Ω
Attorney General George Jepsen announced today that Aetna and American Specialty Health Networks, Inc. have agreed to review and reprocess chiropractic benefit claims that may have been denied improperly under Connecticut law.
The company was responding to questions raised by the Attorney General after several complaints were made by chiropractic providers on behalf of themselves and their patients. They were concerned that Aetna’s claims administration agreement with American Specialty Health Network, which took effect July 1, did not appear to include all the chiropractic services covered under Connecticut law.
Connecticut law requires health insurance plans to cover chiropractic care “to the same extent” coverage is provided for services rendered by a physician.
“Aetna’s prompt and fair response to this issue means providers will be paid for covered services and Aetna’s enrollees will continue to receive the care to which they are entitled,” Jepsen said. “Everyone benefits from this cooperation.”
Chiropractors licensed in Connecticut are permitted to provide a wide range of services, such as the use of X-ray and other diagnostic technology, the administration of foods and vitamins and preventative care. If health insurance plans cover those services when provided by physicians, they also must be covered when provided by chiropractors in Connecticut.
Aetna told Jepsen the claim system will be updated to include the procedure codes for qualifying services a chiropractor can provide in Connecticut. In addition, ASHN will review eligible claims submitted since July 1 and reprocess those denied incorrectly. No estimate was available on the number of claims affected.
Since July 1, American Specialty Health Network has provided claims administration and other services for chiropractic benefits available under Aetna’s health insurance plans with the exception of Aetna’s Traditional Choice plans in Connecticut.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
Chiropractic manipulation results in little or no risk of chest injury
Ω
Dynamic chest compression occurs during spinal manipulation. While dynamic chest compression has been well studied in events such as motor vehicle collisions, chest compression forces have not been studied during chiropractic manipulation. In a study published online today in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, researchers quantified and analyzed the magnitude of chest compressions during typical as well as maximum chiropractic manipulation and have found them to be well under the threshold for injury.
"Results from this preliminary study showed that maximum chest compression during chiropractic manipulation of the thoracic spine is unlikely to result in injury," according to lead investigator Brian D. Stemper, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI. "We performed this study to get a better understanding of the force limits of chiropractic manipulation. This information may lead to safer manipulation procedures and help to decrease the possibility of adverse patient outcomes."
In the first part of the study Professor Stemper and his co-investigators worked with two practicing doctors of chiropractic, each with a minimum of 4 years of doctoral training and at least 7 years of healthcare experience. Using a crash test dummy they measured the level of chest compression induced during "normal" chiropractic manipulation and during spinal manipulations wherein the doctors of chiropractic exerted maximum effort. They performed simulated chiropractic manipulations on the test dummy at the midback level (T7 to T8 vertebrae).
In the second part of the study, an instrumented mechanical device was used to apply and measure the forces necessary to induce chest compression in the test dummy. These forces were increased until injurious levels of force were reached. The likelihood of injury was assessed and classified using the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), which is a useful classification system that has been correlated to injury thresholds during biomechanical experimentation.
In the present study, manipulations incorporating typical and maximum efforts by the doctors of chiropractic resulted in maximum chest compressions corresponding to minimal risk of AIS 1 level injuries.
As with all types of patient care, Professor Stemper cautions that "individual patient characteristics including age, degeneration, and gender" should be taken into consideration during treatment such as chiropractic manipulation.
###
The article is "An Experimental Study of Chest Compression During Chiropractic Manipulation of the Thoracic Spine Using an Anthropomorphic Test Device" by Brian D. Stemper, PhD, Jason J. Hallman, PhD, and Boyd M. Peterson, DC. It will appear in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, Volume 34, Issue 5 (June 2011), DOI 10.1016/j.jmpt.2011.04.001, published by Elsevier.
Dynamic chest compression occurs during spinal manipulation. While dynamic chest compression has been well studied in events such as motor vehicle collisions, chest compression forces have not been studied during chiropractic manipulation. In a study published online today in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, researchers quantified and analyzed the magnitude of chest compressions during typical as well as maximum chiropractic manipulation and have found them to be well under the threshold for injury.
"Results from this preliminary study showed that maximum chest compression during chiropractic manipulation of the thoracic spine is unlikely to result in injury," according to lead investigator Brian D. Stemper, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI. "We performed this study to get a better understanding of the force limits of chiropractic manipulation. This information may lead to safer manipulation procedures and help to decrease the possibility of adverse patient outcomes."
In the first part of the study Professor Stemper and his co-investigators worked with two practicing doctors of chiropractic, each with a minimum of 4 years of doctoral training and at least 7 years of healthcare experience. Using a crash test dummy they measured the level of chest compression induced during "normal" chiropractic manipulation and during spinal manipulations wherein the doctors of chiropractic exerted maximum effort. They performed simulated chiropractic manipulations on the test dummy at the midback level (T7 to T8 vertebrae).
