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

Chiropractic Day 2023: A Report and Qualitative Analysis of How Thought Leaders Celebrate the Present and Envision the Future of Chiropractic

Objective

This study aimed to (1) collect and analyze statements about how to celebrate chiropractic in the present and roles that chiropractors may fulfill in the future, (2) identify if there was congruence among the themes between present and future statements, and (3) offer a model about the chiropractic profession that captures its complex relationships that encompass its interactions within microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem levels.

Methods

For this qualitative analysis, we used pattern and grounded theory approaches. A purposive sample of thought leaders in the chiropractic profession were invited to answer the following 2 open-ended questions: (1) envision the chiropractor of the future, and (2) recommendations on how to celebrate chiropractic. Information was collected during April 2023 using Survey Monkey. The information was entered into a spreadsheet and analyzed for topic clusters, which resulted in matching concepts with social-ecological themes. The themes between the responses to the 2 questions were analyzed for congruence. We used the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research to report our findings.

Results

Of the 54 experts invited, 32 (59%) participated. Authors represented 7 countries and have a median of 32 years of chiropractic experience, with a range of 5 to 51 years. Nineteen major topics in the future statements and 23 major topics in statements about celebrating chiropractic were combined in a model. The topics were presented using the 4 levels of the social-ecological framework. Individual (microsystem): chiropractors are competent, well-educated experts in spine and musculoskeletal care who apply evidence-based practices, which is a combination of the best available evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values. Interpersonal relationships (mesosystem): chiropractors serve the best interests of their patients, provide person-centered care, embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion, consider specific health needs and the health of the whole person. Community (exosystem): chiropractors provide care within integrated health care environments and in private practices, serve the best interests of the public through participation in their communities, participate through multidisciplinary collaboration with and within the health care system, and work together as a profession with a strong professional identity. Societal (macrosystem): chiropractors contribute to the greater good of society and participate on a global level in policy, leadership, and research. There was concordance between both the future envisioning statements and the present celebration recommendations, which suggest logical validity based on the congruence of these concepts.

Conclusion

A sample of independent views, including the perceptions from a broad range of chiropractic thought leaders from various backgrounds, philosophies, diversity characteristics, and world regions, were assembled to create a comprehensive model of the chiropractic profession. The resulting model shows an array of intrinsic values and provides the roles that chiropractors may provide to serve patients and the public. This study offers insights into the roles that future chiropractors may fulfill and how these are congruent with present-day values. These core concepts and this novel model may have utility during dialogs about identity, applications regarding chiropractic in policy, practice, education, and research, and building positive relationships and collaborations.

Association between spinal and non-spinal health conditions reported in epidemiological studies: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

The increasing prevalence of coexisting health conditions poses a challenge to healthcare providers and healthcare systems. Spinal pain (eg, neck and back pain) and spinal pathologies (eg, osteoporotic fractures and degenerative spinal disease) exist concurrently with other non-spinal health conditions (NSHC). However, the scope of what associations may exist among these co-occurring conditions is unclear. Therefore, this scoping review aims to map the epidemiological literature that reports associations between spine-related pain and pathologies (SPPs) and NSHCs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This scoping review will follow the JBI protocol and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. We will systematically search the literature using key words and MeSH terms for SPPs and NSHCs. Terminology/vocabulary for NSHCs will include those for communicable and non-communicable diseases as reported by WHO Global Burden of Disease reports. Five databases will be searched from inception: MEDLINE, EMBASE, APA PsycInfo, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection. Papers published in English, in peer-reviewed journals, including measures of association between SPPs and NSHCs and using observational epidemiologic study designs will be included. Excluded will be studies of cadaveric, animal or health behaviours; studies with no measures of association and non-observational epidemiologic studies. Results will include the number of studies, the studies that have evaluated the measures of association and the frequency of the studied associations between SPPs and NSHCs. Results will be reported in tables and diagrams. Themes of comorbidities will be synthesised into a descriptive report.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This scoping review was deemed exempt from ethics review. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of the literature that reports associations between SPPs and NSHCs to inform future research initiatives and practices. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and research conferences.

REGISTRATION DETAILS

https://osf.io/w49u3.

