Longitudinal Care Patterns and Utilization Among Patients With New-Onset Neck Pain by Initial Provider Specialty

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare utilization patterns for patients with new-onset neck pain by initial provider specialty.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Initial provider specialty has been associated with distinct care patterns among patients with acute back pain; little is known about care patterns among patients with acute neck pain.

METHODS

De-identified administrative claims and electronic health record data were derived from the Optum Labs Data Warehouse, which contains longitudinal health information on over 200M enrollees and patients representing a mixture of ages and geographical regions across the United States. Patients had outpatient visits for new-onset neck pain from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2019, classified by initial provider specialty. Utilization was assessed during a 180-day follow-up period, including subsequent neck pain visits, diagnostic imaging, and therapeutic interventions.

RESULTS

The cohort included 770,326 patients with new-onset neck pain visits. The most common initial provider specialty was chiropractor (45.2%), followed by primary care (33.4%). Initial provider specialty was strongly associated with the receipt of subsequent neck pain visits with the same provider specialty. Rates and types of diagnostic imaging and therapeutic interventions during follow-up also varied widely by initial provider specialty. While uncommon after initial visits with chiropractors (≤2%), CT, or MRI scans occurred in over 30% of patients with initial visits with emergency physicians, orthopedists, or neurologists. Similarly, 6.8% and 3.4% of patients initially seen by orthopedists received therapeutic injections and major surgery, respectively, compared with 0.4% and 0.1% of patients initially seen by a chiropractor.

CONCLUSION

Within a large national cohort, chiropractors were the initial provider for a plurality of patients with new-onset neck pain. Compared with patients initially seen by physician providers, patients treated initially by chiropractors or therapists received fewer and less costly imaging services and were less likely to receive invasive therapeutic interventions during follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Association between spinal and non-spinal health conditions reported in epidemiological studies: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

The increasing prevalence of coexisting health conditions poses a challenge to healthcare providers and healthcare systems. Spinal pain (eg, neck and back pain) and spinal pathologies (eg, osteoporotic fractures and degenerative spinal disease) exist concurrently with other non-spinal health conditions (NSHC). However, the scope of what associations may exist among these co-occurring conditions is unclear. Therefore, this scoping review aims to map the epidemiological literature that reports associations between spine-related pain and pathologies (SPPs) and NSHCs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This scoping review will follow the JBI protocol and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. We will systematically search the literature using key words and MeSH terms for SPPs and NSHCs. Terminology/vocabulary for NSHCs will include those for communicable and non-communicable diseases as reported by WHO Global Burden of Disease reports. Five databases will be searched from inception: MEDLINE, EMBASE, APA PsycInfo, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection. Papers published in English, in peer-reviewed journals, including measures of association between SPPs and NSHCs and using observational epidemiologic study designs will be included. Excluded will be studies of cadaveric, animal or health behaviours; studies with no measures of association and non-observational epidemiologic studies. Results will include the number of studies, the studies that have evaluated the measures of association and the frequency of the studied associations between SPPs and NSHCs. Results will be reported in tables and diagrams. Themes of comorbidities will be synthesised into a descriptive report.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This scoping review was deemed exempt from ethics review. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of the literature that reports associations between SPPs and NSHCs to inform future research initiatives and practices. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and research conferences.

REGISTRATION DETAILS

https://osf.io/w49u3.

The association between cervical artery dissection and spinal manipulation among US adults

PURPOSE

Cervical artery dissection (CeAD), which includes both vertebral artery dissection (VAD) and carotid artery dissection (CAD), is the most serious safety concern associated with cervical spinal manipulation (CSM). We evaluated the association between CSM and CeAD among US adults.

METHODS

Through analysis of health claims data, we employed a case-control study with matched controls, a case-control design in which controls were diagnosed with ischemic stroke, and a case-crossover design in which recent exposures were compared to exposures in the same case that occurred 6-7 months earlier. We evaluated the association between CeAD and the 3-level exposure, CSM versus office visit for medical evaluation and management (E&M) versus neither, with E&M set as the referent group.

