The Vehicle Seating Intervention Trial: Cross-Over Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Impact of 2 Car Seat Configurations on Spinal Posture.

Driving posture can lead to musculoskeletal pain. Most work focuses on the lower back; therefore, we know little about automobile seat design and neck posture. This study evaluated an automobile driver seat that individualized upper back support to improve head and neck posture. Specifically, we examined the system's impact on anterior head translation with secondary outcomes of spine posture and perceptions of comfort/well-being compared with a control. Forty participants were block randomized to experience either the activated or deactivated version of the same seating system first. Participants completed two 30-minute simulated driving trials, separated by washout, with continuous measures of anterior head translation, spine posture, and pelvis orientation. Perceptions of comfort/well-being were assessed by survey and open-ended questions immediately following each condition. Small, but statistically significant decreases in anterior head translation and posterior pelvic tilt occurred with the activated seat system. Participants reported lower satisfaction with the activated seat system. Order of the 2 seat conditions affected differences in pelvis orientation and participant perceptions of comfort/well-being. An anthropometric-based seat system targeting upper back support can significantly affect head and pelvic posture but not satisfaction during simulated driving. Future work should examine long-term impacts of these posture changes on health outcomes.

Considerations for application of benchmark dose modeling in radiation research: workshop highlights.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to different forms of ionizing radiation occurs in diverse occupational, medical, and environmental settings. Improving the accuracy of the estimated health risks associated with exposure is therefore, essential for protecting the public, particularly as it relates to chronic low dose exposures. A key aspect to understanding health risks is precise and accurate modeling of the dose-response relationship. Toward this vision, benchmark dose (BMD) modeling may be a suitable approach for consideration in the radiation field. BMD modeling is already extensively used for chemical hazard assessments and is considered statistically preferable to identifying low and no observed adverse effects levels. BMD modeling involves fitting mathematical models to dose-response data for a relevant biological endpoint and identifying a point of departure (the BMD, or its lower bound). Recent examples in chemical toxicology show that when applied to molecular endpoints (e.g. genotoxic and transcriptional endpoints), BMDs correlate to points of departure for more apical endpoints such as phenotypic changes (e.g. adverse effects) of interest to regulatory decisions. This use of BMD modeling may be valuable to explore in the radiation field, specifically in combination with adverse outcome pathways, and may facilitate better interpretation of relevant in vivo and in vitro dose-response data. To advance this application, a workshop was organized on June 3rd, 2022, in Ottawa, Ontario that brought together BMD experts in chemical toxicology and the radiation scientific community of researchers, regulators, and policy-makers. The workshop's objective was to introduce radiation scientists to BMD modeling and its practical application using case examples from the chemical toxicity field and demonstrate the BMDExpress software using a radiation dataset. Discussions focused on the BMD approach, the importance of experimental design, regulatory applications, its use in supporting the development of adverse outcome pathways, and specific radiation-relevant examples. CONCLUSIONS: Although further deliberations are needed to advance the use of BMD modeling in the radiation field, these initial discussions and partnerships highlight some key steps to guide future undertakings related to new experimental work.

Radiation adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) are on the horizon: advancing radiation protection through an international Horizon-Style exercise.

PURPOSE: The Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) framework, a systematic tool that can link available mechanistic data with phenotypic outcomes of relevance to regulatory decision-making, is being explored in areas related to radiation risk assessment. To examine the challenges including the use of AOPs to support the radiation protection community, an international horizon-style exercise was initiated through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency High-Level Group on Low Dose Research Radiation/Chemical AOP Joint Topical Group. The objective of the HSE was to facilitate the collection of ideas from a range of experts, to short-list a set of priority research questions that could, if answered, improve the description of the radiation dose-response relationship for low dose/dose-rate exposures, as well as reduce uncertainties in estimating the risk of developing adverse health outcomes following such exposures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The HSE was guided by an international steering committee of radiation risk experts. In the first phase, research questions were solicited on areas that can be supported by the AOP framework, or challenges on the use of AOPs in radiation risk assessment. In the second phase, questions received were refined and sorted by the SC using a best-worst scaling method. During a virtual 3-day workshop, the list of questions was further narrowed. In the third phase, an international survey of the broader radiation protection community led to an orderly ranking of the top questions. RESULTS: Of the 271 questions solicited, 254 were accepted and categorized into 9 themes. These were further refined to the top 25 prioritized questions. Among these, the higher ranked questions will be considered as 'important' to drive future initiatives in the low dose radiation protection community. These included questions on the ability of AOPs to delineate responses across different levels of biological organization, and how AOPs could be applied to address research questions on radiation quality, doses or dose-rates, exposure time patterns and deliveries, and uncertainties in low dose/dose-rate effects. A better understanding of these concepts is required to support the use of the AOP framework in radiation risk assessment. CONCLUSION: Through dissemination of these results and considerations on next steps, the JTG will address select priority questions to advance the development and use of AOPs in the radiation protection community. The major themes observed will be discussed in the context of their relevance to areas of research that support the system of radiation protection.