In the second part of the study, an instrumented mechanical device was used to apply and measure the forces necessary to induce chest compression in the test dummy. These forces were increased until injurious levels of force were reached. The likelihood of injury was assessed and classified using the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), which is a useful classification system that has been correlated to injury thresholds during biomechanical experimentation.
In the present study, manipulations incorporating typical and maximum efforts by the doctors of chiropractic resulted in maximum chest compressions corresponding to minimal risk of AIS 1 level injuries.
As with all types of patient care, Professor Stemper cautions that "individual patient characteristics including age, degeneration, and gender" should be taken into consideration during treatment such as chiropractic manipulation.
###
The article is "An Experimental Study of Chest Compression During Chiropractic Manipulation of the Thoracic Spine Using an Anthropomorphic Test Device" by Brian D. Stemper, PhD, Jason J. Hallman, PhD, and Boyd M. Peterson, DC. It will appear in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, Volume 34, Issue 5 (June 2011), DOI 10.1016/j.jmpt.2011.04.001, published by Elsevier.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
For Back Pain, Spinal Manipulation Holds Its Own
Ω
Source: Health Behavior News Service
If you’re suffering from chronic lower back pain, a new review of existing research finds that spinal manipulation − the kind of hands-on regimen that a chiropractor might perform on you − is as helpful as other common treatments like painkillers.
Spinal manipulation is also safe, researchers found. Ultimately, “the decision to refer for manipulation should be based upon costs, preferences of the patient and providers, and relative safety of all treatment options,” said review lead author Sidney Rubinstein, a chiropractor in private practice and a postdoctoral researcher at the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam.
Surveys suggest that half of working Americans suffer from back pain each year. An estimated 25 percent of American adults reported that they suffered from back pain for at least a day within the last three months, according to a 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, and lower back pain is the fifth most common reason that people go to the doctor.
Patients frequently turn to painkillers, which can cause side effects and be addictive, or to physical therapy, which is time-consuming and expensive. The new review looks at a third option − spinal manipulation.
In North America, Rubinstein said, chiropractors perform most spinal manipulation. Practitioners move their hands around a patient’s spine and joints, often producing an audible crack.
“The effectiveness of this therapy has long been controversial,” Rubinstein said. “Some proponents are slowly starting to view it as effective for chronic low-back pain. The results of this review will support that view.”
The review authors looked for randomized controlled studies, which are researchers consider as the most reliable forms of medical research. They found 26 studies − with 6,070 participants − that met their criteria for inclusion in their review, but deemed only nine studies to be of high quality.
The findings appear in the latest issue of The Cochrane Library. The journal is a publication of The Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization that evaluates medical research. Systematic reviews draw evidence-based conclusions about medical practice after considering both the content and quality of existing medical trials on a topic.
The researchers found that spinal manipulation worked about as well as the other treatments. It appears to work well in particular for certain kinds of patients, Rubinstein said, including those with restricted movement in the back, those without psychological issues, and those without symptoms below the knee related to the sciatic nerve.
Spinal manipulation “appears to be no better or worse than other existing therapies for patients with chronic low-back pain,” the review says.
There is one small caveat, however. In medical research, scientists often compare a treatment to a placebo, which is difficult when you are talking about something that's difficult to fake − like spinal manipulation.
Three of the studies reviewed the kind of spinal manipulation that produces a crack sound and tried to fool some patients into not realizing they were getting a sham treatment. However, it is unclear if they succeeded, Rubinstein said. One study appeared to show that patients could distinguish whether they were getting the real thing.
So how well do the treatments − spinal manipulation and the other examined in the review − work overall? Rubinstein said studies have shown that they help about two-thirds of patients. Sti other researchers say they have a modest impact at best.
In general, most treatments for lower-back pain “aren’t all that effective, even the ones we think that work, but some people respond better than others,” said Dr. Roger Chou, a physician and researcher with Oregon Health & Science University who has studied back pain.
“Right now the best we can say is that clinicians and patients have a number of moderately effective treatment options to consider, including exercise, manipulation, acupuncture, yoga, massage, cognitive behavioral therapy and some of the analgesic medications, and that it should be a decision between the clinician and patient,” Chou said. “In general, I think exercise is a preferred option since it has a lot of other health benefits.”
Dr. Tim Carey, director of the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that many patients try several treatments, of which spinal manipulation is just one approach.
“We do not have a good sense of how manual therapy fits in an exercise regimen in a patient who is also taking medication, just as an example,” said Carey, who studies back pain. “While manual therapy seems to be an option for chronic low back pain, the evidence at present does not support a role as a preferred option.”
TERMS OF USE: This story is protected by copyright. When reproducing any material, including interview excerpts, attribution to the Health Behavior News Service, part of the Center for Advancing Health, is required.
Source: Health Behavior News Service
If you’re suffering from chronic lower back pain, a new review of existing research finds that spinal manipulation − the kind of hands-on regimen that a chiropractor might perform on you − is as helpful as other common treatments like painkillers.
