Introduction:

The complexity of clinical documentation and case management for health care providers has increased along with the rise of managed care. Keeping up with the policies of different insurers and third party administrators can be a daunting task. To address these issues for doctors of chiropractic (DCs) and policymakers, the Council for Chiropractic Guidelines and Practice Parameters (CCGPP) developed three consensus documents. Each of these documents was the outcome of a formal consensus process in which a multidisciplinary Delphi panel consisting of experts in chiropractic and low back pain treatment came to agreement on terminology and treatment parameters for the chiropractic management of spine-related musculoskeletal pain. [1-3] Their recommendations were based on a combination of consideration of the current evidence and their clinical judgment. In addition, another consensus document related to care rendered by doctors of chiropractic for the purpose of health promotion, disease prevention, and wellness, developed through a project funded by the NCMIC Foundation, was also referenced to clarify terminology used in the algorithms. [4] (See Table 1.)

Background   Neck pain is a common complaint in patients presenting for chiropractic treatment. The few studies on predictors for improvement in patients while undergoing treatment identify duration of symptoms, neck stiffness and number of previous episodes as the strong predictor variables. The purpose of this study is to continue the research for predictors of a positive outcome in neck pain patients undergoing chiropractic treatment.

Methods   Acute (< 4 weeks) (n = 274) and chronic (> 3 months) (n = 255) neck pain patients with no chiropractic or manual therapy in the prior 3 months were included. Patients completed the numerical pain rating scale (NRS) and Bournemouth questionnaire (BQ) at baseline prior to treatment. At 1 week, 1 month and 3 months after start of treatment the NRS and BQ were completed along with the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale. Demographic information was provided by the clinician. Improvement at each of the follow up points was categorized using the PGIC. Multivariate regression analyses were done to determine significant independent predictors of improvement.

Results   Baseline mean neck pain and total disability scores were significantly (p < 0.001and p < 0.008 respectively) higher in acute patients. Both groups reported significant improvement at all data collection time points, but was significantly larger for acute patients. The PGIC score at 1 week (OR = 3.35, 95% CI = 1.13-9.92) and the baseline to 1 month BQ total change score (OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.03-1.11) were identified as independent predictors of improvement at 3 months for acute patients. Chronic patients who reported improvement on the PGIC at 1 month were more likely to be improved at 3 months (OR = 6.04, 95% CI = 2.76-13.69). The presence of cervical radiculopathy or dizziness was not predictive of a negative outcome in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS:   The most consistent predictor of clinically relevant improvement at both 1 and 3 months after the start of chiropractic treatment for both acute and chronic patients is if they report improvement early in the course of treatment. The co-existence of either radiculopathy or dizziness however do not imply poorer prognosis in these patients.

There are many more articles like this at our:

Chronic Neck Pain and Chiropractic Page

BACKGROUND:   The mechanisms subserving deep spinal pain have not been studied as well as those related to the skin and to deep pain in peripheral limb structures. The clinical phenomenology of deep spinal pain presents unique features which call for investigations which can explain these at a mechanistic level.

METHODS:   Targeted searches of the literature were conducted and the relevant materials reviewed for applicability to the thesis that deep spinal pain is distinctive from deep pain in the peripheral limb structures. Topics related to the neuroanatomy and neurophysiology of deep spinal pain were organized in a hierarchical format for content review.

RESULTS:   Since the 1980′s the innervation characteristics of the spinal joints and deep muscles have been elucidated. Afferent connections subserving pain have been identified in a distinctive somatotopic organization within the spinal cord whereby afferents from deep spinal tissues terminate primarily in the lateral dorsal horn while those from deep peripheral tissues terminate primarily in the medial dorsal horn. Mechanisms underlying the clinical phenomena of referred pain from the spine, poor localization of spinal pain and chronicity of spine pain have emerged from the literature and are reviewed here, especially emphasizing the somatotopic organization and hyperconvergence of dorsal horn “low back (spinal) neurons”. Taken together, these findings provide preliminary support for the hypothesis that deep spine pain is different from deep pain arising from peripheral limb structures.

CONCLUSIONS:   This thesis addressed the question “what is different about spine pain?” Neuroanatomic and neurophysiologic findings from studies in the last twenty years provide preliminary support for the thesis that deep spine pain is different from deep pain arising from peripheral limb structures.

Dr. John Srbely DC, PhD

Assistant Professor, Department of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Guelph.
CCRF Professorship in Spine Mechanics and Human Neurophysiology
College of Biological Sciences, University of Guelph

Chronic pain is a worldwide epidemic. It is characterized as “pain that persists beyond normal tissue healing time” [1] and is physiologically distinct from acute nociceptive pain. The current research estimates the prevalence of chronic pain in the general population to be anywhere from 10–55%, [2] predominantly affecting the adult population. Studies indicate that the prevalence of chronic pain in the over-60 age group is double that for younger adults. [3] Furthermore, over 80% of elderly (over 65) adults suffer from some form of painful chronic joint disease [4] and greater than 85% of the general population will experience some form of chronic myofascial pain during their lifetime. [5]

Chronic pain has substantial impact on sufferers, often citing significant impairments in physical, social and psychological function. [6] Many patients suffer from progressive health and physical deterioration owing to sleep and appetite disturbances, anxiety, depression, decreased physical energy and activity as well as excessive use of medication. [6] Chronic pain often leads to social withdrawal, impaired personal relationships and job loss. [1] Recent estimates suggest that 50–85% of adults report some degree of pain that may interfere with daily activities and quality of life. [7]

You may also enjoy our:

Chronic Neck Pain and Chiropractic Page

Tina Beychok, Associate Editor

Pain is the most prevalent health condition among U.S. workers and the most expensive in terms of lost productivity. Recent studies suggest more than six in 10 adults over the age of 30 experience chronic pain. Furthermore, health care expenditures for back and neck pain have risen to more than $80 billion a year in the U.S. – a dramatic increase over the past eight years, without evidence of improved health. In addition to the costs of lost productivity, an estimated $64 billion per year is lost due to workers continuing to work, even though pain reduces their job performance. This phenomenon is called “presenteeism.”

Unfortunately, workers’ comp can be a quagmire of contradictory and insufficient rules and regulations as to what treatments are and aren’t covered. The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) has been in the process of revising its Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines, which have not always taken a positive view of chiropractic manipulation. In fact, the second edition of the guidelines, released in 2005, was heavily criticized by some in the chiropractic community. [1]

ACOEM’s latest chronic pain guidelines (a chapter of the overall guidelines) may represent a step in the right direction in terms of recognizing the value of chiropractic care. The guidelines actually recommend manipulation for chronic, persistent low back or neck pain and cervicogenic headache. [2] This is significant because in the past, the guidelines failed to recommend manipulation, even when other treatment strategies (medication, etc.) were rated as less effective.

Continue reading …