Acupuncture and chiropractic care for chronic pain in an integrated health plan: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Substantial recent research examines the efficacy of many types of complementary and alternative (CAM) therapies. However, outcomes associated with the "real-world" use of CAM has been largely overlooked, despite calls for CAM therapies to be studied in the manner in which they are practiced. Americans seek CAM treatments far more often for chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) than for any other condition. Among CAM treatments for CMP, acupuncture and chiropractic (A/C) care are among those with the highest acceptance by physician groups and the best evidence to support their use. Further, recent alarming increases in delivery of opioid treatment and surgical interventions for chronic pain--despite their high costs, potential adverse effects, and modest efficacy--suggests the need to evaluate real world outcomes associated with promising non-pharmacological/non-surgical CAM treatments for CMP, which are often well accepted by patients and increasingly used in the community. METHODS/DESIGN: This multi-phase, mixed methods study will: (1) conduct a retrospective study using information from electronic medical records (EMRs) of a large HMO to identify unique clusters of patients with CMP (e.g., those with differing demographics, histories of pain condition, use of allopathic and CAM health services, and comorbidity profiles) that may be associated with different propensities for A/C utilization and/or differential outcomes associated with such care; (2) use qualitative interviews to explore allopathic providers' recommendations for A/C and patients' decisions to pursue and retain CAM care; and (3) prospectively evaluate health services/costs and broader clinical and functional outcomes associated with the receipt of A/C relative to carefully matched comparison participants receiving traditional CMP services. Sensitivity analyses will compare methods relying solely on EMR-derived data versus analyses supplementing EMR data with conventionally collected patient and clinician data. DISCUSSION: Successful completion of these aggregate aims will provide an evaluation of outcomes associated with the real-world use of A/C services. The trio of retrospective, qualitative, and prospective study will also provide a clearer understanding of the decision-making processes behind the use of A/C for CMP and a transportable methodology that can be applied to other health care settings, CAM treatments, and clinical populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01345409.

Physical examination for lumbar radiculopathy due to disc herniation in patients with low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low-back pain with leg pain (sciatica) may be caused by a herniated intervertebral disc exerting pressure on the nerve root. Most patients will respond to conservative treatment, but in carefully selected patients, surgical discectomy may provide faster relief of symptoms. Primary care clinicians use patient history and physical examination to evaluate the likelihood of disc herniation and select patients for further imaging and possible surgery. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the performance of tests performed during physical examination (alone or in combination) to identify radiculopathy due to lower lumbar disc herniation in patients with low-back pain and sciatica;(2) To assess the influence of sources of heterogeneity on diagnostic performance. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched electronic databases for primary studies: PubMed (includes MEDLINE), EMBASE, and CINAHL, and (systematic) reviews: PubMed and Medion (all from earliest until 30 April 2008), and checked references of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered studies if they compared the results of tests performed during physical examination on patients with back pain with those of diagnostic imaging (MRI, CT, myelography) or findings at surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed the quality of each publication with the QUADAS tool, and extracted details on patient and study design characteristics, index tests and reference standard, and the diagnostic two-by-two table. We presented information on sensitivities and specificities with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for all aspects of physical examination. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were computed for subsets of studies showing sufficient clinical and statistical homogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 cohort studies (median N = 126, range 71 to 2504) and three case control studies (38 to100 cases). Only one study was carried out in a primary care population. When used in isolation, diagnostic performance of most physical tests (scoliosis, paresis or muscle weakness, muscle wasting, impaired reflexes, sensory deficits) was poor. Some tests (forward flexion, hyper-extension test, and slump test) performed slightly better, but the number of studies was small. In the one primary care study, most tests showed higher specificity and lower sensitivity compared to other settings.Most studies assessed the Straight Leg Raising (SLR) test. In surgical populations, characterized by a high prevalence of disc herniation (58% to 98%), the SLR showed high sensitivity (pooled estimate 0.92, 95% CI: 0.87 to 0.95) with widely varying specificity (0.10 to 1.00, pooled estimate 0.28, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.40). Results of studies using imaging showed more heterogeneity and poorer sensitivity. The crossed SLR showed high specificity (pooled estimate 0.90, 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.94) with consistently low sensitivity (pooled estimate 0.28, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.35).Combining positive test results increased the specificity of physical tests, but few studies presented data on test combinations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When used in isolation, current evidence indicates poor diagnostic performance of most physical tests used to identify lumbar disc herniation. However, most findings arise from surgical populations and may not apply to primary care or non-selected populations. Better performance may be obtained when tests are combined.