The Councils on Chiropractic Education International Mapping Project: Comparison of Member Organizations' Educational Standards to the Councils on Chiropractic Education International Framework Document.

Objective: The purpose of this project was to investigate how well each member agency's standards complied with the Councils on Chiropractic Education International (CCEI) framework standards. Methods: Each of the CCEI member agencies were provided with a mapping template that was approved by all representatives. A representative from each agency independently mapped their agency's standards to the CCEI framework standards using the template document. Discrepancies were explored and discussed among members. Member agencies discussed with their constituents the omissions and areas that did not comply or adequately match the CCEI document. Changes or additions to member agency standards were made, and updated versions of the mapping were agreed by all CCEI representatives. Results: There were 12 sections containing 30 standards within the CCEI framework standards. The Council of Chiropractic Education Australasia and Council on Chiropractic Education Canada reported relevant standards for all 30 CCEI standards. The European Council on Chiropractic Education had 29 of 30 relevant standards, with no direct standard for service. The products that were created were an executive summary of our findings and a detailed map showing similarities for each of the member agencies. Conclusion: This mapping project demonstrated the similarities of the CCEI member agency standards and that these standards focused on outcomes-based chiropractic education. This quality improvement project resulted in useful dialogue among the member agencies during this project, which clarified areas of difference.

Association between exposures to radon and γ-ray radiation and histologic type of lung cancer in Eldorado uranium mining and milling workers from Canada.

BACKGROUND: The authors assessed the association between radon decay products (RDP) exposure and histologic types of incident lung cancer in a cohort of 16,752 (91.6% male) Eldorado uranium workers who were first employed from 1932 to 1980 and were followed through 1969-1999. METHODS: Substantially revised identifying information and RDP exposures were obtained on workers from the Port Radium and Beaverlodge uranium mines and from the Port Hope radium and uranium refinery and processing facility in Canada. Poisson regression was conducted using the National Research Council's Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VI-type models to estimate the risks of lung cancer by histologic type from RDP exposures and γ-ray doses. RESULTS: Lung cancer incidence was significantly higher in workers compared with the general Canadian male population. Radiation risks of lung cancer for all histologic types (n = 594; 34% squamous cell, 16% small cell, 17% adenocarcinoma) increased with increasing RDP exposure, with no indication of curvature in the dose response (excess relative risk per 100 working level months = 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.91). Radiation risks did not differ by histologic type (p = .144). The best-fitting BEIR VI-type model included adjustments for the significant modifying effects of time since exposure, exposure rate, and attained age. The addition of γ-ray doses to the model with RDP exposures improved the model fit, but the risk estimates remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: The first analysis of radiation risks of lung cancer histologic types in the Eldorado cohort supported the use of BEIR VI-type models to predict the future risk of histologic types of lung cancer from past and current RDP exposures. LAY SUMMARY: Lung cancer survival depends strongly on the cell type of lung cancer. The best survival rates are for patients who have the adenocarcinoma type. This study included 16,752 Eldorado uranium workers who were exposed to radon and γ-ray radiation during 1932-1980, were alive in 1969, and were followed for the development of new lung cancer during 1969-1999. One third of all lung cancers were of the squamous cell type, whereas the adenocarcinoma and small cell types accounted for less than 20% each. Radiation risks of lung cancer among men increased significantly with increasing radon exposure for all cell types, with the highest risks estimated for small cell and squamous cell lung cancers.

COHERE - strengthening cooperation within the Canadian government on radiation research.

