OBJECTIVE: In 2018, Best Practice Guidelines (BPGs) were published for preventing wrong-level surgery in pediatric spinal deformity, but successful implementation has not been established. The purpose of this study was to evaluate BPG compliance 5 years after publication. We hypothesized higher compliance among BPG authors and among surgeons with more experience, higher caseload, and awareness of the BPGs.
METHODS: We queried North American and European surgeons, authors and nonauthors, and members of pediatric spinal study groups on adherence to BPGs using an anonymous survey consisting of 18 Likert scale questions. Respondents provided years in practice, yearly caseload, and guideline awareness. Mean compliance scores (MCS) were developed by correlating Likert responses with MCS scores (\"None of the time\" = no compliance = MCS 0, \"Sometimes\" = weak to moderate = MCS 1, \"Most of the time\" = high = MCS 2, and \"All the time\" = perfect = MCS 3).
RESULTS: Of the 134 respondents, 81.5% reported high or perfect compliance. Average MCS for all guidelines was 2.4 ± 0.4. North American and European surgeons showed no compliance differences (2.4 vs. 2.3, p = 0.07). Authors and nonauthors showed significantly different compliance scores (2.8 vs 2.4, p < 0.001), as did surgeons with and without knowledge of the BPGs (2.5 vs 2.2, p < 0.001). BPG awareness and compliance showed a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.48, p < 0.001), with non-significant associations between compliance and both years in practice (r = 0.41, p = 0.64) and yearly caseload (r = 0.02, p = 0.87).
CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons reported high or perfect compliance 81.5% of the time with BPGs for preventing wrong-level surgery. Authorship and BPG awareness showed increased compliance. Location, study group membership, years in practice, and yearly caseload did not affect compliance.
METHODS: Level V-expert opinion.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines, developed in concordance with the literature, are often used to guide surgeons\' clinical decision making. Recent advancements of large language models and artificial intelligence (AI) in the medical field come with exciting potential. OpenAI\'s generative AI model, known as ChatGPT, can quickly synthesize information and generate responses grounded in medical literature, which may prove to be a useful tool in clinical decision-making for spine care. The current literature has yet to investigate the ability of ChatGPT to assist clinical decision making with regard to degenerative spondylolisthesis.
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to compare ChatGPT\'s concordance with the recommendations set forth by The North American Spine Society (NASS) Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and assess ChatGPT\'s accuracy within the context of the most recent literature.
METHODS: ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 was prompted with questions from the NASS Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and graded its recommendations as \"concordant\" or \"nonconcordant\" relative to those put forth by NASS. A response was considered \"concordant\" when ChatGPT generated a recommendation that accurately reproduced all major points made in the NASS recommendation. Any responses with a grading of \"nonconcordant\" were further stratified into two subcategories: \"Insufficient\" or \"Over-conclusive,\" to provide further insight into grading rationale. Responses between GPT-3.5 and 4.0 were compared using Chi-squared tests.
RESULTS: ChatGPT-3.5 answered 13 of NASS\'s 28 total clinical questions in concordance with NASS\'s guidelines (46.4%). Categorical breakdown is as follows: Definitions and Natural History (1/1, 100%), Diagnosis and Imaging (1/4, 25%), Outcome Measures for Medical Intervention and Surgical Treatment (0/1, 0%), Medical and Interventional Treatment (4/6, 66.7%), Surgical Treatment (7/14, 50%), and Value of Spine Care (0/2, 0%). When NASS indicated there was sufficient evidence to offer a clear recommendation, ChatGPT-3.5 generated a concordant response 66.7% of the time (6/9). However, ChatGPT-3.5\'s concordance dropped to 36.8% when asked clinical questions that NASS did not provide a clear recommendation on (7/19). A further breakdown of ChatGPT-3.5\'s nonconcordance with the guidelines revealed that a vast majority of its inaccurate recommendations were due to them being \"over-conclusive\" (12/15, 80%), rather than \"insufficient\" (3/15, 20%). ChatGPT-4.0 answered 19 (67.9%) of the 28 total questions in concordance with NASS guidelines (P = 0.177). When NASS indicated there was sufficient evidence to offer a clear recommendation, ChatGPT-4.0 generated a concordant response 66.7% of the time (6/9). ChatGPT-4.0\'s concordance held up at 68.4% when asked clinical questions that NASS did not provide a clear recommendation on (13/19, P = 0.104).
CONCLUSIONS: This study sheds light on the duality of LLM applications within clinical settings: one of accuracy and utility in some contexts versus inaccuracy and risk in others. ChatGPT was concordant for most clinical questions NASS offered recommendations for. However, for questions NASS did not offer best practices, ChatGPT generated answers that were either too general or inconsistent with the literature, and even fabricated data/citations. Thus, clinicians should exercise extreme caution when attempting to consult ChatGPT for clinical recommendations, taking care to ensure its reliability within the context of recent literature.