RESULTS

We identified 2337 VAD cases and 2916 CAD cases. Compared to population controls, VAD cases were 0.17 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.32) times as likely to have received CSM in the previous week as compared to E&M. In other words, E&M was about 5 times more likely than CSM in the previous week in cases, relative to controls. CSM was 2.53 (95% CI 1.71 to 3.68) times as likely as E&M in the previous week among individuals with VAD than among individuals experiencing a stroke without CeAD. In the case-crossover study, CSM was 0.38 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.91) times as likely as E&M in the week before a VAD, relative to 6 months earlier. In other words, E&M was approximately 3 times more likely than CSM in the previous week in cases, relative to controls. Results for the 14-day and 30-day timeframes were similar to those at one week.

CONCLUSION

Among privately insured US adults, the overall risk of CeAD is very low. Prior receipt of CSM was more likely than E&M among VAD patients as compared to stroke patients. However, for CAD patients as compared to stroke patients, as well as for both VAD and CAD patients in comparison with population controls and in case-crossover analysis, prior receipt of E&M was more likely than CSM.

Spinal Pain, Chronic Health Conditions and Health Behaviors: Data from the 2016-2018 National Health Interview Survey

Spinal pain and chronic health conditions are highly prevalent, burdensome, and costly conditions, both in the United States and globally. Using cross-sectional data from the 2016 through 2018 National Health Interview Survey (n = 26,926), we explored associations between spinal pain and chronic health conditions and investigated the influence that a set of confounders may have on the associations between spinal pain and chronic health conditions. Variance estimation method was used to compute weighted descriptive statistics and measures of associations with multinomial logistic regression models. All four chronic health conditions significantly increased the prevalence odds of spinal pain; cardiovascular conditions by 58%, hypertension by 40%, diabetes by 25% and obesity by 34%, controlling for all the confounders. For all chronic health conditions, tobacco use (45-50%), being insufficiently active (17-20%), sleep problems (180-184%), cognitive impairment (90-100%), and mental health conditions (68-80%) significantly increased the prevalence odds of spinal pain compared to cases without spinal pain. These findings provide evidence to support research on the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal conditions with approaches of spinal pain management.

Bidirectional Comorbid Associations between Back Pain and Major Depression in US Adults

Low back pain and depression have been globally recognized as key public health problems and they are considered co-morbid conditions. This study explores both cross-sectional and longitudinal comorbid associations between back pain and major depression in the adult population in the United States. We used data from the Midlife in the United States survey (MIDUS), linking MIDUS II and III with a sample size of 2358. Logistic regression and Poisson regression models were used. The cross-sectional analysis showed significant associations between back pain and major depression. The longitudinal analysis indicated that back pain at baseline was prospectively associated with major depression at follow-up (PR 1.96, CI: 1.41, 2.74), controlling for health behavioral and demographic variables. Major depression at baseline was also prospectively associated with back pain at follow-up (PR 1.48, CI: 1.04, 2.13), controlling for a set of related confounders. These findings of a bidirectional comorbid association fill a gap in the current understanding of these comorbid conditions and could have clinical implications for the management and prevention of both depression and low back pain.

Psychosocial risk factors for low back pain in US workers: Data from the 2002-2018 quality of work life survey

BACKGROUND

Examining workplace psychosocial risk factors for back pain becomes increasingly important because of the changing nature of work and rising healthcare costs. Some psychosocial risk factors for back pain, such as work and family imbalance, exposure to a hostile work environment, and job insecurity, are understudied for the working population in the United States.