The John A. Sweaney Lecture: Virtual, September 2021, Given by Dr Michele Maiers. A Time to Lead: Reflections During a Pandemic

The following is The John A. Sweaney Lecture delivered by Dr Michele Maiers at the biannual Congress of the World Federation of Chiropractic that was held virtually on September 25, 2021.

Looking back at the lawsuit that transformed the chiropractic profession part 6: Preparing for the lawsuit

OBJECTIVE

This is the sixth article in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated antitrust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief review of the plaintiffs, lead lawyer, and the events immediately before the lawsuit was filed.

METHODS

This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. Our methods included obtaining primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 articles following a successive timeline. This article, the sixth of the series, explores the plaintiffs' stories.

RESULTS

Because of the AMA's boycott on chiropractic, chiropractors were not able to collaborate with medical physicians or refer patients to medical facilities, which resulted in restricted trade and potential harm to patients' well-being. The plaintiffs, Patricia Arthur, James Bryden, Michael Pedigo, and Chester Wilk, came from different regions of the United States. Each had unique experiences and were compelled to seek justice. The lead lawyer, Mr George McAndrews, was the son of a chiropractor and had witnessed the effect that the AMA's attacks on chiropractic had on his father. It took several years to gather enough resources to file the suit, which was submitted in 1976.

CONCLUSION

The conflicts that the plaintiffs experienced stimulated them to pursue a lawsuit against the AMA and other organized political medicine groups.

Looking back at the lawsuit that transformed the chiropractic profession part 4: Committee on Quackery

OBJECTIVE

This is the fourth article in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit, in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated antitrust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief review of the history of the origins of AMA's increased efforts to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession and the development of the Chiropractic Committee, which would later become the AMA Committee on Quackery.

METHODS

This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. Our methods included obtaining primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 articles following a successive timeline. This article is the fourth of the series that explores the origins of AMA's increased efforts to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession.

RESULTS

In the 1950s, the number of chiropractors grew in Iowa, and chiropractors were seeking equity with other health professions through legislation. In response, the Iowa State Medical Society created a Chiropractic Committee to contain chiropractic and prompted the creation of the "Iowa Plan" to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession. The AMA leadership was enticed by the plan and hired the Iowa State Medical Society's legislative counsel, who structured the operation. The AMA adopted the Iowa Plan for nationwide implementation to eradicate chiropractic. The formation of the AMA's Committee on Chiropractic, which was later renamed the Committee on Quackery (CoQ), led overt and covert campaigns against chiropractic. Both national chiropractic associations were fully aware of many, but not all, of organized medicine's plans to restrain chiropractic.

CONCLUSION

By the 1960s, organized medicine heightened its efforts to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession. The intensified campaign began in Iowa and was adopted by the AMA as a national campaign. Although the meetings of the AMA committees were not public, the war against chiropractic was distributed widely in lay publications, medical sources, and even chiropractic journals. Details about events would eventually be more fully revealed during the Wilk v AMA trials.

Looking back at the lawsuit that transformed the chiropractic profession part 2: Rise of the American Medical Association

OBJECTIVE

This paper is the second in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated anti-trust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief review of the history of how the AMA rose to dominate health care in the United States, and within this social context, how the chiropractic profession fought to survive in the first half of the 20th century.

METHODS

This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. Our methods included obtaining primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 papers following a successive timeline. This paper is the second of the series that explores the growth of medicine and the chiropractic profession.

RESULTS

The AMA's code of ethics established in 1847 continued to direct organized medicine's actions to exclude other health professions. During the early 1900s, the AMA established itself as "regular medicine." They labeled other types of medicine and health care professions, such as chiropractic, as "irregulars" claiming that they were cultists and quacks. In addition to the rise in power of the AMA, a report written by Abraham Flexner helped to solidify the AMA's control over health care. Chiropractic as a profession was emerging and developing in practice, education, and science. The few resources available to chiropractors were used to defend their profession against attacks from organized medicine and to secure legislation to legalize the practice of chiropractic. After years of struggle, the last state in the US legalized chiropractic 79 years after the birth of the profession.