2015 Updated Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group.

STUDY DESIGN: Method guideline for systematic reviews of trials of interventions for neck and back pain, and related spinal disorders. OBJECTIVE: To help authors design, conduct, and report systematic reviews of trials in this field. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In 1997, the Cochrane Back Review Group editorial board published the Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews, which was updated in 2003 and in 2009. Since then, new methodological evidence has emerged and standards have changed, therefore it was clear that revisions were needed to the 2009 guideline. In May 2015 the group changed its name to Cochrane Back and Neck. METHODS: The editorial board met in September 2014 to review the relevant new methodological evidence and determine how it should be incorporated. Members of the advisory board were consulted. Based on the feedback received, an updated method guideline was prepared and approved by the editorial board. RESULTS: We have updated recommendations in 7 categories: objectives, literature search, selection criteria, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, data analysis, and reporting of results and conclusions. Each category is classified into minimum criteria (mandatory) and further guidance (optional). This update also includes some new guidance for preparation of summary of finding tables and for conducting nonintervention reviews. CONCLUSION: Citations of previous versions of the method guideline in published scientific articles (1193 in total) suggest that others may find this guideline useful to plan, conduct, or evaluate systematic reviews in the field of back and neck pain, and spinal disorders. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Hospice patients' attitudes regarding spiritual discussions with their doctors.

The purpose of this study was to assess hospice patients' attitudes regarding the discussion of spiritual issues with their physicians. We conducted in-depth interviews using open-ended questions on living with illness, spirituality and religion, and physician-patient relationships. The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed for dominant themes. The following dominant themes were identified: (1) treating the whole person, (2) treating with sensitivity, (3) favorable attitudes toward religious or spiritual discussions with doctors, and (4) no "preaching." Our findings suggest that patients do not expect physicians to be their primary spiritual advisors; however, physicians should be aware of and comfortable communicating with patients about religious or spiritual issues. More training in this topic may enhance the care physicians provide to patients near the end of life.

The Effectiveness and Risks of Long-Term Opioid Treatment of Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic pain is common and use of long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain has increased dramatically. This report reviews the current evidence on effectiveness and harms of opioid therapy for chronic pain, focusing on long-term (≥1 year) outcomes. DATA SOURCES: A prior systematic review (searches through October 2008), electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Libraries January 2008 to August 2014), reference lists, and clinical trials registries. REVIEW METHODS: Using predefined criteria, we selected randomized trials and comparative observational studies of patients with cancer or noncancer chronic pain being considered for or prescribed long-term opioid therapy that addressed effectiveness or harms versus placebo, no opioid use, or nonopioid therapies; different opioid dosing methods; or risk mitigation strategies. We also included uncontrolled studies ≥1 year that reported rates of abuse, addiction, or misuse, and studies on the accuracy of risk prediction instruments for predicting subsequent opioid abuse or misuse. The quality of included studies was assessed, data were extracted, and results were summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: Of the 4,209 citations identified at the title and abstract level, a total of 39 studies were included. For a number of Key Questions, we identified no studies meeting inclusion criteria. Where studies were available, the strength of evidence was rated no higher than low, due to imprecision and methodological shortcomings, with the exception of buccal or intranasal fentanyl for pain relief outcomes within 2 hours after dosing (strength of evidence: moderate). No study evaluated effects of long-term opioid therapy versus no opioid therapy. In 10 uncontrolled studies, rates of opioid abuse were 0.6 percent to 8 percent and rates of dependence were 3.1 percent to 26 percent in primary care settings, but studies varied in methods used to define and ascertain outcomes. Rates of aberrant drug-related behaviors ranged from 5.7 percent to 37.1 percent. Compared with nonuse, long-term opioid therapy was associated with increased risk of abuse (one cohort study), overdose (one cohort study), fracture (two observational studies), myocardial infarction (two observational studies), and markers of sexual dysfunction (one cross-sectional study), with several studies showing a dose-dependent association. One randomized trial found no difference between a more liberal opioid dose escalation strategy and maintenance of current dose in pain or function, but differences between groups in daily opioid doses at the end of the trial were small. One cohort study found methadone associated with lower risk of mortality than long-acting morphine in a Veterans Affairs population in a propensity adjusted analysis (adjusted HR 0.56, 95 percent CI 0.51 to 0.62). Estimates of diagnostic accuracy for the Opioid Risk Tool were extremely inconsistent and other risk assessment instruments were evaluated in only one or two studies. No study evaluated the effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies on outcomes related to overdose, addiction, abuse, or misuse. Evidence was insufficient to evaluate benefits and harms of long-term opioid therapy in high-risk patients or in other subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain is very limited but suggests an increased risk of serious harms that appears to be dose-dependent. More research is needed to understand long-term benefits, risk of abuse and related outcomes, and effectiveness of different opioid prescribing methods and risk mitigation strategies.