BACKGROUND: This article summarizes the results of the German guideline on radiofrequency denervation of the facet joints and the sacroiliac joint. Evidence on the indications, test blocks and technical parameters are presented.
OBJECTIVE: The aim is to avoid overtreatment and undertreatment, which is also of socioeconomic importance.
METHODS: A systematic evaluation of the literature was carried out according to the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. A multidisciplinary guideline group has developed recommendations and statements.
RESULTS: Statements and recommendations were given for 20 key questions. There was an 87.5% consensus for 1 recommendation and 100% consensus for all other recommendations and statements. The guideline was approved by all scientific medical societies involved. Specific questions included the value of the medical history, examination and imaging, the need for conservative treatment prior to an intervention, the importance of test blocks (medial branch block and lateral branch block), choice of imaging for denervation, choice of trajectory, the possibility to influence the size of the lesion, stimulation, the possibility of revision, sedation and decision support for patients with anticoagulants, metal implants and pacemakers and advice on how to avoid complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Selected patients can benefit from well-performed radiofrequency denervation. The guideline recommendations are based on very low to moderate quality of evidence.
UNASSIGNED: HINTERGRUND: In diesem Artikel werden die Ergebnisse der S3-Leitlinie „Radiofrequenzdenervation der Facettengelenke und des ISG“ zusammengefasst. Die vorhandene Evidenz zur Indikation, zu Testblockaden und zu technischen Parametern wird dargelegt. ZIEL: Es soll sowohl einer Über- als auch eine Unterversorgung entgegengewirkt werden, was auch sozioökonomische Bedeutung hat.
UNASSIGNED: Es erfolgte eine systematische Auswertung der Literatur nach den Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Eine multidisziplinäre Leitliniengruppe hat Empfehlungen und Statements ausgearbeitet.
UNASSIGNED: Für 20 Schlüsselfragen wurden Statements und Empfehlungen formuliert. Es gab 87,5 % Konsens für eine Empfehlung und 100 % Konsens für alle weiteren Empfehlungen und Statements. Die Leitlinie wurde von allen beteiligten Fachgesellschaften konsentiert. Die spezifischen Fragen beinhalten den Wert von Anamnese, Untersuchung und Bildgebung, die Notwendigkeit einer konservativen Therapie vor einer Intervention, die Bedeutung von Testblockaden („medial branch block“ und „lateral branch block“), die Wahl der Bildgebung für eine Denervation, die Wahl der Trajektorie, die Möglichkeit, die Größe der Läsion zu beeinflussen, Stimulation, die Möglichkeit einer Wiederholung, Sedierung und Entscheidungshilfen zu Patienten mit Antikoagulanzien, Metallimplantaten und Schrittmachern und Hinweise zur Vermeidung von Komplikationen.
UNASSIGNED: Ausgewählte Patienten können von einer gut durchgeführten Radiofrequenzdenervation profitieren. Die Empfehlungen der Leitlinie basieren auf sehr niedriger bis moderater Qualität der Evidenz.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition causing disability and high healthcare costs. Alberta faces challenges with unnecessary referrals to specialists and long wait times. A province-wide standardized clinical care pathway based on evidence-based best practices can improve efficiency, reduce wait times, and enhance patient outcomes. Implementing such pathways has shown success in other areas of healthcare in Alberta. This study developed a clinical decision-making pathway to standardize care and minimize uncertainty in assessment, diagnosis, and management.
METHODS: A systematic rapid review identified existing tools and evidence that could support a comprehensive LBP clinical decision-making tool. Forty-seven healthcare professionals participated in four rounds of a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on the assessment, diagnosis, and management of patients presenting to primary care with LBP in Alberta, Canada. This project was a collaborative effort between Alberta Health Services\' Bone and Joint Health Strategic Clinical Network (BJHSCN) and the Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute (ABJHI).
RESULTS: A province-wide expert panel consisting of professionals from different health disciplines and regions collaborated to develop an LBP clinical decision-making tool. This tool presents clinical care pathways for acute, subacute, and chronic LBP. It also provides guidance for history-taking, physical examination, patient education, and management.
CONCLUSIONS: This clinical decision-making tool will help to standardize care, provide guidance on the diagnosis and management of LBP, and assist in clinical decision-making for primary care providers in both public and private sectors.