CONCLUSION

In the first part of the 20th century, the AMA was amassing power as chiropractic was just emerging as a profession. Events such as publication of Flexner's report and development of the medical basic science laws helped to entrench the AMA's monopoly on health care. The health care environment shaped how chiropractic grew as a profession. Chiropractic practice, education, and science were challenged by trying to develop outside of the medical establishment. These events added to the tensions between the professions that ultimately resulted in the Wilk v AMA lawsuit.

Looking back at the lawsuit that transformed the chiropractic profession part 1: Origins of the conflict

OBJECTIVE

This paper is the first in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated antitrust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief review of the history of the AMA and the origins of chiropractic and to explore how the AMA began its monopoly of health care in the United States, possible reasons that organized medicine acted against chiropractic, and how these events influenced the chiropractic profession.

METHODS

This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. We used primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 papers that follow a successive time line. This paper is the first of the series and explores the origins of the aversion of organized American medicine to other health professions and the origins of the chiropractic profession.

RESULTS

The AMA began in the mid-1800s to unify like-minded "regular" medical physicians who developed a code of ethics and promoted higher educational standards. Their efforts to unify had excluded other types of health care providers, which they called "irregular" practitioners. However, Americans were seeking more natural alternatives to the harsh methods that regular medical physicians offered at that time. Nearly 50 years after the AMA began, the chiropractic profession attempted to emerge during a time when many patients valued vitalism and their freedom to choose what health care provider they would access.

CONCLUSION

During the years that chiropractic developed as a healing profession, organized medicine was already well established and developing a monopoly in American health care. These events created the foundation on which the tensions between these professions were built and ultimately resulted in the Wilk v AMA lawsuit.

Looking back at the lawsuit that transformed the chiropractic profession part 7: Lawsuit and decisions

OBJECTIVE

This is the seventh paper in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated antitrust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of the lawsuit that was first filed in 1976 and concluded with the final denial of appeal in 1990.

METHODS

This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. Our methods included obtaining primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 papers following a successive time line. This paper, the seventh of the series, considers the information of the 2 trials and the judge's decision.

RESULTS

By the time the first trial began in 1980, the AMA had already changed its anti-chiropractic stance to allow medical doctors to associate with chiropractors if they wished. In the first trial, the chiropractors were not able to overcome the very stigma that organized medicine worked so hard to create over many decades, which resulted in the jury voting in favor of the AMA and other defendants. The plaintiffs, Drs Patricia Arthur, James Bryden, Michael Pedigo, and Chester Wilk, continued with their pursuit of justice. Their lawyer, Mr George McAndrews, fought for an appeal and was allowed a second trial. The second trial was a bench trial in which Judge Susan Getzendanner declared her final judgment that "the American Medical Association (AMA) and its members participated in a conspiracy against chiropractors in violation of the nation's antitrust laws." After the AMA's appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 1990, the decision was declared permanent. The injunction that was ordered by the judge was published in the January 1, 1988, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

CONCLUSION

The efforts by Mr McAndrews and his legal team and the persistence of the plaintiffs and countless others in the chiropractic profession concluded in Judge Getzendanner's decision, which prevented the AMA from rebuilding barriers or developing another boycott. The chiropractic profession was ready to move into its next century.

Looking back at the lawsuit that transformed the chiropractic profession part 3: Chiropractic growth

OBJECTIVE

This is the third paper in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated antitrust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief review of the history of the growth of chiropractic, its public relations campaigns, and infighting that contributed to the events surrounding the Wilk v AMA lawsuit.

METHODS

This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. Our methods included obtaining primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 papers following a successive timeline. This paper is the third of the series that explores the growth the chiropractic profession.

RESULTS

By the 1930s, the AMA was already under investigation for violation of antitrust laws and the National Chiropractic Association was suggesting that the AMA was establishing a health care monopoly. Chiropractic schools grew and the number of graduates rose quickly. Public relations campaigns and publications in the popular press attempted to educate the public about chiropractic. Factions within the profession polarized around differing views of how they thought that chiropractic should be practiced and portrayed to the public. The AMA leaders noted the infighting and used it to their advantage to subvert chiropractic.

CONCLUSION

Chiropractic grew rapidly and established its presence with the American public through public relations campaigns and popular press. However, infighting would give the AMA material to further its efforts to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession.

Looking back at the lawsuit that transformed the chiropractic profession part 8: Judgment impact

OBJECTIVE

This paper is the eighth in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated antitrust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the possible impact that the final decision in favor of the plaintiffs may have had on the chiropractic profession.