Interventions to influence consulting and antibiotic use for acute respiratory tract infections in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are common in children and generally self-limiting, yet often result in consultations to primary care. Frequent consultations divert resources from care for potentially more serious conditions and increase the opportunity for antibiotic overuse. Overuse of antibiotics is associated with adverse effects and antimicrobial resistance, and has been shown to influence how patients seek care in ensuing illness episodes. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of interventions directed towards parents or caregivers which were designed to influence consulting and antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in children in primary care. Main outcomes were parental consulting rate, parental knowledge, and proportion of children subsequently consuming antibiotics. Of 5,714 references, 23 studies (representing 20 interventions) met inclusion criteria. Materials designed to engage children in addition to parents were effective in modifying parental knowledge and behaviour, resulting in reductions in consulting rates ranging from 13 to 40%. Providing parents with delayed prescriptions significantly decreased reported antibiotic use (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.46 (0.40, 0.54); moreover, a delayed or no prescribing approach did not diminish parental satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: IN ORDER TO BE MOST EFFECTIVE, INTERVENTIONS TO INFLUENCE PARENTAL CONSULTING AND ANTIBIOTIC USE SHOULD: engage children, occur prior to an illness episode, employ delayed prescribing, and provide guidance on specific symptoms. These results support the wider implementation of interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use in children.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain: an updated Cochrane review.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and COX-2 inhibitors in the treatment of nonspecific low back pain and to assess which type of NSAID is most effective. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: NSAIDs are the most frequently prescribed medications worldwide and are widely used for patients with low back pain. Selective COX-2 inhibitors are currently available and used for patients with low back pain. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to and including June 2007 if reported in English, Dutch, or German. We also screened references given in relevant reviews and identified trials. Randomized trials and double-blind controlled trials of NSAIDs in nonspecific low back pain with or without sciatica were included. RESULTS: In total, 65 trials (total number of patients = 11,237) were included in this review. Twenty-eight trials (42%) were considered high quality. Statistically significant effects were found in favor of NSAIDs compared with placebo, but at the cost of statistically significant more side effects. There is moderate evidence that NSAIDs are not more effective than paracetamol for acute low back pain, but paracetamol had fewer side effects. There is moderate evidence that NSAIDs are not more effective than other drugs for acute low back pain. There is strong evidence that various types of NSAIDs, including COX-2 NSAIDs, are equally effective for acute low back pain. COX-2 NSAIDs had statistically significantly fewer side effects than traditional NSAIDs. CONCLUSION: The evidence from the 65 trials included in this review suggests that NSAIDs are effective for short-term symptomatic relief in patients with acute and chronic low back pain without sciatica. However, effect sizes are small. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a specific type of NSAID, which is clearly more effective than others. The selective COX-2 inhibitors showed fewer side effects compared with traditional NSAIDs in the randomized controlled trials included in this review. However, recent studies have shown that COX-2 inhibitors are associated with increased cardiovascular risks in specific patient populations.

Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change.

STUDY DESIGN: Literature review, expert panel, and a workshop during the "VIII International Forum on Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain" (Amsterdam, June 2006). OBJECTIVE: To develop practical guidance regarding the minimal important change (MIC) on frequently used measures of pain and functional status for low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Empirical studies have tried to determine meaningful changes for back pain, using different methodologies. This has led to confusion about what change is clinically important for commonly used back pain outcome measures. METHODS: This study covered the Visual Analogue Scale (0-100) and the Numerical Rating Scale (0-10) for pain and for function, the Roland Disability Questionnaire (0-24), the Oswestry Disability Index (0-100), and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (0-100). The literature was reviewed for empirical evidence. Additionally, experts and participants of the VIII International Forum on Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain were consulted to develop international consensus on clinical interpretation. RESULTS: There was wide variation in study design and the methods used to estimate MICs, and in values found for MIC, where MIC is the improvement in clinical status of an individual patient. However, after discussion among experts and workshop participants a reasonable consensus was achieved. Proposed MIC values are: 15 for the Visual Analogue Scale, 2 for the Numerical Rating Scale, 5 for the Roland Disability Questionnaire, 10 for the Oswestry Disability Index, and 20 for the QBDQ. When the baseline score is taken into account, a 30% improvement was considered a useful threshold for identifying clinically meaningful improvement on each of these measures. CONCLUSION: For a range of commonly used back pain outcome measures, a 30% change from baseline may be considered clinically meaningful improvement when comparing before and after measures for individual patients. It is hoped that these proposals facilitate the use of these measures in clinical practice and the comparability of future studies. The proposed MIC values are not the final answer but offer a common starting point for future research.