Spinal manipulation is also safe, researchers found. Ultimately, “the decision to refer for manipulation should be based upon costs, preferences of the patient and providers, and relative safety of all treatment options,” said review lead author Sidney Rubinstein, a chiropractor in private practice and a postdoctoral researcher at the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam.
Surveys suggest that half of working Americans suffer from back pain each year. An estimated 25 percent of American adults reported that they suffered from back pain for at least a day within the last three months, according to a 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, and lower back pain is the fifth most common reason that people go to the doctor.
Patients frequently turn to painkillers, which can cause side effects and be addictive, or to physical therapy, which is time-consuming and expensive. The new review looks at a third option − spinal manipulation.
In North America, Rubinstein said, chiropractors perform most spinal manipulation. Practitioners move their hands around a patient’s spine and joints, often producing an audible crack.
“The effectiveness of this therapy has long been controversial,” Rubinstein said. “Some proponents are slowly starting to view it as effective for chronic low-back pain. The results of this review will support that view.”
The review authors looked for randomized controlled studies, which are researchers consider as the most reliable forms of medical research. They found 26 studies − with 6,070 participants − that met their criteria for inclusion in their review, but deemed only nine studies to be of high quality.
The findings appear in the latest issue of The Cochrane Library. The journal is a publication of The Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization that evaluates medical research. Systematic reviews draw evidence-based conclusions about medical practice after considering both the content and quality of existing medical trials on a topic.
The researchers found that spinal manipulation worked about as well as the other treatments. It appears to work well in particular for certain kinds of patients, Rubinstein said, including those with restricted movement in the back, those without psychological issues, and those without symptoms below the knee related to the sciatic nerve.
Spinal manipulation “appears to be no better or worse than other existing therapies for patients with chronic low-back pain,” the review says.
There is one small caveat, however. In medical research, scientists often compare a treatment to a placebo, which is difficult when you are talking about something that's difficult to fake − like spinal manipulation.
Three of the studies reviewed the kind of spinal manipulation that produces a crack sound and tried to fool some patients into not realizing they were getting a sham treatment. However, it is unclear if they succeeded, Rubinstein said. One study appeared to show that patients could distinguish whether they were getting the real thing.
So how well do the treatments − spinal manipulation and the other examined in the review − work overall? Rubinstein said studies have shown that they help about two-thirds of patients. Sti other researchers say they have a modest impact at best.
In general, most treatments for lower-back pain “aren’t all that effective, even the ones we think that work, but some people respond better than others,” said Dr. Roger Chou, a physician and researcher with Oregon Health & Science University who has studied back pain.
“Right now the best we can say is that clinicians and patients have a number of moderately effective treatment options to consider, including exercise, manipulation, acupuncture, yoga, massage, cognitive behavioral therapy and some of the analgesic medications, and that it should be a decision between the clinician and patient,” Chou said. “In general, I think exercise is a preferred option since it has a lot of other health benefits.”
Dr. Tim Carey, director of the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that many patients try several treatments, of which spinal manipulation is just one approach.
“We do not have a good sense of how manual therapy fits in an exercise regimen in a patient who is also taking medication, just as an example,” said Carey, who studies back pain. “While manual therapy seems to be an option for chronic low back pain, the evidence at present does not support a role as a preferred option.”
TERMS OF USE: This story is protected by copyright. When reproducing any material, including interview excerpts, attribution to the Health Behavior News Service, part of the Center for Advancing Health, is required.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Chiropractic and Neck Pain: Conservative Care of Cervical Pain, Injury
Ω
Your neck, also called the cervical spine, begins at the base of the skull and contains seven small vertebrae. Incredibly, the cervical spine supports the full weight of your head, which is on average about 12 pounds. While the cervical spine can move your head in nearly every direction, this flexibility makes the neck very susceptible to pain and injury.
The neck’s susceptibility to injury is due in part to biomechanics. Activities and events that affect cervical biomechanics include extended sitting, repetitive movement, accidents, falls and blows to the body or head, normal aging, and everyday wear and tear. Neck pain can be very bothersome, and it can have a variety of causes.
Here are some of the most typical causes of neck pain:
Injury and Accidents: A sudden forced movement of the head or neck in any direction and the resulting “rebound” in the opposite direction is known as whiplash. The sudden “whipping” motion injures the surrounding and supporting tissues of the neck and head. Muscles react by tightening and contracting, creating muscle fatigue, which can result in pain and stiffness. Severe whiplash can also be associated with injury to the intervertebral joints, discs, ligaments, muscles, and nerve roots. Car accidents are the most common cause of whiplash.
Growing Older: Degenerative disorders such as osteoarthritis, spinal stenosis, and degenerative disc disease directly affect the spine.
* Osteoarthritis, a common joint disorder, causes progressive deterioration of cartilage. The body reacts by forming bone spurs that affect joint motion.
