PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

D C Cherkin

Publications and source records attributed to D C Cherkin.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1998

A comparison of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and provision of an educational booklet for the treatment of patients with low back pain.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: There are few data on the relative effectiveness and costs of treatments for low back pain. We randomly assigned 321 adults with low back pain that persisted for seven days after a primary care visit to the McKenzie method of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, or a minimal intervention (provision of an educational booklet). Patients with sciatica were excluded. Physical therapy or chiropractic manipulation was provided for one month (the number of visits was determined by the practitioner but was limited to a maximum of nine); patients were followed for a total of two years. The bothersomeness of symptoms was measured on an 11-point scale, and the level of dysfunction was measured on the 24-point Roland Disability Scale. RESULTS: After adjustment for base-line differences, the chiropractic group had less severe symptoms than the booklet group at four weeks (P=0.02), and there was a trend toward less severe symptoms in the physical therapy group (P=0.06). However, these differences were small and not significant after transformations of the data to adjust for their non-normal distribution. Differences in the extent of dysfunction among the groups were small and approached significance only at one year, with greater dysfunction in the booklet group than in the other two groups (P=0.05). For all outcomes, there were no significant differences between the physical-therapy and chiropractic groups and no significant differences among the groups in the numbers of days of reduced activity or missed work or in recurrences of back pain. About 75 percent of the subjects in the therapy groups rated their care as very good or excellent, as compared with about 30 percent of the subjects in the booklet group (P<0.001). Over a two-year period, the mean costs of care were $437 for the physical-therapy group, $429 for the chiropractic group, and $153 for the booklet group. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with low back pain, the McKenzie method of physical therapy and chiropractic manipulation had similar effects and costs, and patients receiving these treatments had only marginally better outcomes than those receiving the minimal intervention of an educational booklet. Whether the limited benefits of these treatments are worth the additional costs is open to question.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

A report from the Second International Forum for Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain. Reexamining priorities.

STUDY DESIGN: Consensus process. OBJECTIVES: Reexamining and redirecting the research agenda for low back pain in primary care. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Most research, publications, and funding have traditionally been directed toward specialty and biologically oriented investigations of "spinal disorders" from biomedical and biomechanical perspectives. Beginning in the mid-1980s, primary care researchers began to investigate this field in earnest, focusing on lower back pain as a pain syndrome within an individual, family, and community context. Unfortunately, more progress has been made on what should not be done in diagnosing and treating lower back pain than on what should be done. METHODS: This was a modified group process designed to reach consensus among an international group of primary care lower back pain researchers. RESULTS: Nearly all of the research priorities from the initial 1995 forum are still thought to be important, although only modest progress has been made on most of them. The priorities perceived to be the most feasible to investigate and the ones in which the greatest strides have been achieved are in methodologic rather than substantive areas. Identifying subgroups of people with lower back pain is still given top ranking in 1997, but the priorities have changed dramatically. Greater emphasis is given to finding predictors and risk factors for lower back pain chronicity, improving self-care strategies, and stimulating self-reliance. New items now make up 50% of the top 10 priorities. In general, the additions reflect a greater emphasis on expanding methodologic avenues of inquiry. CONCLUSIONS: Methodologic advances, the enlistment of new techniques and disciplines, and redirected research efforts may facilitate progress in the diagnosis and treatment of lower back pain.

Group Processes↗
PubMed1998

Primary care research on low back pain. The state of the science.

The past few years have witnessed an explosion of primary care-relevant research on low back pain. The descriptive studies have helped elucidate the diagnostic and therapeutic interventions that are in current use. The literature syntheses have clarified what is known about the usefulness of these interventions. The randomized trials have pushed the frontiers of knowledge in several important areas. The quality of research in this field is mixed but has improved significantly in recent years. If research is to lead to substantial improvements in primary care for low back pain, however, the focus must be broadened to embrace an existing but neglected paradigm, the biopsychosocial model. It must be understood how the physician can become a more effective healer and counselor for the patient with back pain. This will require that greater attention be paid to literature outside of the field and that communication and collaboration with researchers in other disciplines increase. Modern distractions such as technology, litigation, and disability compensation have interfered with the ability of physicians to meet their patients' needs. If physicians are to become more effective managers of such common problems as low back pain, they must rediscover their ability to help their patients cope with illness and suffering.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed1998

Medication use for low back pain in primary care.