METHODS

This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. Our methods included obtaining primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 papers following a successive timeline. This paper is the eighth of the series that discusses how the trial decision may have influenced the chiropractic that we know today in the United States.

RESULTS

Chiropractic practice, education, and research have changed since before the lawsuit was filed. There are several areas in which we propose that the trial decision may have had an impact on the chiropractic profession.

CONCLUSION

The lawsuit removed the barriers that were implemented by organized medicine against the chiropractic profession. The quality of chiropractic practice, education, and research continues to improve and the profession continues to meet its most fundamental mission: to improve the lives of patients. Chiropractors practicing in the United States today are allowed to collaborate freely with other health professionals. Today, patients have the option to access chiropractic care because of the dedicated efforts of many people to reduce the previous barriers. It is up to the present-day members of the medical and chiropractic professions to look back and to remember what happened. By recalling the events surrounding the lawsuit, we may have a better understanding about our professions today. This information may help to facilitate interactions between medicine and chiropractic and to develop more respectful partnerships focused on creating a better future for the health of the public. The future of the chiropractic profession rests in the heads, hearts, and hands of its current members to do what is right.

Looking back at the lawsuit that transformed the chiropractic profession part 5: Evidence exposed

OBJECTIVE

This is the fifth article in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated antitrust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief review of events surrounding the eventual end of the AMA's Committee on Quackery and the exposure of evidence of the AMA's efforts to boycott the chiropractic profession.

METHODS

This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. Our methods included obtaining primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 articles following a successive timeline. This article, the fifth of the series, explores the exposure of what the AMA had been doing, which provided evidence that was eventually used in the Wilk v AMA antitrust lawsuit.

RESULTS

The prime mission of the AMA's Committee on Quackery was "first, the containment of chiropractic and, ultimately, the elimination of chiropractic." However, the committee did not complete its mission and quietly disbanded in 1974. This was the same year that the chiropractic profession finally gained licensure in all 50 of the United States; received recognition from the US Commissioner of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare; and was successfully included in Medicare. In 1975, documents reportedly obtained by the Church of Scientology covert operatives under Operation AMA Doom revealed the extent to which the AMA and its Committee on Quackery had been working to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession. The AMA actions included influencing mainstream media, decisions made by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Other actions included publishing propaganda against chiropractic and implementing an anti-chiropractic program aimed at medical students, medical societies, and the American public.

CONCLUSION

After more than a decade of overt and covert actions, the AMA chose to end its Committee on Quackery. The following year, documents exposed the extent of AMA's efforts to enact its boycott of chiropractic.

Low Back Pain and Substance Use: Diagnostic and Administrative Coding for Opioid Use and Dependence Increased in U.S. Older Adults with Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of pain and disability. Substance use complicates the management of LBP, and potential risks increase with aging. Despite implications for an aging, diverse U.S. population, substance use and LBP comorbidity remain poorly defined. The objective of this study was to characterize LBP and substance use diagnoses in older U.S. adults by age, gender, and race.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of a random national sample.

SUBJECTS

Older adults including 1,477,594 U.S. Medicare Part B beneficiaries.

METHODS

Bayesian analysis of 37,634,210 claims, with 10,775,869 administrative and 92,903,649 diagnostic code assignments.

RESULTS

LBP was diagnosed in 14.8±0.06% of those more than 65 years of age, more in females than in males (15.8±0.08% vs. 13.4±0.09%), and slightly less in those more than 85 years of age (13.3±0.2%). Substance use diagnosis varied by substance: nicotine, 9.6±0.02%; opioid, 2.8±0.01%; and alcohol, 1.3±0.01%. Substance use diagnosis declined with advancing age cohort. Opioid use diagnosis was markedly higher for those in whom LBP was diagnosed (10.5%) than for those not diagnosed with LBP (1.5%). Most older adults (54.9%) with an opioid diagnosis were diagnosed with LBP. Gender differences were modest. Relative rates of substance use diagnoses in LBP were modest for nicotine and alcohol.