* Spinal stenosis causes the small nerve passageways in the vertebrae to narrow, compressing and trapping nerve roots. Stenosis may cause neck, shoulder, and arm pain, as well as numbness, when these nerves are unable to function normally.
* Degenerative disc disease can cause reduction in the elasticity and height of intervertebral discs. Over time, a disc may bulge or herniate, causing tingling, numbness, and pain that runs into the arm.
Daily Life: Poor posture, obesity, and weak abdominal muscles often disrupt spinal balance, causing the neck to bend forward to compensate. Stress and emotional tension can cause muscles to tighten and contract, resulting in pain and stiffness. Postural stress can contribute to chronic neck pain with symptoms extending into the upper back and the arms.
Chiropractic Care of Neck Pain
During your visit, your doctor of chiropractic will perform exams to locate the source of your pain and will ask you questions about your current symptoms and remedies you may have already tried. For example:
* When did the pain start?
* What have you done for your neck pain?
* Does the pain radiate or travel to other parts of your body?
* Does anything reduce the pain or make it worse?
Your doctor of chiropractic will also do physical and neurological exams. In the physical exam, your doctor will observe your posture, range of motion, and physical condition, noting movement that causes pain. Your doctor will feel your spine, note its curvature and alignment, and feel for muscle spasm. A check of your shoulder area is also in order. During the neurological exam, your doctor will test your reflexes, muscle strength, other nerve changes, and pain spread.
In some instances, your chiropractor might order tests to help diagnose your condition. An x-ray can show narrowed disc space, fractures, bone spurs, or arthritis. A computerized axial tomography scan (a CT or CAT scan) or a magnetic resonance imaging test (an MRI) can show bulging discs and herniations. If nerve damage is suspected, your doctor may order a special test called electromyography (an EMG) to measure how quickly your nerves respond.
Chiropractors are conservative care doctors; their scope of practice does not include the use of drugs or surgery. If your chiropractor diagnoses a condition outside of this conservative scope, such as a neck fracture or an indication of an organic disease, he or she will refer you to the appropriate medical physician or specialist. He or she may also ask for permission to inform your family physician of the care you are receiving to ensure that your chiropractic care and medical care are properly coordinated.
Neck Adjustments
A neck adjustment (also known as a cervical manipulation) is a precise procedure applied to the joints of the neck, usually by hand. A neck adjustment works to improve the mobility of the spine and to restore range of motion; it can also increase movement of the adjoining muscles. Patients typically notice an improved ability to turn and tilt the head, and a reduction of pain, soreness, and stiffness.
Of course, your chiropractor will develop a program of care that may combine more than one type of treatment, depending on your personal needs. In addition to manipulation, the treatment plan may include mobilization, massage or rehabilitative exercises, or something else.
Research Supporting Chiropractic Care
One of the most recent reviews of scientific literature found evidence that patients with chronic neck pain enrolled in clinical trials reported significant improvement following chiropractic spinal manipulation.
As part of the literature review, published in the March/April 2007 issue of the Journal of
Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, the researchers reviewed nine previously published trials and found “high-quality evidence” that patients with chronic neck pain showed significant pain-level improvements following spinal manipulation. No trial group was reported as having remained unchanged, and all groups showed positive changes up to 12 weeks post-treatment.
Your neck, also called the cervical spine, begins at the base of the skull and contains seven small vertebrae. Incredibly, the cervical spine supports the full weight of your head, which is on average about 12 pounds. While the cervical spine can move your head in nearly every direction, this flexibility makes the neck very susceptible to pain and injury.
The neck’s susceptibility to injury is due in part to biomechanics. Activities and events that affect cervical biomechanics include extended sitting, repetitive movement, accidents, falls and blows to the body or head, normal aging, and everyday wear and tear. Neck pain can be very bothersome, and it can have a variety of causes.
Here are some of the most typical causes of neck pain:
Injury and Accidents: A sudden forced movement of the head or neck in any direction and the resulting “rebound” in the opposite direction is known as whiplash. The sudden “whipping” motion injures the surrounding and supporting tissues of the neck and head. Muscles react by tightening and contracting, creating muscle fatigue, which can result in pain and stiffness. Severe whiplash can also be associated with injury to the intervertebral joints, discs, ligaments, muscles, and nerve roots. Car accidents are the most common cause of whiplash.
Growing Older: Degenerative disorders such as osteoarthritis, spinal stenosis, and degenerative disc disease directly affect the spine.
* Osteoarthritis, a common joint disorder, causes progressive deterioration of cartilage. The body reacts by forming bone spurs that affect joint motion.
* Spinal stenosis causes the small nerve passageways in the vertebrae to narrow, compressing and trapping nerve roots. Stenosis may cause neck, shoulder, and arm pain, as well as numbness, when these nerves are unable to function normally.
* Degenerative disc disease can cause reduction in the elasticity and height of intervertebral discs. Over time, a disc may bulge or herniate, causing tingling, numbness, and pain that runs into the arm.
