ObjectivesTo identify common recommendations for high-quality care for the most common musculoskeletal (MSK) pain sites encountered by clinicians in emergency and primary care (spinal (lumbar, thoracic and cervical), hip/knee (including osteoarthritis [OA] and shoulder) from contemporary, high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).DesignSystematic review, critical appraisal and narrative synthesis of MSK pain CPG recommendations.Eligibility criteriaIncluded MSK pain CPGs were written in English, rated as high quality, published from 2011, focused on adults and described development processes. Excluded CPGs were for: traumatic MSK pain, single modalities (eg, surgery), traditional healing/medicine, specific disease processes (eg, inflammatory arthropathies) or those that required payment.Data sourcesFour scientific databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Physiotherapy Evidence Database) and four guideline repositories.Results6232 records were identified, 44 CPGs were appraised and 11 were rated as high quality (low back pain: 4, OA: 4, neck: 2 and shoulder: 1). We identified 11 recommendations for MSK pain care: ensure care is patient centred, screen for red flag conditions, assess psychosocial factors, use imaging selectively, undertake a physical examination, monitor patient progress, provide education/information, address physical activity/exercise, use manual therapy only as an adjunct to other treatments, offer high-quality non-surgical care prior to surgery and try to keep patients at work.ConclusionThese 11 recommendations guide healthcare consumers, clinicians, researchers and policy makers to manage MSK pain. This should improve the quality of care of MSK pain.

Objectives Undertake a systematic critical appraisal of contemporary clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for common musculoskeletal (MSK) pain conditions: spinal (lumbar, thoracic and cervical), hip/knee (including osteoarthritis) and shoulder.

Findings provide preliminary evidence of an increased MSP burden among Aboriginal Australians, and particularly for OA, a mismatch between the disease burden and access to health care. To increase accessibility, health services should initially focus on improving Aboriginal patients' experiences of care, in particular by improving patient-practitioner communication. Implications for care and research are outlined.

The Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG) of the International Association for the Study of Pain has proposed a grading system for the presence of neuropathic pain (NeP) using the following categories: no NeP, possible, probable, or definite NeP. To further evaluate this system, we investigated patients with neck/upper limb pain with a suspected nerve lesion, to explore: (i) the clinical application of this grading system; (ii) the suitability of 2 NeP questionnaires (Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs pain scale [LANSS] and the painDETECT questionnaire [PD-Q]) in identifying NeP in this patient cohort; and (iii) the level of agreement in identifying NeP between the NeuPSIG classification system and 2 NeP questionnaires. Patients (n = 152; age 52 ± 12 years; 53% male) completed the PD-Q and LANSS questionnaire and underwent a comprehensive clinical examination. The NeuPSIG grading system proved feasible for application in this patient cohort, although it required considerable time and expertise. Both questionnaires failed to identify a large number of patients with clinically classified definite NeP (LANSS sensitivity 22%, specificity 88%; PD-Q sensitivity 64%, specificity 62%). These lowered sensitivity scores contrast with those from the original PD-Q and LANSS validation studies and may reflect differences in the clinical characteristics of the study populations. The diagnostic accuracy of LANSS and PD-Q for the identification of NeP in patients with neck/upper limb pain appears limited.

Implementing and sustaining evidence-based practice change in clinical practice is challenging. Ongoing evaluation is necessary for identifying the long-term implications of practice improvement interventions and issues that influence the adoption of evidence-based practice. Strategies to address barriers, and to increase awareness and engagement of the pain resource nurse role with wider collaboration require further investigation.