METHODS

Data used in this study came from the Quality of Work Life Survey (QWL), a supplementary module of the General Social Survey conducted in the United States. Data from the 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014, and 2018 QWL surveys were used in these analyses, giving a total sample size of 6661. Five domains of workplace psychosocial risk factors for back pain were examined, including job strain, low social support, work-family imbalance, exposure to a hostile work environment (harassment and discrimination), and job insecurity. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of each psychosocial risk factor for back pain with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was estimated using a multivariable logistic regression model after controlling for job physical factors, occupation, and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

RESULTS

Significant associations were found between back pain and several psychosocial factors including job strain (aOR 1.19; CI 1.00,1.41), work-family imbalance (aOR,1.42; CI 1.22,1.64), harassment (aOR 1.40; CI 1.15,1.71), and discrimination (aOR 1.20 CI 1.00,1.44).

CONCLUSION

This study contributes to the understanding of the relationship between a variety of workplace psychosocial factors and back pain. Our findings suggest directions in future longitudinal research to examine emerging workplace psychosocial factors for back pain.

Association between cervical artery dissection and spinal manipulative therapy -a medicare claims analysis

BACKGROUND

Cervical artery dissection and subsequent ischemic stroke is the most serious safety concern associated with cervical spinal manipulation.

METHODS

We evaluated the association between cervical spinal manipulation and cervical artery dissection among older Medicare beneficiaries in the United States. We employed case-control and case-crossover designs in the analysis of claims data for individuals aged 65+, continuously enrolled in Medicare Part A (covering hospitalizations) and Part B (covering outpatient encounters) for at least two consecutive years during 2007-2015. The primary exposure was cervical spinal manipulation; the secondary exposure was a clinical encounter for evaluation and management for neck pain or headache. We created a 3-level categorical variable, (1) any cervical spinal manipulation, 2) evaluation and management but no cervical spinal manipulation and (3) neither cervical spinal manipulation nor evaluation and management. The primary outcomes were occurrence of cervical artery dissection, either (1) vertebral artery dissection or (2) carotid artery dissection. The cases had a new primary diagnosis on at least one inpatient hospital claim or primary/secondary diagnosis for outpatient claims on at least two separate days. Cases were compared to 3 different control groups: (1) matched population controls having at least one claim in the same year as the case; (2) ischemic stroke controls without cervical artery dissection; and (3) case-crossover analysis comparing cases to themselves in the time period 6-7 months prior to their cervical artery dissection. We made each comparison across three different time frames: up to (1) 7 days; (2) 14 days; and (3) 30 days prior to index event.

RESULTS

The odds of cervical spinal manipulation versus evaluation and management did not significantly differ between vertebral artery dissection cases and any of the control groups at any of the timepoints (ORs 0.84 to 1.88; p > 0.05). Results for carotid artery dissection cases were similar.

CONCLUSION

Among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older who received cervical spinal manipulation, the risk of cervical artery dissection is no greater than that among control groups.

SPINE20 recommendations 2021: spine care for people's health and prosperity

Purpose

The focus of SPINE20 is to develop evidence-based policy recommendations for the G20 countries to work with governments to reduce the burden of spine disease, and disability.

Methods

On September 17–18, 2021, SPINE20 held its annual meeting in Rome, Italy. Prior to the meeting, the SPINE20 created six proposed recommendations. These recommendations were uploaded to the SPINE20 website 10 days before the meeting and opened to the public for comments. The recommendations were discussed at the meeting allowing the participants to object and provide comments.

Results

In total, 27 societies endorsed the following recommendations. SPINE20 calls upon the G20 countries: (1) to expand telehealth for the access to spine care, especially in light of the current situation with COVID-19. (2) To adopt value-based interprofessional spine care as an approach to improve patient outcomes and reduce disability. (3) To facilitate access and invest in the development of a competent rehabilitation workforce to reduce the burden of disability related to spine disorders. (4) To adopt a strategy to promote daily physical activity and exercises among the elderly population to maintain an active and independent life with a healthy spine, particularly after COVID-19 pandemic. (5) To engage in capacity building with emerging countries and underserved communities for the benefit of spine patients. (6) To promote strategies to transfer evidence-based advances into patient benefit through effective implementation processes.

Conclusions

SPINE20’s initiatives will make governments and decision makers aware of efforts to reduce needless suffering from disabling spine pain through education that can be instituted across the globe.

