METHODS: Systematic review of the literature and subsequent meta-analysis for the development of a new guideline.
OBJECTIVE: This manuscript summarizes the recommendations from a new clinical guideline published by the German Spine Society. It covers the current evidence on recommendations regarding the indication, test blocks and use of radiofrequency denervation. The guidelines aim is to improve patient care and efficiency of the procedure.
METHODS: A multidisciplinary working group formulated recommendations based on the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.
RESULTS: 20 clinical questions were defined for guideline development, with 87.5% consensus achieved by committee members for one recommendation and 100% consensus for all other topics. Specific questions that were addressed included clinical history, examination and imaging, conservative treatment before injections, diagnostic blocks, the injected medications, the cut-off value in pain-reduction for a diagnostic block as well as the number of blocks, image guidance, the cannula trajectories, the lesion size, stimulation, repeat radiofrequency denervation, sedation, cessation or continuation of anticoagulants, the influence of metal hardware, and ways to mitigate complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Radiofrequency (RF) denervation of the spine and the SI joint may provide benefit to well-selected individuals. The recommendations of this guideline are based on very low to moderate quality of evidence as well as professional consensus. The guideline working groups recommend that research efforts in relation to all aspects of management of facet joint pain and SI joint pain should be intensified.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of an artificial intelligence chatbot to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommendations for providing answers to complex clinical questions on lumbosacral radicular pain. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: We extracted recommendations from recent CPGs for diagnosing and treating lumbosacral radicular pain. Relative clinical questions were developed and queried to OpenAI\'s ChatGPT (GPT-3.5). We compared ChatGPT answers to CPGs recommendations by assessing the (1) internal consistency of ChatGPT answers by measuring the percentage of text wording similarity when a clinical question was posed 3 times, (2) reliability between 2 independent reviewers in grading ChatGPT answers, and (3) accuracy of ChatGPT answers compared to CPGs recommendations. Reliability was estimated using Fleiss\' kappa (κ) coefficients, and accuracy by interobserver agreement as the frequency of the agreements among all judgments. RESULTS: We tested 9 clinical questions. The internal consistency of text ChatGPT answers was unacceptable across all 3 trials in all clinical questions (mean percentage of 49%, standard deviation of 15). Intrareliability (reviewer 1: κ = 0.90, standard error [SE] = 0.09; reviewer 2: κ = 0.90, SE = 0.10) and interreliability (κ = 0.85, SE = 0.15) between the 2 reviewers was \"almost perfect.\" Accuracy between ChatGPT answers and CPGs recommendations was slight, demonstrating agreement in 33% of recommendations. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT performed poorly in internal consistency and accuracy of the indications generated compared to clinical practice guideline recommendations for lumbosacral radicular pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(3):1-7. Epub 29 January 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12151.

Sociodemographic characteristics are related to low back pain (LBP) outcomes, therefore diverse representation is important when appraising clinical trials. We investigated the reporting of participant sociodemographic variables in trials informing the American College of Physicians (ACP) guidelines for the treatment of LBP.
Clinical trials supporting recommended interventions in the ACP guidelines were reviewed for reporting of participant sociodemographic data.
Of 116 trials, 34 reported participant race and/or ethnicity. Education level, income level, and employment status were reported in 24, 10, and 31 trials, respectively; insurance coverage, marital status, and religion were reported in three, 16, and two trials, respectively. Two trials reported on duration or location of residence. Language comprehension was the most frequent exclusion criterion.
Insufficient sociodemographic data exist in trials informing the ACP guidelines for the treatment of LBP. Investigators of LBP interventions should recruit diverse study participants and report comprehensive sociodemographic data.