Daily Life: Poor posture, obesity, and weak abdominal muscles often disrupt spinal balance, causing the neck to bend forward to compensate. Stress and emotional tension can cause muscles to tighten and contract, resulting in pain and stiffness. Postural stress can contribute to chronic neck pain with symptoms extending into the upper back and the arms.
Chiropractic Care of Neck Pain
During your visit, your doctor of chiropractic will perform exams to locate the source of your pain and will ask you questions about your current symptoms and remedies you may have already tried. For example:
* When did the pain start?
* What have you done for your neck pain?
* Does the pain radiate or travel to other parts of your body?
* Does anything reduce the pain or make it worse?
Your doctor of chiropractic will also do physical and neurological exams. In the physical exam, your doctor will observe your posture, range of motion, and physical condition, noting movement that causes pain. Your doctor will feel your spine, note its curvature and alignment, and feel for muscle spasm. A check of your shoulder area is also in order. During the neurological exam, your doctor will test your reflexes, muscle strength, other nerve changes, and pain spread.
In some instances, your chiropractor might order tests to help diagnose your condition. An x-ray can show narrowed disc space, fractures, bone spurs, or arthritis. A computerized axial tomography scan (a CT or CAT scan) or a magnetic resonance imaging test (an MRI) can show bulging discs and herniations. If nerve damage is suspected, your doctor may order a special test called electromyography (an EMG) to measure how quickly your nerves respond.
Chiropractors are conservative care doctors; their scope of practice does not include the use of drugs or surgery. If your chiropractor diagnoses a condition outside of this conservative scope, such as a neck fracture or an indication of an organic disease, he or she will refer you to the appropriate medical physician or specialist. He or she may also ask for permission to inform your family physician of the care you are receiving to ensure that your chiropractic care and medical care are properly coordinated.
Neck Adjustments
A neck adjustment (also known as a cervical manipulation) is a precise procedure applied to the joints of the neck, usually by hand. A neck adjustment works to improve the mobility of the spine and to restore range of motion; it can also increase movement of the adjoining muscles. Patients typically notice an improved ability to turn and tilt the head, and a reduction of pain, soreness, and stiffness.
Of course, your chiropractor will develop a program of care that may combine more than one type of treatment, depending on your personal needs. In addition to manipulation, the treatment plan may include mobilization, massage or rehabilitative exercises, or something else.
Research Supporting Chiropractic Care
One of the most recent reviews of scientific literature found evidence that patients with chronic neck pain enrolled in clinical trials reported significant improvement following chiropractic spinal manipulation.
As part of the literature review, published in the March/April 2007 issue of the Journal of
Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, the researchers reviewed nine previously published trials and found “high-quality evidence” that patients with chronic neck pain showed significant pain-level improvements following spinal manipulation. No trial group was reported as having remained unchanged, and all groups showed positive changes up to 12 weeks post-treatment.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Usual Care Often Not Consistent With Clinical Guidelines for Low Back Pain
General practitioners often treat patients with low back pain in a manner that does not appear to match the care endorsed by international clinical guidelines, according to a report in the February 8 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals.
Low back pain is estimated to be the seventh most common reason for a general practitioner visit in Australia and the fifth most common in the United States, according to background information in the article. An overwhelming body of literature on the management of low back pain—more than 1,200 published trials and systematic reviews—makes practice guidelines an efficient way for clinicians to base their care on the best evidence. A previous review concluded that guidelines in 11 countries around the world provide similar recommendations for assessment and management of low back pain.
“Given the proliferation of clinical practice guidelines outlining best practice, it is timely to consider how closely usual care aligns with guideline recommendations,” write Christopher M. Williams, M.App.Sc., of The George Institute for International Health, Camperdown, Australia, and colleagues. The authors assessed the care provided for new episodes of low back pain during 3,533 patient visits to general practitioners in Australia between 2001 and 2008. These visits were mapped to key recommendations in treatment guidelines; in addition, data were compared for two three-year periods before and after the release of Australian national guidelines in 2004.
“Our findings show that key aspects of the usual care provided to patients do not align with the care recommended in international evidence-based guidelines,” the authors write. For example, although guidelines discourage the use of imaging, more than one-quarter of patients were referred for radiology, computed tomography or similar tests.
Only 20.5 percent of patients received advice and 17.7 percent received simple pain-relieving medications, both of which are recommended as part of initial care for low back pain. Instead of the safer and equally effective acetaminophen, patients were more often prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (37.4 percent) and opioids (19.6 percent).
In addition, patterns of care did not change significantly following the release of local guidelines, the authors note.
“Understanding why general practitioners do not follow key treatment recommendations of guidelines is an important prerequisite to improving this situation,” they write. Evidence suggests that the views of both patients and clinicians, and potentially miscommunication between the two, contribute to departures from guideline-based care.
“In the back pain field, there has been extensive activity in the past two decades focusing on the evaluation of new and existing therapies within clinical trials and systematic reviews,” the authors conclude. “Arguably, we need a parallel line of research that focuses on how best to encourage provision of evidence-based treatments. Educational outreach with broader societal focus may enhance guideline dissemination and reduce the burden of low back pain.”