CONCLUSIONS

Older adults with LBP have high relative rates of opioid diagnoses, irrespective of gender or age. Most older adults with opioid-related diagnoses have LBP, compared with a minority of those not opioid diagnosed. In caring for older adults with LBP or opioid-related diagnoses, health systems must anticipate complexity and support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in managing pain comorbidities. Older adults may benefit from proactive incorporation of non-opioid pain treatments. Further study is needed.

Effectiveness of treatments for acute and subacute mechanical non-specific low back pain: a systematic review with network meta-analysis

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for acute and subacute non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP) based on pain and disability outcomes.

Design

A systematic review of the literature with network meta-analysis.

Data sources

Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception until 17 October 2020.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving adults with NS-LBP who experienced pain for less than 6 weeks (acute) or between 6 and 12 weeks (subacute).

Results

Forty-six RCTs (n=8765) were included; risk of bias was low in 9 trials (19.6%), unclear in 20 (43.5%), and high in 17 (36.9%). At immediate-term follow-up, for pain decrease, the most efficacious treatments against an inert therapy were: exercise (standardised mean difference (SMD) −1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) −2.41 to –0.40), heat wrap (SMD −1.38; 95% CI −2.60 to –0.17), opioids (SMD −0.86; 95% CI −1.62 to –0.10), manual therapy (SMD −0.72; 95% CI −1.40 to –0.04) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (SMD −0.53; 95% CI −0.97 to –0.09). Similar findings were confirmed for disability reduction in non-pharmacological and pharmacological networks, including muscle relaxants (SMD -0.24; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.04). Mild or moderate adverse events were reported in the opioids (65.7%), NSAIDs (54.3%) and steroids (46.9%) trial arms.

Conclusion

With uncertainty of evidence, NS-LBP should be managed with non-pharmacological treatments which seem to mitigate pain and disability at immediate-term. Among pharmacological interventions, NSAIDs and muscle relaxants appear to offer the best harm–benefit balance.

Distance Management of Spinal Disorders During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond: Evidence-Based Patient and Clinician Guides From the Global Spine Care Initiative

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly limited patients' access to care for spine-related symptoms and disorders. However, physical distancing between clinicians and patients with spine-related symptoms is not solely limited to restrictions imposed by pandemic-related lockdowns. In most low- and middle-income countries, as well as many underserved marginalized communities in high-income countries, there is little to no access to clinicians trained in evidence-based care for people experiencing spinal pain.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to describe the development and present the components of evidence-based patient and clinician guides for the management of spinal disorders where in-person care is not available.

METHODS

Ultimately, two sets of guides were developed (one for patients and one for clinicians) by extracting information from the published Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) papers. An international, interprofessional team of 29 participants from 10 countries on 4 continents participated. The team included practitioners in family medicine, neurology, physiatry, rheumatology, psychology, chiropractic, physical therapy, and yoga, as well as epidemiologists, research methodologists, and laypeople. The participants were invited to review, edit, and comment on the guides in an open iterative consensus process.

RESULTS

The Patient Guide is a simple 2-step process. The first step describes the nature of the symptoms or concerns. The second step provides information that a patient can use when considering self-care, determining whether to contact a clinician, or considering seeking emergency care. The Clinician Guide is a 5-step process: (1) Obtain and document patient demographics, location of primary clinical symptoms, and psychosocial information. (2) Review the symptoms noted in the patient guide. (3) Determine the GSCI classification of the patient's spine-related complaints. (4) Ask additional questions to determine the GSCI subclassification of the symptom pattern. (5) Consider appropriate treatment interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The Patient and Clinician Guides are designed to be sufficiently clear to be useful to all patients and clinicians, irrespective of their location, education, professional qualifications, and experience. However, they are comprehensive enough to provide guidance on the management of all spine-related symptoms or disorders, including triage for serious and specific diseases. They are consistent with widely accepted evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. They also allow for adequate documentation and medical record keeping. These guides should be of value during periods of government-mandated physical or social distancing due to infectious diseases, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. They should also be of value in underserved communities in high-, middle-, and low-income countries where there is a dearth of accessible trained spine care clinicians. These guides have the potential to reduce the overutilization of unnecessary and expensive interventions while empowering patients to self-manage uncomplicated spinal pain with the assistance of their clinician, either through direct in-person consultation or via telehealth communication.