METHODS: Comparative analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT\'s) ability to predict appropriate clinical recommendations based on the most recent clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain.
BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a very common and often debilitating condition that affects many people globally. ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence model that may be able to generate recommendations for low back pain.
METHODS: Using the North American Spine Society Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines as the gold standard, 82 clinical questions relating to low back pain were entered into ChatGPT (GPT-3.5) independently. For each question, we recorded ChatGPT\'s answer, then used a point-answer system-the point being the guideline recommendation and the answer being ChatGPT\'s response-and asked ChatGPT if the point was mentioned in the answer to assess for accuracy. This response accuracy was repeated with one caveat-a prior prompt is given in ChatGPT to answer as an experienced orthopedic surgeon-for each question by guideline category. A two-sample proportion z test was used to assess any differences between the preprompt and postprompt scenarios with alpha=0.05.
RESULTS: ChatGPT\'s response was accurate 65% (72% postprompt, P =0.41) for guidelines with clinical recommendations, 46% (58% postprompt, P =0.11) for guidelines with insufficient or conflicting data, and 49% (16% postprompt, P =0.003*) for guidelines with no adequate study to address the clinical question. For guidelines with insufficient or conflicting data, 44% (25% postprompt, P =0.01*) of ChatGPT responses wrongly suggested that sufficient evidence existed.
CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT was able to produce a sufficient clinical guideline recommendation for low back pain, with overall improvements if initially prompted. However, it tended to wrongly suggest evidence and often failed to mention, especially postprompt, when there is not enough evidence to adequately give an accurate recommendation.

In Denmark, chiropractors have a statutory right to use radiography and the government-funded national Health Insurance provides partial reimbursement. Danish National Clinical Guidelines recommends against routine use of imaging for uncomplicated spinal pain; however, it is not clear if clinical imaging guidelines recommendations have had an effect on the utilisation of spinal radiography. This study aimed to describe the utilisation rate of radiographs in Danish chiropractic clinics in the period from 2010 to 2020 and to assess the impact of clinical guidelines and policy changes on the utilisation of radiographs in Danish chiropractic clinics.
Anonymised data from January 1st, 2010, to December 31st, 2020, were extracted from the Danish Regions register on health contacts in primary care. Data consisted of the total number of patients consulting one of 254 chiropractic clinics and the total number of patients having or being referred for radiography. Data were used to investigate the radiography utilisation per month from 2010 to 2020. An \'interrupted time series\' analysis was conducted to determine if two interventions, the dissemination of 1) Danish clinical imaging guidelines recommendations and policy changes related to referral for advanced imaging for chiropractors in 2013 and 2) four Danish clinical guidelines recommendations in 2016, were associated with an immediate change in the level and/or slope of radiography utilisation.
In total, 336,128 unique patients consulted a chiropractor in 2010 of which 55,449 (15.4%) had radiography. In 2020, the number of patients consulting a chiropractor had increased to 366,732 of which 29,244 (8.0%) had radiography. The pre-intervention utilisation decreased by two radiographs per 10,000 patients per month. Little absolute change, but still statistically significant for Intervention 1, in the utilisation was found after the dissemination of the clinical guidelines and policy changes in 2013 or 2016.
The proportion of Danish chiropractic patients undergoing radiography was halved in the period from 2010 to 2020. However, the dissemination of clinical imaging guidelines recommendations and policy changes related to referrals for advanced imaging showed little meaningful change in the monthly utilisation of radiographs in the same period.