Low back pain is estimated to be the seventh most common reason for a general practitioner visit in Australia and the fifth most common in the United States, according to background information in the article. An overwhelming body of literature on the management of low back pain—more than 1,200 published trials and systematic reviews—makes practice guidelines an efficient way for clinicians to base their care on the best evidence. A previous review concluded that guidelines in 11 countries around the world provide similar recommendations for assessment and management of low back pain.
“Given the proliferation of clinical practice guidelines outlining best practice, it is timely to consider how closely usual care aligns with guideline recommendations,” write Christopher M. Williams, M.App.Sc., of The George Institute for International Health, Camperdown, Australia, and colleagues. The authors assessed the care provided for new episodes of low back pain during 3,533 patient visits to general practitioners in Australia between 2001 and 2008. These visits were mapped to key recommendations in treatment guidelines; in addition, data were compared for two three-year periods before and after the release of Australian national guidelines in 2004.
“Our findings show that key aspects of the usual care provided to patients do not align with the care recommended in international evidence-based guidelines,” the authors write. For example, although guidelines discourage the use of imaging, more than one-quarter of patients were referred for radiology, computed tomography or similar tests.
Only 20.5 percent of patients received advice and 17.7 percent received simple pain-relieving medications, both of which are recommended as part of initial care for low back pain. Instead of the safer and equally effective acetaminophen, patients were more often prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (37.4 percent) and opioids (19.6 percent).
In addition, patterns of care did not change significantly following the release of local guidelines, the authors note.
“Understanding why general practitioners do not follow key treatment recommendations of guidelines is an important prerequisite to improving this situation,” they write. Evidence suggests that the views of both patients and clinicians, and potentially miscommunication between the two, contribute to departures from guideline-based care.
“In the back pain field, there has been extensive activity in the past two decades focusing on the evaluation of new and existing therapies within clinical trials and systematic reviews,” the authors conclude. “Arguably, we need a parallel line of research that focuses on how best to encourage provision of evidence-based treatments. Educational outreach with broader societal focus may enhance guideline dissemination and reduce the burden of low back pain.”
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment Improves Back Function in Late Pregnancy
For many pregnant women, it’s inevitable. As their pregnancy progresses, tasks that involve the low back often get more difficult. It is harder to bend over, lift, sit or walk for long periods of time, and back pain increases. Treating back pain, and improving daily function relative to tasks that involve the low back is a challenge because pregnant women are limited to treatments that will not create problems for their developing baby.
“Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a viable option for improving function related to the low back and reducing back pain in the third trimester of pregnancy because its does not appear to have any negative side effects,” said John C. Licciardone, D.O., M.S., M.B.A., the lead author of a study on OMT in the third trimester of pregnancy that was recently published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Results from this study showed that osteopathic manipulative treatment slows or halts the deterioration of back-specific function in the third trimester of pregnancy.
Osteopathic manipulative treatment is a system of hands-on diagnosis and treatment that is used to reduce pain, restore range of motion and to restore normal function and balance in the body.
The Phase II randomized clinical trial of 144 subjects showed that women in the usual obstetric care+osteopathic manipulative treatment group reported less deterioration of back-specific function on the Roland-Morris Disability Scale than women in the usual obstetric care+sham ultrasound and the usual obstetric care only groups when these groups were compared using an intention-to-treat analysis. This study is the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to explore the potential effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment during the third trimester of pregnancy.
In the study, conducted by The Osteopathic Research Center in conjunction with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth, Texas, women were enrolled between the 28th and 30th week of pregnancy. After being randomized to one of the three treatment groups, the women in the usual obstetric care+osteopathic manipulative treatment and usual obstetric care+sham ultrasound groups received treatments immediately following each of their third trimester prenatal visits. Women were excluded or dropped from the study if they were determined to be at high risk by their obstetrician. The median age for women included in the study was 24 years.
Dr. Licicardone noted that outcomes were statistically significant relative to improved low back function in the OMT group. “The results also showed a trend toward pain reduction in the group that received OMT, but pain remained the same or increased in the other groups.”
Usual obstetric care was defined in this study as the conventional prenatal care received during pregnancy. Osteopathic manipulative treatment is generally considered a complementary treatment that is not included as part of routine prenatal care.
“This study is exciting because pregnant women frequently experience a negative impact on their ability to function and perform tasks related to daily living as their pregnancy progresses,” said Dr. Licciardone, the principal investigator for the project, and the executive director of The Osteopathic Research Center. “Since pregnant women are limited in the medications they can take for pain, osteopathic manipulative treatment offers a way to improve back function and decrease pain in the third trimester of pregnancy, when a majority of women experience these symptoms.”
