Arthur Ameis

Clinical practice guidelines for the noninvasive management of low back pain: A systematic review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration

We conducted a systematic review of guidelines on the management of low back pain (LBP) to assess their methodological quality and guide care. We synthesized guidelines on the management of LBP published from 2005 to 2014 following best evidence synthesis principles. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, DARE, National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database, Index to Chiropractic Literature and grey literature. Independent reviewers critically appraised eligible guidelines using AGREE II criteria. We screened 2504 citations; 13 guidelines were eligible for critical appraisal, and 10 had a low risk of bias. According to high‐quality guidelines: (1) all patients with acute or chronic LBP should receive education, reassurance and instruction on self‐management options; (2) patients with acute LBP should be encouraged to return to activity and may benefit from paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or spinal manipulation; (3) the management of chronic LBP may include exercise, paracetamol or NSAIDs, manual therapy, acupuncture, and multimodal rehabilitation (combined physical and psychological treatment); and (4) patients with lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy may benefit from spinal manipulation. Ten guidelines were of high methodological quality, but updating and some methodological improvements are needed. Overall, most guidelines target nonspecific LBP and recommend education, staying active/exercise, manual therapy, and paracetamol or NSAIDs as first‐line treatments. The recommendation to use paracetamol for acute LBP is challenged by recent evidence and needs to be revisited.

Does structured patient education improve the recovery and clinical outcomes of patients with neck pain? A systematic review from the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration

BACKGROUND CONTEXT In 2008, the Bone and Joint Decade 2000 to 2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders recommended patient education for the management of neck pain. However, the effectiveness of education interventions has recently been challenged. PURPOSE To update the findings of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000 to 2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders and evaluate the effectiveness of structured patient education for the management of patients with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) or neck pain and associated disorders (NAD). STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Systematic review of the literature and best-evidence synthesis. PATIENT SAMPLE Randomized controlled trials that compared structured patient education with other conservative interventions. OUTCOME MEASURES Self-rated recovery, functional recovery (eg, disability, return to activities, work, or school), pain intensity, health-related quality of life, psychological outcomes such as depression or fear, or adverse effects. METHODS We systematically searched eight electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, DARE, PubMed, and ICL) from 2000 to 2012. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies meeting our selection criteria were eligible for critical appraisal. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Scientifically admissible studies were summarized in evidence tables and synthesized following best-evidence synthesis principles. RESULTS We retrieved 4,477 articles. Of those, nine were eligible for critical appraisal and six were scientifically admissible. Four admissible articles investigated patients with WAD and two targeted patients with NAD. All structured patient education interventions included advice on activation or exercises delivered orally combined with written information or as written information alone. Overall, as a therapeutic intervention, structured patient education was equal or less effective than other conservative treatments including massage, supervised exercise, and physiotherapy. However, structured patient education may provide small benefits when combined with physiotherapy. Either mode of delivery (ie, oral or written education) provides similar results in patients with recent WAD. CONCLUSIONS This review adds to the Bone and Joint Decade 2000 to 2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders by defining more specifically the role of structured patient education in the management of WAD and NAD. Results suggest that structured patient education alone cannot be expected to yield large benefits in clinical effectiveness compared with other conservative interventions for patients with WAD or NAD. Moreover, structured patient education may be of benefit during the recovery of patients with WAD when used as an adjunct therapy to physiotherapy or emergency room care. These benefits are small and short lived.

Effectiveness of Passive Physical Modalities for Shoulder Pain: Systematic Review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management Collaboration

Background Shoulder pain is a common musculoskeletal condition in the general population. Passive physical modalities are commonly used to treat shoulder pain. However, previous systematic reviews reported conflicting results. Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of passive physical modalities for the management of soft tissue injuries of the shoulder. Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 1, 1990, to April 18, 2013. Study Selection Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort and case-control studies were eligible. Random pairs of independent reviewers screened 1,470 of 1,760 retrieved articles after removing 290 duplicates. Twenty-two articles were eligible for critical appraisal. Eligible studies were critically appraised using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Of those, 11 studies had a low risk of bias. Data Extraction The lead author extracted data from low risk of bias studies and built evidence tables. A second reviewer independently checked the extracted data. Data Synthesis The findings of studies with a low risk of bias were synthesized according to principles of best evidence synthesis. Pretensioned tape, ultrasound, and interferential current were found to be noneffective for managing shoulder pain. However, diathermy and corticosteroid injections led to similar outcomes. Low-level laser therapy provided short-term pain reduction for subacromial impingement syndrome. Extracorporeal shock-wave therapy was not effective for subacromial impingement syndrome but provided benefits for persistent shoulder calcific tendinitis. Limitations Non-English studies were excluded. Conclusions Most passive physical modalities do not benefit patients with subacromial impingement syndrome. However, low-level laser therapy is more effective than placebo or ultrasound for subacromial impingement syndrome. Similarly, shock-wave therapy is more effective than sham therapy for persistent shoulder calcific tendinitis.

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

PurposeThe purpose of this report is to describe the development of an evidence-based care pathway that can be implemented globally.MethodsThe 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.ResultsAfter 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.ConclusionA 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.Graphical abstractThese slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: model of care and implementation

PurposeSpine-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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsSixty-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.ConclusionThe 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.Graphical abstractThese slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: a review of reviews and recommendations for the non-invasive management of acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture pain in low- and middle-income communities

AbstractPurposeThe purpose of this review was to develop recommendations for non-invasive management of pain due to osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) that could be applied in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and best evidence synthesis of systematic reviews on the non-invasive management of OVCF. Eligible reviews were critically appraised using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Low risk of bias systematic reviews and high-quality primary studies that were identified in the reviews were used to develop recommendations.ResultsFrom 6 low risk of bias systematic reviews and 14 high-quality primary studies we established that for acute pain management, in addition to rest and analgesic medication, orthoses may provide temporary pain relief, in addition to early mobilization. Calcitonin can be considered as a supplement to analgesics; however, cost is of concern. Once acute pain control is achieved, exercise can be effective for improving function and quality of life.ConclusionThe findings from this study will help to inform the GSCI care pathway and model of care for use in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries. Conservative management of acute pain and recovery of function in adults with OVCF should include early mobilization, exercise, spinal orthosis for pain relief, and calcitonin for analgesic-refractory acute pain.Graphical Abstract These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

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

AbstractPurposeThe 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. MethodsExisting 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.ResultsThirty-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.ConclusionsAn 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.Graphical abstractThese slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

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

AbstractPurposeThe 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. MethodsWorld 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. ResultsSixty-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.ConclusionThe 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.Graphical abstractThese slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

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

PurposeThe 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.MethodsContents 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.ResultsThirty-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.ConclusionTo 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.Graphical abstractThese 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

PurposeSpinal 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.MethodsLeading 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.ResultsLiterature 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.ConclusionThe 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.Graphical abstractThese slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.