Narcotic consumption in the workers\' compensation population contributes to prolonged case duration, worse clinical outcomes, and opioid dependence. In 2016, the CDC provided recommendations guiding clinicians on prescribing opioids to adult patients with chronic pain. The objective of our study was to evaluate a cause-and-effect relationship between narcotic consumption and worker compensation claim length before and following guideline revision.
An administration database was retrospectively queried to identify patients evaluated for spine-related workers\' compensation claimants from 2011 to 2021. Data was recorded for age, sex, BMI, case length, narcotic usage, and injury location. Cases were grouped together by exam date before (2011-2016) and after (2017-2021) the 2016 CDC opioid guideline revision.
Six hundred twenty-five patients were evaluated. Males composed 58% of the study population. From 2011 to 2016, narcotic consumption was reported in 54% of subjects versus no narcotic consumption in 46% of subjects (135 cases). From 2017 to 2021, narcotic consumption decreased to 37% (P = 0.00298). Prior to the guideline revision, mean case length was 635 days. Following CDC guideline revision, there was a significant decline in mean case length duration to 438 days (31% reduction) (P = 0.000868).
This study demonstrates that following revised opioid prescription recommendations by the CDC in 2016, there was a statistically significant decline in opioid consumption and workers\' compensation case length duration. Opioid use may influence prolonged worker disability and delayed return to work.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has demonstrated effectiveness for neuropathic pain. Unfortunately, some patients report inadequate long-term pain relief. Patient selection is emphasized for this therapy; however, the prognostic capabilities and deployment strategies of existing selection techniques, including an SCS trial, have been questioned. After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, a steering committee was formed to develop evidence-based guidelines for patient selection and the role of an SCS trial. Representatives of professional organizations with clinical expertize were invited to participate as committee members. A comprehensive literature review was carried out by the steering committee, and the results organized into narrative reports, which were circulated to all the committee members. Individual statements and recommendations within each of seven sections were formulated by the steering committee and circulated to members for voting. We used a modified Delphi method wherein drafts were circulated to each member in a blinded fashion for voting. Comments were incorporated in the subsequent revisions, which were recirculated for voting to achieve consensus. Seven sections with a total of 39 recommendations were approved with 100% consensus from all the members. Sections included definitions and terminology of SCS trial; benefits of SCS trial; screening for psychosocial characteristics; patient perceptions on SCS therapy and the use of trial; other patient predictors of SCS therapy; conduct of SCS trials; and evaluation of SCS trials including minimum criteria for success. Recommendations included that SCS trial should be performed before a definitive SCS implant except in anginal pain (grade B). All patients must be screened with an objective validated instrument for psychosocial factors, and this must include depression (grade B). Despite some limitations, a trial helps patient selection and provides patients with an opportunity to experience the therapy. These recommendations are expected to guide practicing physicians and other stakeholders and should not be mistaken as practice standards. Physicians should continue to make their best judgment based on individual patient considerations and preferences.

UNASSIGNED: Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety.
UNASSIGNED: The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders.
UNASSIGNED: The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented.
UNASSIGNED: After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain.
UNASSIGNED: The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature.

Chronic low back pain is a worldwide leading cause of pain and disability. Degenerative disc disease has been the presumptive etiology in the majority of cases of chronic low back pain (CLBP). More recent study and treatments have discovered that the vertebral endplates play a large role in CLBP in a term defined as vertebrogenic back pain. As the vertebral endplates are highly innervated via the basivertebral nerve (BVN), this has resulted in a reliable target in treating patients suffering from vertebrogenic low back pain (VLBP). The application of BVN ablation for patients suffering from VLBP is still in its early stages of adoption and integration into spine care pathways. BVN ablation is grounded in a solid foundation of both pre-clinical and clinical evidence. With the emergence of this therapeutic option, the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified the need for formal evidence-based guidelines for the proper identification and selection of patients for BVN ablation in patients with VLBP. ASPN formed a multidisciplinary work group tasked to examine the available literature and form best practice guidelines on this subject. Based on the United States Preventative Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for grading evidence, gives BVN ablation Level A grade evidence with high certainty that the net benefit is substantial in appropriately selected individuals.

