BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain features evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for nonspecific low back pain as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2016. PURPOSE: The purpose of the guideline is to provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists when making clinical decisions for adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. This article provides a brief summary of the evidence-based guideline recommendations for diagnosing and treating patients with this condition. STUDY DESIGN: This is a guideline summary review. METHODS: This guideline is the product of the Low Back Pain Work Group of NASS' Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The methods used to develop this guideline are detailed in the complete guideline and technical report available on the NASS website. In brief, a multidisciplinary work group of spine care specialists convened to identify clinical questions to address in the guideline. The literature search strategy was developed in consultation with medical librarians. Upon completion of the systematic literature search, evidence relevant to the clinical questions posed in the guideline was reviewed. Work group members utilized NASS evidentiary table templates to summarize study conclusions, identify study strengths and weaknesses, and assign levels of evidence. Work group members participated in webcasts and in-person rate expert opinion when necessary. The draft guideline was submitted to an internal and external peer review process and ultimately approved by the NASS Board of Directors. RESULTS: Eighty-two clinical questions were addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded according to the levels of evidence of the supporting literature. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence-based clinical guideline has been created using techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, literature search parameters, literature attrition flowchart, suggestions for future research, and all of the references,
Age-dependent bone loss has been well documented in both human and animal models. Although the underlying causal mechanisms are probably multifactorial, it has been hypothesized that alterations in progenitor cell number or function are important. Little is known regarding the properties of bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs) or bone progenitor cells during the aging process, so the question of whether aging alters BMSC/progenitor osteogenic differentiation remains unanswered. In this study, we examined agedependent changes in bone marrow progenitor cell number and differentiation potential between mature (3 and 6 mo old), middle-aged (12 and 18 mo old), and aged (24 mo old) C57BL/6 mice. BMSCs or progenitors were isolated from five age groups of C57BL/6 mice using negative immunodepletion and positive immunoselection approaches. The osteogenic differentiation potential of multipotent BMSCs was determined using standard osteogenic differentiation procedures. Our results show that both BMSC/progenitor number and differentiation potential increase between the ages of 3 and 18 mo and decrease rapidly thereafter with advancing age. These results are consistent with the changes of the mRNA levels of osteoblast lineageassociated genes. Our data suggest that the decline in BMSC number and osteogenic differentiation capacity are important factors contributing to age-related bone loss.
MCID is increasingly used as a measure of patients' improvement. However, MCID does not yet adequately capture the clinical importance of patients' improvement.
Wrong site surgery may be preventable. We suggest that the North American Spine Society and JC checklists are insufficient on their own to minimize this complication. Therefore, in addition to these protocols, we recommend intraoperative imaging after exposure and marking of a fixed anatomic structure. This imaging should be compared with routine preoperative studies to determine the correct site for spine surgery.
Study Design: Cross-sectional, international survey. Objectives: The current study addressed the multi-dimensional impact of COVID-19 upon healthcare professionals, particularly spine surgeons, worldwide. Secondly, it aimed to identify geographical variations and similarities. Methods: A multi-dimensional survey was distributed to surgeons worldwide. Questions were categorized into domains: demographics, COVID-19 observations, preparedness, personal impact, patient care, and future perceptions. Results: 902 spine surgeons representing 7 global regions completed the survey. 36.8% reported co-morbidities. Of those that underwent viral testing, 15.8% tested positive for COVID-19, and testing likelihood was region-dependent; however, 7.2% would not disclose their infection to their patients. Family health concerns were greatest stressor globally (76.0%), with anxiety levels moderately high. Loss of income, clinical practice and current surgical management were region-dependent, whereby 50.4% indicated personal-protective-equipment were not adequate. 82.3% envisioned a change in their clinical practice as a result of COVID-19. More than 33% of clinical practice was via telemedicine. Research output and teaching/training impact was similar globally. 96.9% were interested in online medical education. 94.7% expressed a need for formal, international guidelines to manage COVID-19 patients. Conclusions: In this first, international study to assess the impact of COVID-19 on surgeons worldwide, we identified overall/regional variations and infection rate. The study raises awareness of the needs and challenges of surgeons that will serve as the foundation to establish interventions and guidelines to face future public health crises.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.