negative (-LR) likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We extracted aspects of study design, characteristics of the population, index test, reference standard, and type of vertebral fracture. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of studies and index tests, therefore the analysis was descriptive. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and LRs for each test and used these as an indication of clinical usefulness. Two review authors independently conducted risk of bias and applicability assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. MAIN RESULTS: This review is an update of a previous Cochrane Review of red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. We included 14 studies in this review, six based in primary care, five in secondary care, and three in tertiary care. Four studies reported on 'osteoporotic vertebral fractures', two studies reported on 'vertebral compression fracture', one study reported on 'osteoporotic and traumatic vertebral fracture', two studies reported on 'vertebral stress fracture', and five studies reported on 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. Risk of bias was only rated as low in one study for the domains reference standard and flow and timing. The domain patient selection had three studies and the domain index test had six studies rated at low risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of the data. Results from single studies suggest only a small number of the red flags investigated may be informative. In the primary healthcare setting, results from single studies suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs (range: 1.93 to 12.85) for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 6.42, 95% CI 2.94 to 14.02). Results from single studies suggest 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for studies in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 70 years: 11.19, 95% CI 5.33 to 23.51). Results from single studies suggest 'corticosteroid use' may be an informative red flag in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR range: 3.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 79.15 to 48.50, 95% CI 11.48 to 204.98) and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.46, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.34); however, diagnostic values varied and CIs were imprecise. Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and female gender' in primary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (16.17, 95% CI 4.47 to 58.43). In the secondary healthcare setting, results from a single study suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.18, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.54) and 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 75 years: 2.51, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.27). Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and trauma' in secondary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 4.35, 95% CI 2.92 to 6.48). Results from a single study suggest when '4 of 5 tests' were positive in secondary care, they demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 9.62, 95% CI 5.88 to 15.73). In the tertiary care setting, results from a single study suggest 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture' (+LR: 31.09, 95% CI 18.25 to 52.96). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that only a few red flags are potentially useful in guiding clinical decisions to further investigate people suspected to have a vertebral fracture. Most red flags were not useful as screening tools to identify vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. In primary care, 'older age' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture', and 'trauma' and 'corticosteroid use' were both informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture'. In secondary care, 'older age' was informative for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' and 'trauma' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. In tertiary care, 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture'. Combinations of red flags were also informative and may be more useful than individual tests alone. Unfortunately, the challenge to provide clear guidance on which red flags should be used routinely in clinical practice remains. Further research with primary studies is needed to improve and consolidate our current recommendations for screening for vertebral fractures to guide clinical care.

Process evaluation of the implementation of an evidence-based model of care for low back pain in Australian emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: The Sydney Health Partners Emergency Department (SHaPED) trial targeted ED clinicians and evaluated a multifaceted strategy to implement a new model of care. The objective of this study was to investigate attitudes and experiences of ED clinicians as well as barriers and facilitators for implementation of the model of care. DESIGN: A qualitative study. METHODS: The EDs of three urban and one rural hospital in New South Wales, Australia participated in the trial between August and November 2018. A sample of clinicians was invited to participate in qualitative interviews via telephone and face-to-face. The data collected from the interviews were coded and grouped in themes using thematic analysis methods. RESULTS: Non-opioid pain management strategies (i.e., patient education, simple analgesics, and heat wraps) were perceived to be the most helpful strategy for reducing opioid use by ED clinicians. However, time constraints and rotation of junior medical staff were seen as the main barriers for uptake of the model of care. Fear of missing a serious pathology and the clinicians' conviction of a need to provide something for the patient were seen as barriers to reducing lumbar imaging referrals. Other barriers to guideline endorsed care included patient's expectations and characteristics (e.g., older age and symptoms severity). CONCLUSIONS: Improving knowledge of non-opioid pain management strategies was seen as a helpful strategy for reducing opioid use. However, clinicians also raised barriers related to the ED environment, clinicians' behaviour, and cultural aspects, which should be addressed in future implementation efforts.

Global prevalence of hospital admissions for low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of low back pain presentations that are admitted to hospital from the emergency department (ED), the proportion of hospital admissions due to a primary diagnosis of low back pain and the mean hospital length of stay (LOS), globally. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO and LILACS from inception to July 2022. Secondary data were retrieved from publicly available government agency publications and international databases. Studies investigating admitted patients aged >18 years with a primary diagnosis of musculoskeletal low back pain and/or lumbosacral radicular pain were included. RESULTS: There was high heterogeneity in admission rates for low back pain from the ED, with a median of 9.6% (IQR 3.3-25.2; 9 countries). The median percentage of all hospital admissions that were due to low back pain was 0.9% (IQR 0.6-1.5; 30 countries). The median hospital LOS across 39 countries was 6.2 days for 'dorsalgia' (IQR 4.4-8.6) and 5.4 days for 'intervertebral disc disorders' (IQR 4.1-8.4). Low back pain admissions per 100 000 population had a median of 159.1 (IQR 82.6-313.8). The overall quality of the evidence was moderate. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review with meta-analysis summarising the global prevalence of hospital admissions and hospital LOS for low back pain. There was relatively sparse data from rural and regional regions and low-income countries, as well as high heterogeneity in the results.