STUDY DESIGN: A longitudinal observational study of primary care patients with low back pain. OBJECTIVES: 1) To describe medications prescribed for back pain, 2) to identify patient characteristics associated with type of drug therapy, 3) to determine if the prescription of certain drugs is associated with better outcomes, and 4) to compare physician prescribing behavior with national guidelines. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Few previous studies have focused on medication prescribing patterns for back pain in primary care. METHODS: Two-hundred nineteen patients aged 20-69 years who were making a first visit for an episode of back pain were studied. After the visit, patients completed questionnaires regarding sociodemographic characteristics, health status, back pain experience, and use of medications. Symptom severity and dysfunction were assessed by telephone 1 week after the visit. RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent of patients were prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 35% muscle relaxants, 12% narcotics, and 4% acetaminophen. Twenty percent received no medications. Patients were more likely to receive medications if they had a desire for medication, pain below the knee, less than 3 weeks of pain before visit, more severe symptoms, or greater dysfunction. Patients with more severe symptoms were more likely to receive narcotics or muscle relaxants. Patients with greater dysfunction were also more likely to receive narcotics. Type of drug therapy predicted symptom severity but not dysfunction after 1 week. Controlling for other factors, those receiving medications had less severe symptoms after 1 week than patients who received no medication. Patients receiving both muscle relaxants and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had the best outcomes. Medication use for back pain in this health maintenance organization was generally concordant with national guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, often augmented by muscle relaxants, are a standard medical treatment for back pain in primary care. In this observational study, patients prescribed medications, particularly muscle relaxants, reported less severe symptoms after 1 week than those receiving no medications. However, randomized trials are needed to determine which medication or combinations of medications are most effective.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Reasons for repeated medical visits among patients with chronic back pain.

OBJECTIVE: This study identifies the key motivations of patients repeatedly seeking medical care for chronic back problems. DESIGN: We conducted one-on-one, in-depth interviews with patients to discuss their experiences with low back pain and its care. To validate our interpretation of the qualitative data, participants were mailed questionnaires listing the themes identified in the interviews and asked to rate the importance to them of each of the themes. SETTING: Managed health care plans in Atlanta, Dallas, and Seattle. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-four patients (37% male, 63% female) who were 25 to 65 years of age and had three or more medically attended episodes of low back pain during the 3 years preceding the study. MAIN RESULTS: In describing their motivations for seeking medical care for back pain, nearly all participants cited difficulty in performing normal activities and the desire to discover the cause of the pain. Other motivations for seeking medical care for back pain included increased pain and the desire for a diagnostic test or a new treatment. Many of the verbalized reasons for repeated medical visits among patients with chronic back pain are probably best understood as seeking validation of their suffering. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chronic back pain report many unmet needs and expectations. Overall satisfaction might be improved if clinicians elicit patients' views of underlying causes and their expectations from office visits.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed1998

Employer-sponsored health insurance for chiropractic services.

The use of chiropractors has increased substantially in recent years, and there is growing scientific evidence on the effectiveness of chiropractic treatment for common low back ailments. Despite the increased acceptance of chiropractic care, little is known about the prevalence of chiropractic coverage in employer health plans and the nature of such benefits when they are provided. This article reports on the extent and composition of chiropractic insurance among workers with employer-sponsored health insurance in 1993. The prevalence of the benefits in employer plans was examined, as was the extent to which plans are in compliance with state mandated benefits in this area. The authors also examined what the actual benefits consist of and how they compare with those for physician office visits and physical therapy.

Chiropractic↗
PubMed1996

An agenda for primary care research on low back pain.

In October 1995, an International Forum for Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain was held in Seattle, Washington. The Forum focused on the broad range of decisions that patients and their primary care providers make concerning how to best manage low back pain. In addition to providing a venue for summarizing the current state of knowledge about these issues, a major goal of the Forum was to draft an agenda for future primary care research on low back pain. Previous efforts to delineate priority areas for research in this field have emphasized the concerns of basic scientists, pain specialists, and surgeons while ignoring the major concerns of patients and providers in the primary care setting, where the majority of patients with back pain are seen. This article describes the group consensus process used to draft an agenda, presents the items included, and contrasts this primary care agenda with agendas for back pain research developed primarily by specialists. This agenda identifies for the first time the clinical and methodologic issues that primary care experts on back pain consider to be of highest priority. Hopefully, it will help focus future primary care research and encourage funding agencies to give priority to the issues identified.