Chiropractic Day: A Historical Review of a Day Worth Celebrating

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss historical concepts about the celebration of Chiropractic Day.

DISCUSSION

Daniel David Palmer attributed September 18, 1895 to be the day that he delivered the first chiropractic adjustment. As the chiropractic profession grew, the celebration of Chiropractic Day became more widespread throughout the United States and the world. This paper offers suggestions about how to celebrate Chiropractic Day. Activities include educating, learning, honoring, volunteering, and engaging.

CONCLUSION

The chiropractic profession celebrates its birth on September 18. Regardless of the many different names used over the past 125 years, including Chiropractic Founder's Day, Chiropractic Rally Day, Chiropractic Anniversary, and Chiropractic Discovery Day, the celebration of this special day provides an opportunity to reflect on how far the profession has come and how chiropractors continue to help and serve their patients.

Development of a Clinical Decision Aid for Chiropractic Management of Common Conditions Causing Low Back Pain in Veterans: Results of a Consensus Process

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to develop a clinical decision aid for chiropractic management of common conditions causing low back pain (LBP) in veterans receiving treatment in US Veterans Affairs (VA) health care facilities.

METHODS

A consensus study using an online, modified Delphi technique and Research Electronic Data Capture web application was conducted among VA doctors of chiropractic. Investigators reviewed the scientific literature pertaining to diagnosis and treatment of nonsurgical, neuromusculoskeletal LBP. Thirty seed statements summarizing evidence for chiropractic management, a graphical stepped management tool outlining diagnosis-informed treatment approaches, and support materials were then reviewed by an expert advisory committee. Email notifications invited 113 VA chiropractic clinicians to participate as Delphi panelists. Panelists rated the appropriateness of the seed statements and the stepped process on a 1-to-9 scale using the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles methodology. Statements were accepted when both the median rating and 80% of all ratings occurred within the highly appropriate range.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine panelists (74% male) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 46 (11) years and clinical experience of 17 (11) years participated in the study. Accepted statements addressed included (1) essential components of chiropractic care, (2) treatments for conditions causing or contributing to LBP, (3) spinal manipulation mechanisms, (4) descriptions and mechanisms of commonly used chiropractic interventions, and (5) a graphical stepped clinical management tool.

CONCLUSION

This study group produced a chiropractic clinical decision aid for LBP management, which can be used to support evidence-based care decisions for veterans with LBP.

Development of an Evidence-Based Practical Diagnostic Checklist and Corresponding Clinical Exam for Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to use scientific evidence to develop a practical diagnostic checklist and corresponding clinical exam for patients presenting with low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

An iterative process was conducted to develop a diagnostic checklist and clinical exam for LBP using evidence-based diagnostic criteria. The checklist and exam were informed by a systematic review focused on summarizing current research evidence for office-based clinical evaluation of common conditions causing LBP.

RESULTS

Diagnostic categories contained within the checklist and exam include nociceptive pain, neuropathic pain, and sensitization. Nociceptive pain subcategories include discogenic, myofascial, sacroiliac, and zygapophyseal (facet) joint pain. Neuropathic pain categories include neurogenic claudication, radicular pain, radiculopathy, and peripheral entrapment (piriformis and thoracolumbar syndrome). Sensitization contains 2 subtypes, central and peripheral sensitization. The diagnostic checklist contains individual diagnostic categories containing evidence-based criteria, applicable examination procedures, and checkboxes to record clinical findings. The checklist organizes and displays evidence for or against a working diagnosis. The checklist may help to ensure needed information is obtained from a patient interview and exam in a variety of primary spine care settings (eg, medical, chiropractic).

CONCLUSION

The available evidence informs reasonable working diagnoses for many conditions causing or contributing to LBP. A practical diagnostic process including an exam and checklist is offered to guide clinical evaluation and demonstrate evidence for working diagnoses in clinical settings.

Prospective Evaluation of Spino-Pelvic Parameters with Clinical Correlation in Patients Operated with an Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Study Design

Prospective study.

Purpose

The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) on L5–S1 level for restitution of distal segmental lordosis and to investigate its consequences on spino-pelvic parameters and the global sagittal balance.

Overview of Literature

Lumbar surgery must be adapted to the spinal morphology in order to restore an adequate relation between pelvic and spinal parameters and especially to the pelvic incidence.

