Review ArticleSynthesis of recommendations for the assessment and management of low back pain from recent clinical practice guidelines
Introduction
Low back pain (LBP) is a common musculoskeletal condition, with a lifetime prevalence of 84% in the general adult population [1]. The severity of LBP varies from patient to patient and episode to episode, with only 15% suffering from severe disability and 20% to 25% visiting a health provider [1], [2], [3], [4]. However, the economic burden of LBP is very heavy because of direct health-care costs and indirect costs from lost productivity. Health-care costs associated with spine problems, including LBP and neck pain, were estimated at $102 billion in the United States in 2004 [5]. Data from other countries suggest that indirect costs may be five to six times higher than direct costs, bringing the total annual costs of LBP in the United States to $500 billion or more [6].
Care for LBP is fragmented. Patients may first present to a primary care provider (PCP), where it ranks as one of the top five reasons for seeking care and accounts for 5% of all PCP visits; doctors of chiropractics (DCs) and physical therapists (PTs) are also frequently consulted for LBP [3], [7], [8], [9], [10]. A sizable number of those with LBP also seek care in secondary care (2°) settings, including nonsurgical spine specialists, such as neurologists, physiatrists, and rheumatologists, and surgical spine specialists, such as orthopedic and neurologic surgeons. Allied health providers, such as acupuncturists, naturopaths, psychologists, and other health providers also play a role in managing LBP. Differences in the training, education, and scope of practice of these providers have lead to heterogeneity in the management of LBP [11], [12].
Ideally, all providers involved in managing LBP should be guided by the best available scientific evidence to minimize the use of ineffective, excessively costly, or even harmful procedures. However, the volume of literature related to LBP precludes clinicians reading all studies in their fields [4]. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) endeavor to locate, evaluate, and summarize the scientific evidence on particular topics and are considered important tools in the implementation of evidence-based medicine [8], [13], [14], [15]. However, methods for developing CPGs are not yet standardized, which may impact the perceived validity of their recommendations [15], [16]. Previous reviews of CPGs for LBP reported that although many recommendations were similar, discrepancies were noted regarding the use of medication, spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), exercise, and patient education [12], [17], [18]. Conclusions from previous reviews on this topic may no longer be valid because newer CPGs were subsequently published.
Adherence to recommendations from CPGs on the management of LBP has been associated with both improved clinical outcomes and decreased costs [19], [20], [21], [22]. However, compliance with such recommendations from CPGs has been consistently low in studies of physicians, chiropractors, PTs, and other clinicians involved in managing LBP [20], [21], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. Interventions aimed at increasing compliance with CPGs among health practitioners have reported mixed results [19], [28], [38], [39], [40]. Barriers noted to the adoption of CPGs have included lack of understanding about how they arrive at their recommendations, insufficient clarity to apply them, inconsistency among different CPGs, or disagreement with their recommendations [41].
The primary objective of this study was to synthesize recommendations from recent CPGs to provide guidance to clinicians on evidence-based assessment and management of acute LBP, chronic LBP, and LBP with substantial neurologic involvement, which are defined below. Secondary objectives were to compare methods used in different CPGs, rate their methodological quality, and make suggestions for developing future CPGs related to LBP.
Section snippets
Information sources
Clinical practice guidelines were primarily identified through electronic searches in MEDLINE (OVID Interface, 1996 to August Week 1, 2009). Searches of the Internet also were conducted as CPGs are rarely published in medical journals [42]. The National Guideline Clearinghouse (www.guideline.gov), Clinical Evidence (clinicalevidence.bmj.com), Intute (www.intute.ac.uk), National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (www.nice.org.uk), and other Web sites were searched [43]. Clinical
Methods
The search strategy uncovered 669 citations, of which 95 were potentially relevant and 10 were deemed eligible, as summarized in the Figure[7], [8], [9], [42], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. Two CPGs represented joint efforts by several European countries, including the Netherlands, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, and Sweden: one on acute LBP [42] and one on chronic LBP [46]. The two CPGs from the United States originated from the same groups but were
Discussion
Most CPGs originated in Europe, where some countries not only participated in multinational efforts but also developed their own national CPGs. Reasons for doing this were unclear but may be because of a perceived need to adapt “generic” recommendations to the particular societal, cultural, legal, or economic realities of their countries. An equal number of CPGs were related acute and chronic LBP, countering previous reports that relatively few CPGs existed for the management of chronic LBP [46]
Conclusion
A total of 10 CPGs related to the assessment and management of LBP have been published in the past 10 years. Methods for conducting these CPGs varied, but most were of high methodological quality and had generally similar recommendations. Although CPGs differed in their scope with respect to acute LBP, chronic LBP, and LBP with substantial neurologic involvement, recommendations were broadly similar and erecting such barriers when formulating recommendations for clinicians appears somewhat
References (59)
- et al.