“What is also interesting about this study is that osteopathic physicians (D.O.s) who provide obstetrical care can potentially include osteopathic manipulative treatment as part of their prenatal care for patients,” Licciardone said. “For more than 100 years, osteopathic physicians who have treated pregnant women using osteopathic manipulation have claimed that their patients have less pain, better function and improved delivery outcomes. This study may be the first step in confirming the clinical success of osteopathic physicians in this area of medicine.”
Dr. Licciardone added, “If osteopathic obstetricians view this study as the first step in developing a strong evidence base to support the use of OMT to improve back function and pain in the third trimester of pregnancy, this study could have a significant clinical impact on prenatal care, and it could have important economic implications for treating common back-related symptoms and functional disabilities in late pregnancy.”
Full text of the article is available online.
“Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a viable option for improving function related to the low back and reducing back pain in the third trimester of pregnancy because its does not appear to have any negative side effects,” said John C. Licciardone, D.O., M.S., M.B.A., the lead author of a study on OMT in the third trimester of pregnancy that was recently published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Results from this study showed that osteopathic manipulative treatment slows or halts the deterioration of back-specific function in the third trimester of pregnancy.
Osteopathic manipulative treatment is a system of hands-on diagnosis and treatment that is used to reduce pain, restore range of motion and to restore normal function and balance in the body.
The Phase II randomized clinical trial of 144 subjects showed that women in the usual obstetric care+osteopathic manipulative treatment group reported less deterioration of back-specific function on the Roland-Morris Disability Scale than women in the usual obstetric care+sham ultrasound and the usual obstetric care only groups when these groups were compared using an intention-to-treat analysis. This study is the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to explore the potential effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment during the third trimester of pregnancy.
In the study, conducted by The Osteopathic Research Center in conjunction with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth, Texas, women were enrolled between the 28th and 30th week of pregnancy. After being randomized to one of the three treatment groups, the women in the usual obstetric care+osteopathic manipulative treatment and usual obstetric care+sham ultrasound groups received treatments immediately following each of their third trimester prenatal visits. Women were excluded or dropped from the study if they were determined to be at high risk by their obstetrician. The median age for women included in the study was 24 years.
Dr. Licicardone noted that outcomes were statistically significant relative to improved low back function in the OMT group. “The results also showed a trend toward pain reduction in the group that received OMT, but pain remained the same or increased in the other groups.”
Usual obstetric care was defined in this study as the conventional prenatal care received during pregnancy. Osteopathic manipulative treatment is generally considered a complementary treatment that is not included as part of routine prenatal care.
“This study is exciting because pregnant women frequently experience a negative impact on their ability to function and perform tasks related to daily living as their pregnancy progresses,” said Dr. Licciardone, the principal investigator for the project, and the executive director of The Osteopathic Research Center. “Since pregnant women are limited in the medications they can take for pain, osteopathic manipulative treatment offers a way to improve back function and decrease pain in the third trimester of pregnancy, when a majority of women experience these symptoms.”
“What is also interesting about this study is that osteopathic physicians (D.O.s) who provide obstetrical care can potentially include osteopathic manipulative treatment as part of their prenatal care for patients,” Licciardone said. “For more than 100 years, osteopathic physicians who have treated pregnant women using osteopathic manipulation have claimed that their patients have less pain, better function and improved delivery outcomes. This study may be the first step in confirming the clinical success of osteopathic physicians in this area of medicine.”
Dr. Licciardone added, “If osteopathic obstetricians view this study as the first step in developing a strong evidence base to support the use of OMT to improve back function and pain in the third trimester of pregnancy, this study could have a significant clinical impact on prenatal care, and it could have important economic implications for treating common back-related symptoms and functional disabilities in late pregnancy.”
Full text of the article is available online.
Surgeons Less Likely than Family Doctors to Prefer Back Surgery
Surgeons are less likely than family physicians or patients to view surgery as the preferred treatment option for low back pain, according to a study in the January 1 issue of Spine. The journal is published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a part of Wolters Kluwer Health, a leading provider of information and business intelligence for students, professionals, and institutions in medicine, nursing, allied health, and pharmacy.
For patients with back pain, quality-of-life issues are the main factor affecting treatment preferences—which has important implications for shared decision-making between patients and their doctors, according to the new study led by Dr. S. Samuel Bederman at University of Toronto.
Family Doctors Have Highest Preferences for Surgery
The researchers presented hypothetical back pain scenarios to surgeons (orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons), family physicians, and patients with back and/or leg pain. The scenarios reflected key factors related to back pain: walking ability, pain duration, pain severity, neurological symptoms, factors inducing pain, and pain location. Each group rated their preference for surgery in each scenario, and the factors affecting preferences were analyzed.
Perhaps unexpectedly, surgeons had the lowest overall preferences for surgery, while family physicians had the highest preference for surgery. For orthopedic surgeons, the preference for surgery was somewhat lower than for neurosurgeons. Both the family doctors and patients had a higher preference for surgery than either group of surgeons.