PURPOSE: Canadian Organization on Health Effects from Radiation Exposure (COHERE) is a government initiative to better understand biological and human health risks from ionizing radiation exposures relevant to occupational and environmental settings (<100 mGy, <6 mGy/h). It is currently a partnership between two federal agencies, Health Canada (HC) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). COHERE's vision is to contribute knowledge to reduce scientific uncertainties from low dose and dose-rate exposures. COHERE will advance our understanding by bridging the knowledge gap between human health risks and linkages to molecular- and cellular-level responses to radiation. Research focuses on identifying sensitive, early, and key molecular events of relevance to risk assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The initiative will address questions of relevance to better apprize Canadians, including radiation workers and members of the public and Indigenous peoples, on health risks from low dose radiation exposure and inform radiation protection frameworks at a national and international level. Furthermore, it will support global efforts to conduct collaborative undertakings and better coordinate research. Here, we describe a historical overview of the research conducted, the strategic research agenda that outlines the scientific framework, stakeholders, opportunities to harmonize internationally, and how research outcomes will better inform communication of risk to Canadians.

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-pharmacological management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario protocol for traffic injury management (OPTIMa) collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an evidence-based guideline for the non-pharmacological management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain (i.e., tension-type or cervicogenic). METHODS: This guideline is based on systematic reviews of high-quality studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel considered the evidence of clinical benefits, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences when formulating recommendations. Target audience includes clinicians; target population is adults with persistent headaches associated with neck pain. RESULTS: When managing patients with headaches associated with neck pain, clinicians should (a) rule out major structural or other pathologies, or migraine as the cause of headaches; (b) classify headaches associated with neck pain as tension-type headache or cervicogenic headache once other sources of headache pathology has been ruled out; (c) provide care in partnership with the patient and involve the patient in care planning and decision making; (d) provide care in addition to structured patient education; (e) consider low-load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises for tension-type headaches (episodic or chronic) or cervicogenic headaches >3 months duration; (f) consider general exercise, multimodal care (spinal mobilization, craniocervical exercise and postural correction) or clinical massage for chronic tension-type headaches; (g) do not offer manipulation of the cervical spine as the sole form of treatment for episodic or chronic tension-type headaches; (h) consider manual therapy (manipulation with or without mobilization) to the cervical and thoracic spine for cervicogenic headaches >3 months duration. However, there is no added benefit in combining spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization and exercises; and (i) reassess the patient at every visit to assess outcomes and determine whether a referral is indicated. CONCLUSIONS: Our evidence-based guideline provides recommendations for the conservative management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain. The impact of the guideline in clinical practice requires validation. SIGNIFICANCE: Neck pain and headaches are very common comorbidities in the population. Tension-type and cervicogenic headaches can be treated effectively with specific exercises. Manual therapy can be considered as an adjunct therapy to exercise to treat patients with cervicogenic headaches. The management of tension-type and cervicogenic headaches should be patient-centred.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: resources to implement a spine care program.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to describe the development of a list of resources necessary to implement a model of care for the management of spine-related concerns anywhere in the world, but especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: Contents from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) Classification System and GSCI care pathway papers provided a foundation for the resources list. A seed document was developed that included resources for spine care that could be delivered in primary, secondary and tertiary settings, as well as resources needed for self-care and community-based settings for a wide variety of spine concerns (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, pathology and spinal diseases). An iterative expert consensus process was used using electronic surveys. RESULTS: Thirty-five experts completed the process. An iterative consensus process was used through an electronic survey. A consensus was reached after two rounds. The checklist of resources included the following categories: healthcare provider knowledge and skills, materials and equipment, human resources, facilities and infrastructure. The list identifies resources needed to implement a spine care program in any community, which are based upon spine care needs. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first international and interprofessional attempt to develop a list of resources needed to deliver care in an evidence-based care pathway for the management of people presenting with spine-related concerns. This resource list needs to be field tested in a variety of communities with different resource capacities to verify its utility. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: model of care and implementation.