Examine the effectiveness of interventions to approach guideline-adherent surgical referrals for low back pain assessed via systematic review and meta-analysis.
Five databases (10 September 2021), Google Scholar, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were searched and forward and backward citation tracking of included studies were implemented. Randomised controlled/clinical trials in adults with low back pain of interventions to optimise surgery rates or referrals to surgery or secondary referral were included. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROB2 tool and evidence certainty via Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). A random effects meta-analysis with a Paule Mandel estimator plus Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method was used to calculate the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval, respectively.
Of 886 records, 6 studies were included (N = 258,329) participants; cluster sizes ranged from 4 to 54. Five studies were rated as low risk of bias and one as having some concerns. Two studies reporting spine surgery referral or rates could only be pooled via combination of p values and gave evidence for a reduction (p = 0.021, Fisher\'s method, risk of bias: low). This did not persist with sensitivity analysis (p = 0.053). For secondary referral, meta-analysis revealed a non-significant odds ratio of 1.07 (95% CI [0.55, 2.06], I2 = 73.0%, n = 4 studies, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE] evidence certainty: very low).
Few RCTs exist for interventions to improve guideline-adherent spine surgery rates or referral. Clinician education in isolation may not be effective. Future RCTs should consider organisational and/or policy level interventions.
CRD42020215137.

Spine pain is one of the most common conditions seen in primary care and is often treated with ineffective, aggressive interventions, such as prescription pain medications, imagery and referrals to surgery. Aggressive treatments are associated with negative side effects and high costs while conservative care has lower risks and costs and equivalent or better outcomes. Despite multiple well-publicised treatment guidelines and educational efforts recommending conservative care, primary care clinicians (PCCs) widely continue to prescribe aggressive, low-value care for spine pain.
In this qualitative study semistructured interviews were conducted with PCCs treating spine pain patients to learn what prevents clinicians from following guidelines and what tools or support could promote conservative care. Interviews were conducted by telephone, transcribed and coded for thematic analysis.
Forty PCCs in academic and private practice were interviewed. Key reflections included that while familiar with guidelines recommending conservative treatment, they did not find guidelines useful or relevant to care decisions for individual patients. They believed that there is an insufficient body of real-world evidence supporting positive outcomes for conservative care and guidance recommendations. They indicated that spine pain patients frequently request aggressive care. These requests, combined with the PCCs\' commitment to reaching shared treatment decisions with patients, formed a key reason for pursuing aggressive care. PCCs reported not being familiar with risk-screening tools for spine patients but indicated that such screens might increase their confidence to recommend conservative care to low-risk patients.
PCCs may be more willing to give conservative, guideline-consistent care for spine pain if they had tools to assist in making patient-specific evaluations and in countering requests for unneeded aggressive care. Such tools would include both patient risk screens and shared decision-making aids that include elements for resolving patient demands for inappropriate care.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is one of the most common reasons for a person to call an ambulance service, yet how ambulance services manage back pain has not been described.
METHODS: Australian-state and New Zealand ambulance service jurisdiction websites were searched between 25th January to 3rd February 2022. Pain management guidelines were included where no specific back pain guideline was found. Identified guidelines were screened, appraised using AGREE II tool and recommendations on pharmacological and non-pharmacological management of back pain, ambulance transport and alerting features were extracted, summarised, and compared to two primary care guidelines.
RESULTS: Nine guidelines were identified including four back pain and 5 pain management guidelines. All four back pain guidelines recommend paracetamol or ibuprofen as analgesic options to manage back pain. These guidelines recommend transport to the emergency department when there are alerting features for serious disease, lack of pain control or where the patient is unable to ambulate. 2 out of 9 ambulance guidelines were recommended for use in their existing format following quality appraisal using AGREE II tool. Ambulance guidelines scored significantly lower than primary care guidelines for back pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Ambulance service guidelines for back pain recommend advice, reassurance, paracetamol and referral to primary care.