A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally
Spine J
(2008) - et al.
A supermarket approach to the evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain
Spine J
(2008) - et al.
Adherence of Irish general practitioners to European guidelines for acute low back pain: a prospective pilot study
Eur J Pain
(2007) - et al.
Knowledge transfer in family physicians managing patients with acute low back pain: a prospective randomized control trial
Spine J
(2006) - et al.
Compliance with clinical practice guidelines in family physicians managing worker's compensation board patients with acute lower back pain
Spine J
(2003) - et al.
Computed tomography in low back pain and sciatica. A retrospective study of 132 patients in the Haute-Vienne district of France
Joint Bone Spine
(2002) - et al.
Adherence to radiography guidelines for low back pain: a survey of chiropractic schools worldwide
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
(2008) - et al.
Physiotherapy management of low back pain: does practice match the Dutch guidelines?
Aust J Physiother
(2005) - et al.
Do Norwegian manual therapists provide management for patients with acute low back pain in accordance with clinical guidelines?
Man Ther
(2005) - et al.
Clinically important outcomes in low back pain
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol
(2005)
Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey
J Clin Epidemiol
Can cost utility evaluations inform decision making about interventions for low back pain? A systematic review
Spine J
The Saskatchewan health and back pain survey. The prevalence of low back pain and related disability in Saskatchewan adults
Spine
Incidence and course of low back pain episodes in the general population
Spine
The treatment of neck and low back pain: who seeks care? who goes where?
Med Care
Low back pain: early management of persistent non-specific low back pain
The surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review
Spine
Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society
Ann Intern Med
Acute low back pain: interdisciplinary clinical guidelines
Diagnostic therapeutic flow-charts for low back pain patients: the Italian clinical guidelines
Eura Medicophys
The role of alternative medical providers for the outpatient treatment of insured patients with back pain
Spine
Clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care: an international comparison
Spine
Methods for evidence synthesis in interventional pain management
Pain Physician
Evidence synthesis and development of guidelines in interventional pain management
Pain Physician
Evidence-based medicine and the challenge of low back pain: where are we now?
Pain Pract
Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management, part I: introduction and general considerations
Pain Physician
A critical review of guidelines for low back pain treatment
Eur Spine J
Quality of primary care guidelines for acute low back pain
Spine
Effects of two guideline implementation strategies on patient outcomes in primary care: a cluster randomized controlled trial
Spine
Cited by (296)
Telemedical Interdisciplinary Care Team Evaluation and Treatment of People With Low Back Pain: A Retrospective Observational Study
2023, Archives of Rehabilitation Research and Clinical TranslationChanges in Opioid Therapy Use by an Interprofessional Primary Care Team: A Descriptive Study of Opioid Prescription Data
2021, Journal of Manipulative and Physiological TherapeuticsInadvertent intrathecal drug injection while treating low back pain: a case report and review of the literature
2023, Journal of Medical Case ReportsEffects of lumbar-pelvic training combined with electroacupuncture on chronic nonspecific low back pain
2023, Medicine (United States)
FDA device/drug status: not applicable.
Author disclosures: SD (salary, Palladian Health; stock ownership, including options and warrants, Palladian Health; training grant, NCMIC Foundation; speaking and/or teaching arrangements, NCMIC Foundation); ACT (consulting, Palladian Health; research support: investigator salary, Palladian Health); SH (royalties, multiple publishing companies; stock ownership, including options and warrants, Palladian Health; consulting, Palladian Health, NCMIC Foundation, University of New York; speaking and/or teaching arrangements, multiple organizations; trips/travel, multiple meetings per prior field; scientific advisory board, NYCC; other office, WFC Research Council).
The authors are consultants, employees, or officers of Palladian Health, LLC, a company that manages specialty health benefits on behalf of other health insurers.