OBJECTIVE: Recent progress in diagnostics and treatment of metastatic cancer patients have improved survival substantially. These developments also affect local therapies, with treatment aims shifting from short-term palliation to long-term symptom or disease control. There is consequently a need to better define the value of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for the treatment of spinal metastases.
METHODS: This ESTRO clinical practice guideline is based on a systematic literature review conducted according to PRISMA standards, which formed the basis for answering four key questions about the indication and practice of SBRT for spine metastases.
RESULTS: The analysis of the key questions based on current evidence yielded 22 recommendations and 5 statements with varying levels of endorsement, all achieving a consensus among experts of at least 75%. In the majority, the level of evidence supporting the recommendations and statements was moderate or expert opinion, only, indicating that spine SBRT is still an evolving field of clinical research. Recommendations were established concerning the selection of appropriate patients with painful spine metastases and oligometastatic disease. Recommendations about the practice of spinal SBRT covered technical planning aspects including dose and fractionation, patient positioning, immobilization and image-guided SBRT delivery. Finally, recommendations were developed regarding quality assurance protocols, including description of potential SBRT-related toxicity and risk mitigation strategies.
CONCLUSIONS: This ESTRO clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations and statements regarding the selection of patients with spinal metastases for SBRT and its safe implementation and practice. Enrollment of patients into well-designed prospective clinical trials addressing clinically relevant questions is considered important.

OBJECTIVE: Advances in characterizing cancer biology and the growing availability of novel targeted agents and immune therapeutics have significantly changed the prognosis of many patients with metastatic disease. Palliative radiotherapy needs to adapt to these developments. In this study, we summarize the available evidence for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in the treatment of spinal metastases.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using PRISMA methodology, including publications from January 2005 to September 2021, with the exception of the randomized phase III trial RTOG-0631 which was added in April 2023. Re-irradiation was excluded. For meta-analysis, a random-effects model was used to pool the data. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2-test, assuming substantial and considerable as I2 > 50 % and I2 > 75 %, respectively. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: A total of 69 studies assessing the outcomes of 7236 metastases in 5736 patients were analyzed. SBRT for spine metastases showed high efficacy, with a pooled overall pain response rate of 83 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 68 %-94 %), pooled complete pain response of 36 % (95 % CI: 20 %-53 %), and 1-year local control rate of 94 % (95 % CI: 86 %-99 %), although with high levels of heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 93 %, I2 = 86 %, and 86 %, respectively). Furthermore, SBRT was safe, with a pooled vertebral fracture rate of 9 % (95 % CI: 4 %-16 %), pooled radiation induced myelopathy rate of 0 % (95 % CI 0-2 %), and pooled pain flare rate of 6 % (95 % CI: 3 %-17 %), although with mixed levels of heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 92 %, I2 = 0 %, and 95 %, respectively). Only 1.7 % of vertebral fractures required surgical stabilization.
CONCLUSIONS: Spine SBRT is characterized by a favorable efficacy and safety profile, providing durable results for pain control and disease control, which is particularly relevant for oligometastatic patients.

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.

Best Practice Guidelines (BPGs) were published one decade ago to decrease surgical site infection (SSI) in pediatric spinal deformity. Successful implementation has not been established. This study evaluated surgeon compliance with items on the BPG. We hypothesized that BPG authors and surgeons with more experience, higher caseload, and awareness of the BPG would have higher compliance.
We queried North American and European surgeons, authors and non-authors, and members of various spine study groups on adherence to BPGs using an anonymous survey. Mean compliance scores (MCSs) were developed by correlating Likert responses with MCSs (\"None of the time\" = no compliance = MCS 0, \"Sometimes\" = weak to moderate = MCS 1, \"Most of the time\" = high = MCS 2, \"All the time\" = perfect = MCS 3).
Of the 142 respondents, 73.7% reported high or perfect compliance. Average compliance scores for all guidelines was 2.2 ± 0.4. There were significantly different compliance scores between North American and European surgeons (2.3 vs 1.8, p < 0.001), authors and non-authors (2.5 vs. 2.2, p = 0.023), and surgeons with and without knowledge of the BPGs (2.3 vs. 1.8, p < 0.001). There was a weak correlation between BPG awareness and compliance (r = 0.34, p < 0.001) and no correlation between years in practice (r = 0.0, p = 0.37) or yearly caseload (r = 0.2, p = 0.78) with compliance.
Compliance among our cohort of surgeons surveyed was high. North American surgeons, authors of the BPGs and those aware of the guidelines had increased compliance. Participation in a spine study group, years in practice, and yearly caseload were not associated with compliance.
Level V-expert opinion.