Methods

An observational, prospective study was conducted between January 2013 and May 2017. Eighty-six patients were treated by L5–S1 ALIF procedure regardless of disc replacement above L5–S1 level. Thirty-seven patients were included and subset analyses were performed on 25 patients operated on an isolated ALIF L5–S1 (group 1), and 12 patients with hybrid surgery consisting of an L5– S1 ALIF procedure and a L4–L5 lumbar disc replacement (group 2). Clinical parameters were analyzed using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at M0 (preoperative) and M12 (12 months). Lumbo-pelvic parameters were assessed on a standingfull-spine X-ray, preoperatively and at M12 after surgery.

Results

We observed a significant evolution of L1–S1 lumbar lordosis (p <0.001) with a significant increase of the distal arch L4–S1 lordosis (p <0.001) and decrease of the proximal arch lordosis (p =0.03). Preoperatively, 27% of the patients were unbalanced. Significant variation in sagittal balance parameters was observed, with a decrease of the sagittal vertebral axis (p <0.001). VAS and ODI improved significantly but no correlation was found. An evolution in the same direction was found in the two subgroup analyses.

Conclusions

ALIF procedure on L5–S1 level allowed a reconstruction of lumbosacral segmental lordosis, modification of global lordosis, without variation of spino-pelvic parameters except an improvement in sagittal balance.

Neck pain in South Africa: An overview of the prevalence, assessment and management for the contemporary clinician

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is a prevalent condition and is associated with high levels of disability and pain. The long-term prognosis can be poor, and therefore effective management in the acute stage is important.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the prevalence of neck pain and physiotherapy management and to provide evidence-informed recommendations for clinical practice within a South African context.

METHOD

The literature was reviewed considering prevalence, risk factors and examination. Management recommendations were derived from the highest levels of evidence of clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews and randomised clinical trials.

RESULTS

Neck pain is classified into four grades, and three trajectories of recovery have been identified. Although the incidence of neck pain globally is high, in the South African context the majority of the population have limited access to physiotherapy management. Sound clinical reasoning is important in the assessment and decision-making process for management. Exercise, and mobilisation or manipulation are effective treatment options in the management of most types of neck pain. Other physical modalities such as needling, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, laser and intermittent traction may be used as an adjunct to management.

CONCLUSION

The burden of neck pain globally is high; however, there is a lack of information on current practice, prevalence and burden of neck pain in the South African context. Sound evidence-informed clinical reasoning to inform a working diagnosis and to enable patient-centred management is important.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

A thorough assessment is essential to gather information to formulate hypotheses regarding diagnosis and prognosis for neck pain. Exercise, and mobilisation or manipulation are effective management options.

Adult spinal deformity

Adult spinal deformity affects the thoracic or thoracolumbar spine throughout the ageing process. Although adolescent spinal deformities taken into adulthood are not uncommon, the most usual causes of spinal deformity in adults are iatrogenic flatback and degenerative scoliosis. Given its prevalence in the expanding portion of the global population aged older than 65 years, the disorder is of growing interest in health care. Physical examination, with a focus on gait and posture, along with radiographical assessment are primarily used and integrated with risk stratification indices to establish optimal treatment planning. Although non-operative treatment is regarded as the first-line response, surgical outcomes are considerably favourable. Global disparities exist in both the assessment and treatment of adults with spinal deformity across countries of varying incomes, which represents an area requiring further investigation. This Seminar presents evidence and knowledge that represent the evolution of data related to spinal deformity in adults over the past several decades.

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

PURPOSE

Spinal disorders, including back and neck pain, are major causes of disability, economic hardship, and morbidity, especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries. Currently, there is no model of care to address this issue. This paper provides an overview of the papers from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI), which was convened to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable, spinal healthcare model for communities around the world with various levels of resources.

METHODS

Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders.

RESULTS

Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care.

CONCLUSION

The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the development of a list of resources necessary to implement a model of care for the management of spine-related concerns anywhere in the world, but especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

Contents from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) Classification System and GSCI care pathway papers provided a foundation for the resources list. A seed document was developed that included resources for spine care that could be delivered in primary, secondary and tertiary settings, as well as resources needed for self-care and community-based settings for a wide variety of spine concerns (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, pathology and spinal diseases). An iterative expert consensus process was used using electronic surveys.