Australian emergency department care for older adults diagnosed with low back pain of lumbar spine origin: a retrospective analysis of electronic medical record system data (2016-2019).

BACKGROUND: In Australian emergency departments, 30% of all back pain presentations are for older adults. Relatively little is known about the care that this population receives during an emergency department stay, including admission to hospital. The aim of this study is to describe emergency department management of older adults diagnosed with a lumbar spine condition and to determine predictors of healthcare use in this population. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of electronic medical record data of adults aged ≥ 65 years with a lumbar spine discharge diagnosis. Demographic, clinical care (date and time of presentation and discharge, length of stay in the emergency department, mode of arrival, triage category, re-presentations to the emergency department (within 48 h), discharge mode, the administration of pain-relieving medicines, lumbar imaging, and laboratory tests) and costs data were extracted from the electronic medical record system. Descriptive analyses and multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models were performed. RESULTS: Over the period January 2016 to December 2019 there were 4,093 presentations to emergency departments by older adults with a lumbar spine discharge diagnosis (82.0% were non-specific low back pain). Most were female (58.3%), 39.9% had some form of lumbar imaging, and 34.1% were admitted to hospital. The most administered pain medicines were opioid analgesics (67.1%), followed by paracetamol (63.9%) and NSAIDs (33.0%). Predictors of healthcare use and hospital inpatient admission were receiving a laboratory test and receiving any opioid. For the financial period 2019-20, the mean (SD) total cost of care per presentation was $5,629 ($11,982). CONCLUSION: In the emergency department, more than two thirds of older adults with a lumbar spine condition received opioid analgesics. They often received imaging and laboratory tests, had high costs and were admitted to hospital. Alternative pathways of care are needed to support older adults with low back pain, to receive guideline-concordant emergency department care and have good health outcomes.

Management of patients with low back pain admitted to hospital: An observational study of usual care.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge gaps exist around diagnostic and treatment approaches for patients admitted to hospital with low back pain. METHODS: Medical record review of patients admitted to three Sydney teaching hospitals with a provisional emergency department diagnosis of non-serious low back pain, from 2016 to 2020. Data on demographic variables, hospital costs, length of stay (LOS), diagnostic imaging and analgesic administration were extracted. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of longer hospital stay, advanced imaging, and concomitant use of sedating medicines. RESULTS: Median inpatient LOS for non-specific low back pain was 4 days (interquartile range [IQR] 2-7), and for radicular low back pain was 4 days (IQR 3-10). Older patients with non-serious low back pain were more likely to stay longer, as were arrivals by ambulance. Plain lumbar radiography was used in 8.3% of admissions, whereas 37.6% of patients received advanced lumbar imaging (computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging). Opioids were administered in ~80% of admissions; 49% of patients with radicular low back pain were given an antiepileptic in addition to an opioid. In all, 18.4% of admissions resulted in at least one hospital-acquired complication, such as an accidental fall (3.1%) or a medication-related adverse effect (13.3%). Physiotherapists saw 82.6% of low back pain admissions. Costs of inpatient care were estimated at a mean of AU$ 14 000 per admission. CONCLUSIONS: We noted relatively high rates of concomitant use of sedating pain medicines and referrals for advanced lumbar imaging and laboratory tests. Strategies to address these issues in inpatient care of low back pain are needed.

Racial and ethnic differences in the use of lumbar imaging, opioid analgesics and spinal surgery for low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is a substantial gap between evidence and clinical care for low back pain (LBP) worldwide despite recommendations of best practice specified in clinical practice guidelines. The aim of this systematic review was to identify disparities associated with race or ethnicity in the use of lumbar imaging, opioid analgesics, and spinal surgery in people with LBP. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: We included observational studies which compared the use of lumbar imaging, opioid analgesics, and spinal surgery for the management of non-serious LBP between people from different racial/ethnic populations. We searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from January 2000 to June 2021. Risk of bias of included studies was appraised in six domains. For each type of care, we pooled data stratified by race and ethnicity using random effects models. RESULTS: We identified 13 eligible studies; all conducted in the United States. Hispanic/Latino (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.49-0.96) and Black/African American (OR 0.59, 95%CI 0.46-0.75) people with LBP were less likely to be prescribed opioid analgesics than White people. Black/African Americans were less likely to undergo or be recommended spinal surgery for LBP (OR 0.47, 95%CI 0.33-0.67) than White people. There was a lack of high certainty evidence on racial/ethnic disparities in the use of lumbar imaging. CONCLUSION: This review reveals lower rate of the use of guideline-discordant care, especially opioid prescription and spinal surgery, in racial/ethnic minority populations with LBP in the United States. Future studies in other countries evaluating care equity for LBP are warranted. PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42021260668. SIGNIFICANCE: This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that people with low back pain from the minority racial/ethnic backgrounds were less likely to be prescribed opioid analgesics and undergo spinal surgery than the majority counterparts. Strategic interventions to improve the access to, and the value of, clinical care for minority populations with low back pain are warranted.