PURPOSE: Spine-related disorders are a leading cause of global disability and are a burden on society and to public health. Currently, there is no comprehensive, evidence-based model of care for spine-related disorders, which includes back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, spinal diseases, and pathology, that could be applied in global health care settings. The purposes of this paper are to propose: (1) principles to transform the delivery of spine care; (2) an evidence-based model that could be applied globally; and (3) implementation suggestions. METHODS: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) meetings and literature reviews were synthesized into a seed document and distributed to spine care experts. After three rounds of a modified Delphi process, all participants reached consensus on the final model of care and implementation steps. RESULTS: Sixty-six experts representing 24 countries participated. The GSCI model of care has eight core principles: person-centered, people-centered, biopsychosocial, proactive, evidence-based, integrative, collaborative, and self-sustaining. The model of care includes a classification system and care pathway, levels of care, and a focus on the patient's journey. The six steps for implementation are initiation and preparation; assessment of the current situation; planning and designing solutions; implementation; assessment and evaluation of program; and sustain program and scale up. CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based, practical, sustainable, and scalable model of care representing eight core principles with a six-step implementation plan. The aim of this model is to help transform spine care globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries and underserved communities. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: classification system for spine-related concerns.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to describe the development of a classification system that would apply to anyone with a spine-related concern and that can be used in an evidence-based spine care pathway. METHODS: Existing classification systems for spinal disorders were assembled. A seed document was developed through round-table discussions followed by a modified Delphi process. International and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate. RESULTS: Thirty-six experts from 15 countries participated. After the second round, there was 95% agreement of the proposed classification system. The six major classifications included: no or minimal symptoms (class 0); mild symptoms (i.e., neck or back pain) but no interference with activities (class I); moderate or severe symptoms with interference of activities (class II); spine-related neurological signs or symptoms (class III); severe bony spine deformity, trauma or pathology (class IV); and spine-related symptoms or destructive lesions associated with systemic pathology (class V). Subclasses for each major class included chronicity and severity when different interventions were anticipated or recommended. CONCLUSIONS: An international and interprofessional group developed a comprehensive classification system for all potential presentations of people who may seek care or advice at a spine care program. This classification can be used in the development of a spine care pathway, in clinical practice, and for research purposes. This classification needs to be tested for validity, reliability, and consistency among clinicians from different specialties and in different communities and cultures. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: methodology, contributors, and disclosures.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to describe the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) contributors, disclosures, and methods for reporting transparency on the development of the recommendations. METHODS: World Spine Care convened the GSCI to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable healthcare model for spinal care. The initiative aims to improve the management, prevention, and public health for spine-related disorders worldwide; thus, global representation was essential. A series of meetings established the initiative's mission and goals. Electronic surveys collected contributorship and demographic information, and experiences with spinal conditions to better understand perceptions and potential biases that were contributing to the model of care. RESULTS: Sixty-eight clinicians and scientists participated in the deliberations and are authors of one or more of the GSCI articles. Of these experts, 57 reported providing spine care in 34 countries, (i.e., low-, middle-, and high-income countries, as well as underserved communities in high-income countries.) The majority reported personally experiencing or having a close family member with one or more spinal concerns including: spine-related trauma or injury, spinal problems that required emergency or surgical intervention, spinal pain referred from non-spine sources, spinal deformity, spinal pathology or disease, neurological problems, and/or mild, moderate, or severe back or neck pain. There were no substantial reported conflicts of interest. CONCLUSION: The GSCI participants have broad professional experience and wide international distribution with no discipline dominating the deliberations. The GSCI believes this set of papers has the potential to inform and improve spine care globally. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: World Spine Care executive summary on reducing spine-related disability in low- and middle-income communities.