The factors affecting preferences for surgery varied as well. For surgeons, the most important factor was the location of pain. In particular, they preferred surgery for patients with pain predominantly in the leg, rather than the back. Surgery provides better results in patients with problems affecting the spinal nerve roots, which tend to cause leg pain.
Revealing Differences in Reasons for Preferences
In contrast, for family physicians, the most important factor affecting preferences for surgery was neurological symptoms, followed closely by walking ability and pain severity. Family doctors may be unaware of which factors affect the chances of good outcomes from back surgery, the researchers suggest.
For patients, the most important factors were pain severity, walking ability, and pain duration. "All of these symptoms are highly related to quality of life and have little direct bearing on outcomes following surgery," Dr. Bederman and co-authors write.
When other treatments have failed, surgery can help patients with moderate to severe lower back pain. Family physicians play an important role in sending back pain patients for surgical evaluation. However, few studies looked at the factors considered by primary care doctors consider in referring patients for possible spinal surgery. The final decision is generally made through a shared process between the patient, family physician, and surgeon.
The new results suggest that, in various scenarios, surgeons have a lower preference for surgery than family physicians. In addition, the factors that surgeons feel are most important—especially the location of pain—don't match those considered most important by family doctors.
The study also highlights the importance of quality-of-life factors—especially pain severity and duration and walking ability—in affecting patients' treatment preferences. Dr. Bederman and colleagues hope their findings will help in "aligning" the opinions of patients and doctors, thus improving the shared decision-making process and promoting more accurate patient expectations of the results of surgery. "This can directly result in a significant improvement in patient satisfaction with the healthcare process and even overall health status following treatment," the researchers write.
About Spine
Recognized internationally as the leading journal in its field, Spine is an international, peer-reviewed, bi-weekly periodical that considers for publication original articles in the field of spine. It is the leading subspecialty journal for the treatment of spinal disorders. Only original papers are considered for publication with the understanding that they are contributed solely to Spine. According to the latest ISI Science Citation Impact Factor, Spine ranks highest among subspecialty orthopedic titles.
For patients with back pain, quality-of-life issues are the main factor affecting treatment preferences—which has important implications for shared decision-making between patients and their doctors, according to the new study led by Dr. S. Samuel Bederman at University of Toronto.
Family Doctors Have Highest Preferences for Surgery
The researchers presented hypothetical back pain scenarios to surgeons (orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons), family physicians, and patients with back and/or leg pain. The scenarios reflected key factors related to back pain: walking ability, pain duration, pain severity, neurological symptoms, factors inducing pain, and pain location. Each group rated their preference for surgery in each scenario, and the factors affecting preferences were analyzed.
Perhaps unexpectedly, surgeons had the lowest overall preferences for surgery, while family physicians had the highest preference for surgery. For orthopedic surgeons, the preference for surgery was somewhat lower than for neurosurgeons. Both the family doctors and patients had a higher preference for surgery than either group of surgeons.
The factors affecting preferences for surgery varied as well. For surgeons, the most important factor was the location of pain. In particular, they preferred surgery for patients with pain predominantly in the leg, rather than the back. Surgery provides better results in patients with problems affecting the spinal nerve roots, which tend to cause leg pain.
Revealing Differences in Reasons for Preferences
In contrast, for family physicians, the most important factor affecting preferences for surgery was neurological symptoms, followed closely by walking ability and pain severity. Family doctors may be unaware of which factors affect the chances of good outcomes from back surgery, the researchers suggest.
For patients, the most important factors were pain severity, walking ability, and pain duration. "All of these symptoms are highly related to quality of life and have little direct bearing on outcomes following surgery," Dr. Bederman and co-authors write.
When other treatments have failed, surgery can help patients with moderate to severe lower back pain. Family physicians play an important role in sending back pain patients for surgical evaluation. However, few studies looked at the factors considered by primary care doctors consider in referring patients for possible spinal surgery. The final decision is generally made through a shared process between the patient, family physician, and surgeon.
The new results suggest that, in various scenarios, surgeons have a lower preference for surgery than family physicians. In addition, the factors that surgeons feel are most important—especially the location of pain—don't match those considered most important by family doctors.
The study also highlights the importance of quality-of-life factors—especially pain severity and duration and walking ability—in affecting patients' treatment preferences. Dr. Bederman and colleagues hope their findings will help in "aligning" the opinions of patients and doctors, thus improving the shared decision-making process and promoting more accurate patient expectations of the results of surgery. "This can directly result in a significant improvement in patient satisfaction with the healthcare process and even overall health status following treatment," the researchers write.
About Spine
Recognized internationally as the leading journal in its field, Spine is an international, peer-reviewed, bi-weekly periodical that considers for publication original articles in the field of spine. It is the leading subspecialty journal for the treatment of spinal disorders. Only original papers are considered for publication with the understanding that they are contributed solely to Spine. According to the latest ISI Science Citation Impact Factor, Spine ranks highest among subspecialty orthopedic titles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
