BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide and a significant component of healthcare expenditures. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been highlighted as a key resource to improve the quality of care. This study aimed to develop a clinical pathway for LBP based on CPGs in an academic health system.
METHODS: We conducted a modified Delphi study of clinicians caring for patients with LBP who were asked to rate 21 CPG-informed seed statements through an online survey. The goal was to identify statements that achieved a minimum of 80% consensus among panelists.
RESULTS: Thirty-five healthcare providers participated as panelists. The majority of participants were male (68.6%), had MD or DO (62.9%) degrees, and were clinicians (73.8%) working in neurosurgery (36.1%), orthopedics (25.7%), emergency medicine (14.3%), or physical therapy (11.4%). Initially, consensus was reached on 20 of 21 seed statements. One statement did not reach consensus in the initial round and was revised into two separate statements based on feedback from panelists. One of these statements achieved consensus in the second review round. All statements reaching consensus were incorporated into a care pathway consisting of diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment for LBP.
CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers across various disciplines supported statements interpreting current CPGs related to care for LBP. This study represents a step toward supporting guideline-concordant care for LBP. Additional research is needed to assess how such pathways impact actual clinical care.

We previously conducted an exploration of the trustworthiness of a group of clinical trials of cognitive-behavioral therapy and exercise in spinal pain. We identified multiple concerns in 8 trials, judging them untrustworthy. In this study, we systematically explored the impact of these trials (\"index trials\") on results, conclusions, and recommendations of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We conducted forward citation tracking using Google Scholar and the citationchaser tool, searched the Guidelines International Network library and National Institute of Health and Care Excellence archive to June 2022 to identify systematic reviews and CPGs. We explored how index trials impacted their findings. Where reviews presented meta-analyses, we extracted or conducted sensitivity analyses for the outcomes of pain and disability, to explore how the exclusion of index trials affected effect estimates. We developed and applied an \'Impact Index\' to categorize the extent to which index studies impacted their results. We included 32 unique reviews and 10 CPGs. None directly raised concerns regarding the veracity of the trials. Across meta-analyses (55 comparisons), the removal of index trials reduced effect sizes by a median of 58% (Inter Quartlie Range (IQR) 40-74). 85% of comparisons were classified as highly, 3% as moderately, and 11% as minimally impacted. Nine out of 10 reviews conducting narrative synthesis drew positive conclusions regarding the intervention tested. Nine out of 10 CPGs made positive recommendations for the intervention(s) evaluated. This cohort of trials, with concerns regarding trustworthiness, has substantially impacted the results of systematic reviews and guideline recommendations. PERSPECTIVE: We found that a group of trials of CBT for spinal pain with concerns relating to their trustworthiness has had substantial impacts on the analyses and conclusions of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. This highlights the need for a greater focus on the trustworthiness of studies in evidence appraisal. PRE-REGISTRATION: Our protocol was preregistered on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/m92ax/.

BACKGROUND: Spinal stiffness assessment has the potential to become an important clinical measure. Various spinal stiffness-testing devices are available to help researchers objectively evaluate the spine and patient complaints. One of these is VerteTrack, a device capable of measuring posteroanterior displacement values over an entire spinal region. This study aimed to develop a best-practice protocol for evaluating spinal stiffness in human participants using VerteTrack.
METHODS: Twenty-five individuals with research experience in measuring spinal stiffness, or who were trained in spinal stiffness measurement using the VerteTrack device, were invited to participate in this 3-Round Delphi study. Answers to open-ended questions in Round 1 were thematically analyzed and translated into statements about VerteTrack operation for spinal stiffness measurements. Participants then rated their level of agreement with these statements using a 5-point Likert scale in Rounds 2 and 3. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed. Consensus was achieved when at least 70% of the participants either strongly agreed, agreed, (or strongly disagreed, disagreed) to include a statement in the final protocol.
RESULTS: Twenty participants completed Round 1 (80%). All these participants completed Rounds 2 and 3. In total, the pre-defined consensus threshold was reached for 67.2% (123/183) of statements after three rounds of surveys. From this, a best-practice protocol was created.
CONCLUSIONS: Using a Delphi approach, a consensus-based protocol for measuring spinal stiffness using the VerteTrack was developed. This standard protocol will help to improve the accuracy, efficiency, and safety of spinal stiffness measurements, facilitate the training of new operators, increase consistency of these measurements in multicenter studies, and provide the synergy and potential for data comparison between spine studies internationally. Although specific to VerteTrack, the resulting standard protocol could be modified for use with other devices designed to collect spinal stiffness measures.

Spinal pain (SP) is a common condition that has a major negative impact on a patient\'s quality of life. Recent developments in ultrasound-guided injections for the treatment of SP are increasingly being used in clinical practice. This clinical expert consensus describes the purpose, significance, implementation methods, indications, contraindications, and techniques of ultrasound-guided injections. This consensus offers a practical reference point for physicians to implement successfully ultrasound-guided injections in the treatment of chronic SP.

Stepped care approaches are emphasized in guidelines for musculoskeletal pain, recommending less invasive or risky evidence-based intervention, such as manual therapy (MT), before more aggressive interventions such as opioid prescriptions. The order and timing of care can alter recovery trajectories.
To compare one-year downstream health care utilization in patients with spine or shoulder disorders who received only MT vs MT and opioids. The secondary aim was to compare differences based on order and timing of opioids and MT.
Retrospective observational cohort.
Patients with an initial consultation for a spine or shoulder disorder who received at least one visit for MT were included. Person-level data from the Military Health System Management and Reporting Tool (M2) database were aggregated by a senior health care analyst at Madigan Army Medical Center. Groups were created based on the order and timing of interventions provided. Outcomes included health care utilization (medical costs and visits) over the year following initial consultation. Control measures included metabolic, mental health, chronic pain, sleep, and substance abuse comorbidities, as well as prior opioid prescriptions. Generalized linear models with gamma log links were run due to the heavily skewed nature of cost data.
From 1,876 unique patients with spine or shoulder disorders receiving MT, 1,162 (61.9%) also received prescription opioids. Mean one-year costs in the MT-only group ($5,410, 95% confidence interval [CI] = $5,109 to $5,730) were significantly lower than in the MT+opioid group ($10,498, 95% CI = $10,043 to $10,973). When patients had both treatments, mean one-year costs in the MT-first ($10,782, 95% CI = $10,050 to $11,567) were significantly lower (P = 0.030) than opioid-first ($11,938, 95% CI = $11,272 to $12,643), and MT-first had a significantly lower mean days\' supply of opioids (34.2 vs 70.9, P < 0.001) and mean number of unique opioid prescriptions (3.1 vs 6.5, P < 0.001).
MT alone resulted in lower downstream costs than with opioid prescriptions. Both the order of treatment (MT before opioid prescriptions) and the timing of treatment (MT < 30 days) resulted in a significant reduction of resources (costs, visits, and opioid utilization) in the year after initial consultation. Clinicians should consider the implications of first-choice decisions and the timing of care for treatment choices utilized for patients with spine and shoulder disorders.