RESULTS

Thirty-five experts completed the process. An iterative consensus process was used through an electronic survey. A consensus was reached after two rounds. The checklist of resources included the following categories: healthcare provider knowledge and skills, materials and equipment, human resources, facilities and infrastructure. The list identifies resources needed to implement a spine care program in any community, which are based upon spine care needs.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first international and interprofessional attempt to develop a list of resources needed to deliver care in an evidence-based care pathway for the management of people presenting with spine-related concerns. This resource list needs to be field tested in a variety of communities with different resource capacities to verify its utility. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: model of care and implementation

PURPOSE

Spine-related disorders are a leading cause of global disability and are a burden on society and to public health. Currently, there is no comprehensive, evidence-based model of care for spine-related disorders, which includes back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, spinal diseases, and pathology, that could be applied in global health care settings. The purposes of this paper are to propose: (1) principles to transform the delivery of spine care; (2) an evidence-based model that could be applied globally; and (3) implementation suggestions.

METHODS

The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) meetings and literature reviews were synthesized into a seed document and distributed to spine care experts. After three rounds of a modified Delphi process, all participants reached consensus on the final model of care and implementation steps.

RESULTS

Sixty-six experts representing 24 countries participated. The GSCI model of care has eight core principles: person-centered, people-centered, biopsychosocial, proactive, evidence-based, integrative, collaborative, and self-sustaining. The model of care includes a classification system and care pathway, levels of care, and a focus on the patient's journey. The six steps for implementation are initiation and preparation; assessment of the current situation; planning and designing solutions; implementation; assessment and evaluation of program; and sustain program and scale up.

CONCLUSION

The GSCI proposes an evidence-based, practical, sustainable, and scalable model of care representing eight core principles with a six-step implementation plan. The aim of this model is to help transform spine care globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries and underserved communities. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) contributors, disclosures, and methods for reporting transparency on the development of the recommendations.

METHODS

World Spine Care convened the GSCI to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable healthcare model for spinal care. The initiative aims to improve the management, prevention, and public health for spine-related disorders worldwide; thus, global representation was essential. A series of meetings established the initiative's mission and goals. Electronic surveys collected contributorship and demographic information, and experiences with spinal conditions to better understand perceptions and potential biases that were contributing to the model of care.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight clinicians and scientists participated in the deliberations and are authors of one or more of the GSCI articles. Of these experts, 57 reported providing spine care in 34 countries, (i.e., low-, middle-, and high-income countries, as well as underserved communities in high-income countries.) The majority reported personally experiencing or having a close family member with one or more spinal concerns including: spine-related trauma or injury, spinal problems that required emergency or surgical intervention, spinal pain referred from non-spine sources, spinal deformity, spinal pathology or disease, neurological problems, and/or mild, moderate, or severe back or neck pain. There were no substantial reported conflicts of interest.

CONCLUSION

The GSCI participants have broad professional experience and wide international distribution with no discipline dominating the deliberations. The GSCI believes this set of papers has the potential to inform and improve spine care globally. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the development of an evidence-based care pathway that can be implemented globally.

METHODS

The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) care pathway development team extracted interventions recommended for the management of spinal disorders from six GSCI articles that synthesized the available evidence from guidelines and relevant literature. Sixty-eight international and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate. An iterative consensus process was used.

RESULTS

After three rounds of review, 46 experts from 16 countries reached consensus for the care pathway that includes five decision steps: awareness, initial triage, provider assessment, interventions (e.g., non-invasive treatment; invasive treatment; psychological and social intervention; prevention and public health; specialty care and interprofessional management), and outcomes. The care pathway can be used to guide the management of patients with any spine-related concern (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spinal injury, neurological conditions, pathology, spinal diseases). The pathway is simple and can be incorporated into educational tools, decision-making trees, and electronic medical records.

CONCLUSION

A care pathway for the management of individuals presenting with spine-related concerns includes evidence-based recommendations to guide health care providers in the management of common spinal disorders. The proposed pathway is person-centered and evidence-based. The acceptability and utility of this care pathway will need to be evaluated in various communities, especially in low- and middle-income countries, with different cultural background and resources. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.