PURPOSE: Spinal disorders, including back and neck pain, are major causes of disability, economic hardship, and morbidity, especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries. Currently, there is no model of care to address this issue. This paper provides an overview of the papers from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI), which was convened to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable, spinal healthcare model for communities around the world with various levels of resources. METHODS: Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders. RESULTS: Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care. CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: care pathway for people with spine-related concerns.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to describe the development of an evidence-based care pathway that can be implemented globally. METHODS: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) care pathway development team extracted interventions recommended for the management of spinal disorders from six GSCI articles that synthesized the available evidence from guidelines and relevant literature. Sixty-eight international and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate. An iterative consensus process was used. RESULTS: After three rounds of review, 46 experts from 16 countries reached consensus for the care pathway that includes five decision steps: awareness, initial triage, provider assessment, interventions (e.g., non-invasive treatment; invasive treatment; psychological and social intervention; prevention and public health; specialty care and interprofessional management), and outcomes. The care pathway can be used to guide the management of patients with any spine-related concern (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spinal injury, neurological conditions, pathology, spinal diseases). The pathway is simple and can be incorporated into educational tools, decision-making trees, and electronic medical records. CONCLUSION: A care pathway for the management of individuals presenting with spine-related concerns includes evidence-based recommendations to guide health care providers in the management of common spinal disorders. The proposed pathway is person-centered and evidence-based. The acceptability and utility of this care pathway will need to be evaluated in various communities, especially in low- and middle-income countries, with different cultural background and resources. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: public health and prevention interventions for common spine disorders in low- and middle-income communities.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop recommendations for prevention interventions for spinal disorders that could be delivered globally, but especially in underserved areas and in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We extracted risk factors, associations, and comorbidities of common spinal disorders (e.g., back and neck pain, spinal trauma, infection, developmental disorders) from a scoping review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews of clinical trials, cohort studies, case control studies, and cross-sectional studies. Categories were informed by the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) classification system using the biopsychosocial model. Risk factors were clustered and mapped visually. Potential prevention interventions for individuals and communities were identified. RESULTS: Forty-one risk factors, 51 associations, and 39 comorbidities were extracted; some were associated with more than one disorder. Interventions were at primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary prevention levels. Public health-related actions included screening for osteopenia, avoiding exposure to certain substances associated with spinal disorders, insuring adequate dietary intake for vitamins and minerals, smoking cessation, weight management, injury prevention, adequate physical activity, and avoiding harmful clinical practices (e.g., over-medicalization). CONCLUSION: Prevention principles and health promotion strategies were identified that were incorporated in the GSCI care pathway. Interventions should encourage healthy behaviors of individuals and promote public health interventions that are most likely to optimize physical and psychosocial health targeting the unique characteristics of each community. Prevention interventions that are implemented in medically underserved areas should be based upon best evidence, resource availability, and selected through group decision-making processes by individuals and the community. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

A scoping review of biopsychosocial risk factors and co-morbidities for common spinal disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to identify risk factors, prognostic factors, and comorbidities associated with common spinal disorders. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature of common spinal disorders was performed through September 2016. To identify search terms, we developed 3 terminology groups for case definitions: 1) spinal pain of unknown origin, 2) spinal syndromes, and 3) spinal pathology. We used a comprehensive strategy to search PubMed for meta-analyses and systematic reviews of case-control studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials for risk and prognostic factors and cross-sectional studies describing associations and comorbidities. RESULTS: Of 3,453 candidate papers, 145 met study criteria and were included in this review. Risk factors were reported for group 1: non-specific low back pain (smoking, overweight/obesity, negative recovery expectations), non-specific neck pain (high job demands, monotonous work); group 2: degenerative spinal disease (workers' compensation claim, degenerative scoliosis), and group 3: spinal tuberculosis (age, imprisonment, previous history of tuberculosis), spinal cord injury (age, accidental injury), vertebral fracture from osteoporosis (type 1 diabetes, certain medications, smoking), and neural tube defects (folic acid deficit, anti-convulsant medications, chlorine, influenza, maternal obesity). A range of comorbidities was identified for spinal disorders. CONCLUSION: Many associated factors for common spinal disorders identified in this study are modifiable. The most common spinal disorders are co-morbid with general health conditions, but there is a lack of clarity in the literature differentiating which conditions are merely comorbid versus ones that are risk factors. Modifiable risk factors present opportunities for policy, research, and public health prevention efforts on both the individual patient and community levels. Further research into prevention interventions for spinal disorders is needed to address this gap in the literature.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: a systematic review for the assessment of spine-related complaints in populations with limited resources and in low- and middle-income communities.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic literature review was to develop recommendations for the assessment of spine-related complaints in medically underserved areas with limited resources. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and best evidence synthesis of guidelines on the assessment of spine-related complaints. Independent reviewers critically appraised eligible guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II criteria. Low risk of bias clinical practice guidelines was used to develop recommendations. In accordance with the mandate of the Global Spinal Care Initiative (GSCI), recommendations were selected that could be applied to medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries by considering the limited access and costs of diagnostic technologies. RESULTS: We screened 3069 citations; 20 guidelines were eligible for critical appraisal. We used 13 that had a low risk of bias that targeted neck and back pain. CONCLUSIONS: When assessing patients with spine-related complaints in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries, we recommend that clinicians should: (1) take a clinical history to determine signs or symptoms suggesting serious pathology (red flags) and psychological factors (yellow flags); (2) perform a physical examination (musculoskeletal and neurological); (3) do not routinely obtain diagnostic imaging; (4) obtain diagnostic imaging and/or laboratory tests when serious pathologies are suspected, and/or presence of progressive neurologic deficits, and/or disabling persistent pain; (5) do not perform electromyography or nerve conduction studies for diagnosis of intervertebral disc disease with radiculopathy; and (6) do not perform discography for the assessment of spinal disorders. This information can be used to inform the GSCI care pathway and model of care. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: a summary of the global burden of low back and neck pain studies.

