Objective: To build upon existing recommendations on best practices for chiropractic management of children by conducting a formal consensus process and best evidence synthesis. Design: Best practice guide based on recommendations from current best available evidence and formal consensus of a panel of experienced practitioners, consumers, and experts for chiropractic management of pediatric patients. Methods: Synthesis of results of a literature search to inform the development of recommendations from a multidisciplinary steering committee, including experts in pediatrics, followed by a formal Delphi panel consensus process. Results: The consensus process was conducted June to August 2022. All 60 panelists completed the process and reached at least 80% consensus on all recommendations after three Delphi rounds. Recommendations for best practices for chiropractic care for children addressed these aspects of the clinical encounter: patient communication, including informed consent; appropriate clinical history, including health habits; appropriate physical examination procedures; red flags/contraindications to chiropractic care and/or spinal manipulation; aspects of chiropractic management of pediatric patients, including infants; modifications of spinal manipulation and other manual procedures for pediatric patients; appropriate referral and comanagement; and appropriate health promotion and disease prevention practices. Conclusion: This set of recommendations represents a general framework for an evidence-informed and reasonable approach to the management of pediatric patients by chiropractors.

The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial.
In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4-5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement.
Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation.
Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: These guidelines deal with the parturient wellbeing in terms of hydration and regional and systemic pain management during labour.
METHODS: Guidelines were established based on literature analysis and experts consensus.
RESULTS: Clear liquids consumption is permitted all along labor and postpartum, without volume limitation, in patients at low risk of general anesthesia (grade B). The consumption of solid foods is not recommended during the active stage of labor (consensus agreement). It is recommended to promote on regional analgesia to prevent inhalation (grade A). Pain relief using regional analgesia is a part of normal childbirth. It is recommended to provide regional analgesia to parturient who wish these technics. Regional analgesia is the safest and most effective analgesic method for the mother (grade A) and the child (grade B). It is recommended to inform women on the analgesic technics, to respect their choice and consider the right for a parturient to change her strategy in obstetrical circumstances or in cases of untractable pain (consensus agreement). It is recommended to perform a \"low-dose\" regional analgesia that respects the experience of childbirth (grade A) and maintain it with a patient controlled epidural analgesia technics (grade A). There is no minimum cervical dilation to allow epidural analgesia (grade A). In cases of rapid labor or after delivery for revision, spinal or combined spinal epidural can be used (grade C). Epidural has not to be ended before birth (consensus agreement). Blood pressure and fetal heart rate must be monitored every 3minutes after induction and/or each 10mL bolus then hourly (consensus agreement). Systematic and preventive fluid loading is not needed if only due to regional analgesia (grade B). Deambulation or postures are allowed in the absence of motor block and must be traced and do not alter the distribution of the regional analgesia (grade C). The postures of childbirth do not alter regional analgesia spread (NP2). There is no effect low dose regional analgesia on the duration of obstetric labor, nor the rate of instrumental births or caesarean section (NP1). Systematic use of oxytocin due to epidural analgesia is neither useful nor recommended (AE). Regional analgesia has no side effect on the fetus or newborn (NP1). If regional analgesia is contraindicated or during the waiting time, alternatives analgesic drugs (entonox, nalbuphine and tramadol or pudendal block) can be used but their analgesic efficiency remains mediocre to moderate and they are associated with adverse maternal and especially neonatal side effects (NP2). Remifentanil, ketamine and volatile anesthetics are excluded from these recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: The present guidelines were established to update wellbeing of normal parturient during normal labor: hydration is recommended and low dose patient-controlled regional (epidural and spinal) analgesia is the most effective and safest analgesic method.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding anaesthetic practice in hip/knee arthroplasty surgery is needed for improved healthcare outcomes.
METHODS: The International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) systematic review, including randomised controlled and observational studies comparing neuraxial to general anaesthesia regarding major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, genitourinary, thromboembolic, neurological, infectious, and bleeding complications. Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, from 1946 to May 17, 2018 were queried. Meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was utilised to assess evidence quality and to develop recommendations.
RESULTS: The analysis of 94 studies revealed that neuraxial anaesthesia was associated with lower odds or no difference in virtually all reported complications, except for urinary retention. Excerpt of complications for neuraxial vs general anaesthesia in hip/knee arthroplasty, respectively: mortality odds ratio (OR): 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-0.80/OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60-1.15; pulmonary OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.52-0.80/OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58-0.81; acute renal failure OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59-0.81/OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.65-0.82; deep venous thrombosis OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.42-0.65/OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64-0.93; infections OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.67-0.79/OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.76-0.85; and blood transfusion OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.82-0.89/OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.82-0.87.
CONCLUSIONS: Recommendation: primary neuraxial anaesthesia is preferred for knee arthroplasty, given several positive postoperative outcome benefits; evidence level: low, weak recommendation.
CONCLUSIONS: neuraxial anaesthesia is recommended for hip arthroplasty given associated outcome benefits; evidence level: moderate-low, strong recommendation. Based on current evidence, the consensus group recommends neuraxial over general anaesthesia for hip/knee arthroplasty.
UNASSIGNED: PROSPERO CRD42018099935.

Chiropractic care is the most common complementary and integrative medicine practice used by children in the United States, and it is used frequently by children internationally as well. The purpose of this project was to update the 2009 recommendations on best practices for chiropractic care of children.
A formal consensus process was completed based on the existing recommendations and informed by the results of a systematic review of relevant literature from January 2009 through March 2015. The primary search question for the systematic review was, \"What is the effectiveness of chiropractic care, including spinal manipulation, for conditions experienced by children (<18 years of age)?\" A secondary search question was, \"What are the adverse events associated with chiropractic care including spinal manipulation among children (<18 years of age)?\" The consensus process was conducted electronically, by e-mail, using a multidisciplinary Delphi panel of 29 experts from 5 countries and using the RAND Corporation/University of California, Los Angeles, consensus methodology.
Only 2 statements from the previous set of recommendations did not reach 80% consensus on the first round, and revised versions of both were agreed upon in a second round.
All of the seed statements in this best practices document achieved a high level of consensus and thus represent a general framework for what constitutes an evidence-based and reasonable approach to the chiropractic management of infants, children, and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to provide an update of a previously published evidence-based practice guideline on chiropractic management of low back pain.
METHODS: This project updated and combined 3 previous guidelines. A systematic review of articles published between October 2009 through February 2014 was conducted to update the literature published since the previous Council on Chiropractic Guidelines and Practice Parameters (CCGPP) guideline was developed. Articles with new relevant information were summarized and provided to the Delphi panel as background information along with the previous CCGPP guidelines. Delphi panelists who served on previous consensus projects and represented a broad sampling of jurisdictions and practice experience related to low back pain management were invited to participate. Thirty-seven panelists participated; 33 were doctors of chiropractic (DCs). In addition, public comment was sought by posting the consensus statements on the CCGPP Web site. The RAND-UCLA methodology was used to reach formal consensus.
RESULTS: Consensus was reached after 1 round of revisions, with an additional round conducted to reach consensus on the changes that resulted from the public comment period. Most recommendations made in the original guidelines were unchanged after going through the consensus process.
CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supports that doctors of chiropractic are well suited to diagnose, treat, co-manage, and manage the treatment of patients with low back pain disorders.

This paper reviews the current evidence available on the practice of spinal immobilisation in the prehospital environment. Following this, initial conclusions from a consensus meeting held by the Faculty of Pre-hospital Care, Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh in March 2012 are presented.