Humans↗
PubMed1996

Predicting poor outcomes for back pain seen in primary care using patients' own criteria.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort study of patients seen in primary care for low back pain. OBJECTIVES: A new measure of back pain outcomes is used to describe the status of back problems at various intervals after visits to primary care physicians and to identify subsets of patients with worse prognoses. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Most previous studies of the prognosis of back pain in primary care have failed to provide clinically useful information. METHODS: Baseline data were collected from 219 patients making an initial visit for an episode of low back pain to a primary care clinic. A measure of how patients reported they would feel if they had their current back symptoms for the rest of their lives ("Symptom Satisfaction") was used to distinguish good from poor outcomes. Patient outcomes were assessed 1, 3, 7, and 52 weeks after the index visit. RESULTS: Only 67% of patients reported good outcomes after 7 weeks, and only 71% were satisfied with their condition 1 year later. After controlling for the effects of other variables measured during the initial physician visit, only younger age, depression, and pain below the knee were significant predictors of poor outcome at 7 weeks, and only pain below the knee and depression were significant predictors at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of primary care patients with back pain who have poor outcomes appears to be higher than generally recognized. Ways of improving how primary care responds to patients with persisting pain should be investigated.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Pitfalls of patient education. Limited success of a program for back pain in primary care.

STUDY DESIGN: Low back pain patients seen in primary care were allocated randomly to one of two educational interventions or to usual care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate educational interventions designed to improve the outcomes of primary care for low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patients with back pain are frequently dissatisfied with their medical care and identify lack of information as the most insufficient aspect. METHODS: In a large Health Maintenance Organization clinic, 293 subjects were allocated randomly to receive usual care, an educational booklet, or a 15-minute session with a clinic nurse, including the booklet and a follow-up telephone call. Outcome measures included satisfaction with care, perceived knowledge, participation in exercise, functional status, symptom relief, and health care use. Outcomes were assessed 1, 3, 7, and 52 weeks after the intervention. RESULTS: The nurse intervention resulted in higher patient satisfaction than usual care (P < 0.001) and higher perceived knowledge (P < 0.001). Self-reported exercise participation was also higher in the nurse intervention group after a 1-week follow-up period (97% vs. 65% in the other groups; P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences among the three groups in worry, symptoms, functional status, or health care use at any follow-up interval. Differences in self-reported exercise and perceived knowledge were no longer significant after 7 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: These findings challenge the value of purely educational approaches in reducing functional impact or health care use related to back pain and also challenge the value of fitness exercise in the most acute phase of back pain.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Physician views about treating low back pain. The results of a national survey.

STUDY DESIGN: Physicians were surveyed regarding their beliefs about treatment efficacy for patients with low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To document physician beliefs about the efficacy of specific treatments and the extent to which these beliefs correspond to current knowledge. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Little is known about physician beliefs regarding the efficacy of specific back pain treatments. METHODS: A national random sample of 2897 physicians were mailed questionnaires that asked about 1) the treatments they would order for hypothetical patients with low back pain and 2) the treatments they believed were effective for back pain. Responses were compared with guidelines suggested by the Quebec Task Force on Spinal Disorders. RESULTS: Almost 1200 physicians responded. More than 80% of these physicians believed physical therapy is effective, but this consensus was lacking for other treatments. Fewer than half of the physicians believed that spinal manipulation is effective for acute or chronic back pain or that epidural steroid injections, traction, and corsets are effective for acute back pain. Bed rest and narcotic analgesics were recommended by substantial minorities of physicians for patients with chronic pain. The Quebec Task Force found little scientific support for the effectiveness of most of the treatments found to be in common use. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of consensus among physicians could be attributable to the absence of clear evidence-based clinical guidelines, ignorance or rejection of existing scientific evidence, excessive commitment to a particular mode of therapy, or a tendency to discount the efficacy of competing treatments.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Physician office visits for low back pain. Frequency, clinical evaluation, and treatment patterns from a U.S. national survey.

STUDY DESIGN: This study is an analysis of national survey data from 5 sample years. OBJECTIVES: The authors characterized the frequency of office visits for low back pain, the content of ambulatory care, and how these vary by physician specialty. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Few recent data are available regarding ambulatory care for low back pain or how case mix and patient management vary by physician specialty. METHODS: Data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey were grouped into three time periods (1980-81, 1985, 1989-90). Frequency of visits for low back pain, referral status, tests, and treatments were tabulated by physician specialty. RESULTS: There were almost 15 million office visits for "mechanical" low back pain in 1990, ranking this problem fifth as a reason for all physician visits. Low back pain accounted for 2.8 percent of office visits in all three time periods. Nonspecific diagnostic labels were most common, and 56 percent of visits were to primary care physicians. Specialty variations were observed in caseload, diagnostic mix, and management. CONCLUSIONS: Back pain remains a major reason for all physician office visits. This study describes visit, referral, and management patterns among specialties providing the most care.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1994

Outcome measures for studying patients with low back pain.