Almost one in five physiotherapy trials excluded people due to lack of language proficiency: A meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to examine the characteristics of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating physiotherapy interventions for low back pain (LBP) that specified a language-grounded eligibility criterion and the proportion of people being excluded consequently. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a meta-epidemiological study of RCTs evaluating at least one type of physiotherapy intervention for treatment or prevention of LBP. Records were retrieved from Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), LILACS, and SciELO from inception to May 2021. We retrieved metadata of each record from PEDro and extracted from included studies: country of recruitment, language-grounded eligibility criterion, and the number of consequent exclusions (if specified). RESULTS: This study included 2,555 trials. A language-grounded eligibility criterion was specified in 463 trials (18.1%); the proportion was higher in trials conducted in North America and Europe, published after 2000, investigating cognitive and behavioral interventions, and including large sample size. Of these 463 trials, 75 trials (16.2%) reported a total number of 2,152 people being excluded due to lack of language proficiency, equivalent to 12.5% of randomized participants. CONCLUSION: Nearly one in five physiotherapy clinical trials on LBP excludes people based on language proficiency, compromising the evidence to manage LBP in minority populations.

Paramedic management of back pain: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Research examining paramedic care of back pain is limited. OBJECTIVE: To describe ambulance service use and usual paramedic care for back pain, the effectiveness and safety of paramedic care of back pain, and the characteristics of people with back pain who seek care from paramedics. METHODS: We included published peer-reviewed studies of people with back pain who received any type of paramedic care on-scene and/or during transport to hospital. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and SciELO from inception to July 2022. Two authors independently screened and selected the studies, performed data extraction, and assessed the methodological quality using the PEDro, AMSTAR 2 and Hawker tools. This review followed the JBI methodological guidance for scoping reviews and PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. RESULTS: From 1987 articles we included 26 articles (25 unique studies) consisting of 22 observational studies, three randomised controlled trials and one review. Back pain is frequently in the top 3 reasons for calls to an ambulance service with more than two thirds of cases receiving ambulance dispatch. It takes ~ 8 min from time of call to an ambulance being dispatched and 16% of calls for back pain receive transport to hospital. Pharmacological management of back pain includes benzodiazepines, NSAIDs, opioids, nitrous oxide, and paracetamol. Non-pharmacological care is poorly reported and includes referral to alternate health service, counselling and behavioural interventions and self-care advice. Only three trials have evaluated effectiveness of paramedic treatments (TENS, active warming, and administration of opioids) and no studies provided safety or costing data. CONCLUSION: Paramedics are frequently responding to people with back pain. Use of pain medicines is common but varies according to the type of back pain and setting, while non-pharmacological care is poorly reported. There is a lack of research evaluating the effectiveness and safety of paramedic care for back pain.

Paramedic care for back pain: A review of Australian and New Zealand clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is one of the most common reasons for a person to call an ambulance service, yet how ambulance services manage back pain has not been described. METHODS: Australian-state and New Zealand ambulance service jurisdiction websites were searched between 25th January to 3rd February 2022. Pain management guidelines were included where no specific back pain guideline was found. Identified guidelines were screened, appraised using AGREE II tool and recommendations on pharmacological and non-pharmacological management of back pain, ambulance transport and alerting features were extracted, summarised, and compared to two primary care guidelines. RESULTS: Nine guidelines were identified including four back pain and 5 pain management guidelines. All four back pain guidelines recommend paracetamol or ibuprofen as analgesic options to manage back pain. These guidelines recommend transport to the emergency department when there are alerting features for serious disease, lack of pain control or where the patient is unable to ambulate. 2 out of 9 ambulance guidelines were recommended for use in their existing format following quality appraisal using AGREE II tool. Ambulance guidelines scored significantly lower than primary care guidelines for back pain. CONCLUSION: Ambulance service guidelines for back pain recommend advice, reassurance, paracetamol and referral to primary care.