PURPOSE: This article summarizes relevant findings related to low back and neck pain from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) reports for the purpose of informing the Global Spine Care Initiative. METHODS: We reviewed and summarized back and neck pain burden data from two studies that were published in Lancet in 2016, namely: "Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015" and "Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 315 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE), 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015." RESULTS: In 2015, low back and neck pain were ranked the fourth leading cause of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) globally just after ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and lower respiratory infection {low back and neck pain DALYs [thousands]: 94 941.5 [95% uncertainty interval (UI) 67 745.5-128 118.6]}. In 2015, over half a billion people worldwide had low back pain and more than a third of a billion had neck pain of more than 3 months duration. Low back and neck pain are the leading causes of years lived with disability in most countries and age groups. CONCLUSION: Low back and neck pain prevalence and disability have increased markedly over the past 25 years and will likely increase further with population aging. Spinal disorders should be prioritized for research funding given the huge and growing global burden. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: applying evidence-based guidelines on the non-invasive management of back and neck pain to low- and middle-income communities.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to develop recommendations for the management of spinal disorders in low-income communities, with a focus on non-invasive pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies for non-specific low back and neck pain. METHODS: We synthesized two evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back and neck pain. Our recommendations considered benefits, harms, quality of evidence, and costs, with attention to feasibility in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries. RESULTS: Clinicians should provide education and reassurance, advise patients to remain active, and provide information about self-care options. For acute low back and neck pain without serious pathology, primary conservative treatment options are exercise, manual therapy, superficial heat, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). For patients with chronic low back and neck pain without serious pathology, primary treatment options are exercise, yoga, cognitive behavioral therapies, acupuncture, biofeedback, progressive relaxation, massage, manual therapy, interdisciplinary rehabilitation, NSAIDs, acetaminophen, and antidepressants. For patients with spinal pain with radiculopathy, clinicians may consider exercise, spinal manipulation, or NSAIDs; use of other interventions requires extrapolation from evidence regarding effectiveness for non-radicular spinal pain. Clinicians should not offer treatments that are not effective, including benzodiazepines, botulinum toxin injection, systemic corticosteroids, cervical collar, electrical muscle stimulation, short-wave diathermy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and traction. CONCLUSION: Guidelines developed for high-income settings were adapted to inform a care pathway and model of care for medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries by considering factors such as costs and feasibility, in addition to benefits, harms, and the quality of underlying evidence. The selection of recommended conservative treatments must be finalized through discussion with the involved community and based on a biopsychosocial approach. Decision determinants for selecting recommended treatments include costs, availability of interventions, and cultural and patient preferences. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: a summary of guidelines on invasive interventions for the management of persistent and disabling spinal pain in low- and middle-income communities.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to synthesize recommendations on the use of common elective surgical and interventional procedures for individuals with persistent and disabling non-radicular/axial with or without myelopathy, radicular back pain, cervical myelopathy, symptomatic spinal stenosis, and fractures due to osteoporosis. This review was to inform a clinical care pathway on the patient presentations where surgical interventions could reasonably be considered. METHODS: We synthesized recommendations from six evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and one appropriate use criteria guidance for the surgical and interventional management of persistent and disabling spine pain. RESULTS: Lower priority surgery/conditions include fusion for lumbar/non-radicular neck pain and higher priority surgery/conditions include discectomy/decompressive surgery for cervical or lumbar radiculopathy, cervical myelopathy, and lumbar spinal stenosis. Epidural steroid injections are less expensive than most surgeries with fewer harms; however, benefits are small and short lived. Vertebroplasty should be considered over kyphoplasty as an option for patients with severe pain and disability due to osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. CONCLUSION: Elective surgery and interventional procedures could be limited in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries due to a lack of resources and surgeons and thus surgical and interventional procedures should be prioritized within these settings. There are non-invasive alternatives that produce similar outcomes and are a recommended option where surgical procedures are not available. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.