There is growing recognition in the treatment of back pain that patient perspectives are essential in judging the results of treatment. Improving the patient's "quality of life" is often the main goal of therapy. Thus, although clinical research in the past has focused on physiologic outcomes, such as range of motion, muscle strength, or neurologic deficits, increasing attention is being given to the rigorous measurement of symptoms, functional status, role function, satisfaction with treatment, and health care costs. In many cases, these so-called "soft" outcomes can be measured with a level of reproducibility similar to more conventional clinical data such as imaging test results. Because symptoms and functional outcomes are sometimes only loosely associated with physiologic phenomena, the former outcomes should be measured directly. Modern questionnaires for measuring patient quality of life combine the expertise of social scientists and clinicians and have demonstrated validity. Furthermore, they have some important advantages over simple ratings of "excellent, good, fair, and poor" outcomes, or work status alone. Several modern instruments for measuring health-related quality of life in patients with low back pain are reviewed briefly, describing their content and length. Wider use of these instruments would help to increase clinician familiarity with their meaning and avoid duplication of effort in questionnaire development.

Health Status Indicators↗
PubMed1994

Strategies for outcome research in spinal disorders. An introduction.

The evaluation of the clinical utility of the clinical diagnostic tests and procedures, what works in spinal disorders, and for whom and how treatment affects a patient's symptoms and function are key questions of outcomes research. This paper describes the advantages and limitations of the main study approaches used. Examples from the spine literature on spinal stenosis are used for illustration.

Female↗
PubMed1994

Therapeutic trials for low back pain.

Little consensus exists regarding the indications for and effectiveness of many back pain treatments. This clinical uncertainty arises because most back pain research has been flawed by poor methodology. The authors discuss strategies for improving the quality of back pain research on treatment efficacy. Design features, including randomized treatment allocation, independent outcome assessors, comprehensive outcome measures, appropriate statistical analyses, and close patient follow-up can increase study validity. Complete descriptions of enrollment criteria, patient characteristics, and clinical interventions can increase the generalizability of results. Although large scale trials often involve university centers, community-based researchers can collaborate on randomized trials or conduct valuable cohort studies.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed1994

Analysis of automated administrative and survey databases to study patterns and outcomes of care.

Large computerized databases often arise from national surveys, insurance claims, and statewide health care registries. These databases are increasingly used to examine patterns of medical care and certain outcomes of care and may be helpful in planning clinical trials. They are highly representative of defined populations, but have limited clinical information. Methods have been developed to identify episodes of low back pain and to quantify the severity of unrelated, comorbid medical conditions. Pitfalls in analysis are discussed, including limitations of diagnosis and procedure coding, cross-sectional nature of most data, limited clinical detail, and the necessarily observational (not experimental) nature of any group comparisons. There is growing interest in expanding the clinical information in such databases, for both quality improvement and research purposes.

Cross-Sectional Studies↗
PubMed1994

An international comparison of back surgery rates.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although high geographic variation in back surgery rates within the United States have been documented, international comparisons have not been published. METHODS: The authors compared rates of back surgery in eleven developed countries to determine if back surgery rates are higher: 1) in the United States than in other developed countries, 2) in countries with more neurologic and orthopaedic surgeons per capita, and 3) in countries with higher rates of other surgical procedures. Data on back surgery rates and physician supply were obtained from health agencies within these eleven countries. Country-specific rates of other surgical procedures were available from published sources. RESULTS: The rate of back surgery in the United States was at least 40% higher than in any other country and was more than five times those in England and Scotland. Back surgery rates increased almost linearly with the per capita supply of orthopaedic and neurosurgeons in the country. Countries with high back surgery rates also had high rates of other discretionary procedures such as tonsillectomy and hysterectomy. CONCLUSIONS: These findings illustrate the potentially large impact of health system differences on rates of back surgery. Better outcome studies, however, are needed to determine whether Americans are being subjected to excessive surgery or if those in other developed countries are suffering because back surgery is underutilized.

Australia↗
PubMed1994

Low back pain hospitalization. Recent United States trends and regional variations.

STUDY DESIGN: This study describes recent United States trends and regional variations in the management of low back pain. OBJECTIVES: The authors investigated recent temporal trends and compared practices in different geographic regions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Controversy exists concerning the appropriate medical and surgical management of patients with low back pain. METHODS: National Hospital Discharge Survey data from 1979 through 1990 were analyzed. Case selection was based on previously developed algorithms intended to exclude nonmechanical causes of back pain. RESULTS: Over the period of study, nonsurgical hospitalizations for low back pain decreased dramatically. In contrast, low back operation rates, particularly for fusion surgery, increased substantially. In recent years, surgery and hospitalization rates were highest in the South and lowest in the West. CONCLUSIONS: Rapidly increasing surgical rates and wide geographic variations suggest the need for a more consistent approach to back problems.

Algorithms↗