Initial Choice of Spinal Manipulation Reduces Escalation of Care for Chronic Low Back Pain Among Older Medicare Beneficiaries

STUDY DESIGN

We combined elements of cohort and crossover-cohort design.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare longterm outcomes for spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and opioid analgesic therapy (OAT) regarding escalation of care for patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Current evidence-based guidelines for clinical management of cLBP include both OAT and SMT. For long-term care of older adults, the efficiency and value of continuing either OAT or SMT are uncertain.

METHODS

We examined Medicare claims data spanning a five-year period. We included older Medicare beneficiaries with an episode of cLBP beginning in 2013. All patients were continuously enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D. We analyzed the cumulative frequency of encounters indicative of an escalation of care for cLBP, including hospitalizations, emergency department visits, advanced diagnostic imaging, specialist visits, lumbosacral surgery, interventional pain medicine techniques, and encounters for potential complications of cLBP.

RESULTS

SMT was associated with lower rates of escalation of care as compared to OAT. The adjusted rate of escalated care encounters was approximately 2.5 times higher for initial choice of OAT vs. initial choice of SMT (with weighted propensity scoring: rate ratio 2.67, 95% confidence interval 2.64-2.69, P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Among older Medicare beneficiaries who initiated long-term care for cLBP with opioid analgesic therapy, the adjusted rate of escalated care encounters was significantly higher as compared to those who initiated care with spinal manipulative therapy.Level of Evidence: 3.

Long-Term Medicare Costs Associated With Opioid Analgesic Therapy vs Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain in a Cohort of Older Adults

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare Medicare healthcare expenditures for patients who received long-term treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP) with either opioid analgesic therapy (OAT) or spinal manipulative therapy (SMT).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study using a cohort design for analysis of Medicare claims data. The study population included Medicare beneficiaries enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D from 2012 through 2016. We assembled cohorts of patients who received long-term management of cLBP with OAT or SMT (such as delivered by chiropractic or osteopathic practitioners) and evaluated the comparative effect of OAT vs SMT upon expenditures, using multivariable regression to control for beneficiary characteristics and measures of health status, and propensity score weighting and binning to account for selection bias.

RESULTS

The study sample totaled 28,160 participants, of whom 77% initiated long-term care of cLBP with OAT, and 23% initiated care with SMT. For care of low back pain specifically, average long-term costs for patients who initiated care with OAT were 58% lower than those who initiated care with SMT. However, overall long-term healthcare expenditures under Medicare were 1.87 times higher for patients who initiated care via OAT compared with those initiated care with SMT (95% CI 1.65-2.11; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Adults aged 65 to 84 who initiated long-term treatment for cLBP via OAT incurred lower long-term costs for low back pain but higher long-term total healthcare costs under Medicare compared with patients who initiated long-term treatment with SMT.

Chiropractic Practice in the Continent of Africa: A Structured Online Survey of 608 Chiropractors

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the status, supply, demographics, and characteristics of chiropractic practice in the continent of Africa.

METHODS

A survey consisting of questions on demographics, clinical practice, and patient profile was administered to 608 chiropractors practicing in the different countries of the African continent. Chiropractic association officers of each country were contacted via e-mail for assistance in the distribution of the survey link to chiropractors in their country. The initial questionnaire was pretested with a small group of chiropractors from 2 African countries-4 from Ethiopia and 6 from Botswana-to assess the validity of the questions. The legal status of the chiropractic practice was obtained from online resources. Descriptive statistics were conducted in Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

Of the 54 countries in the continent of Africa, 23 countries were identified to have chiropractors. One hundred twenty-four surveys were returned from 15 countries with an overall response rate of 20.3% by clinicians with varying years in clinical practice. Nearly 84% of the chiropractors were between ages 26 and 50. More than 69% reported being a graduate of 1 of the 2 academic institutions located in Africa. Most chiropractors practice in South Africa. Most chiropractors practice in privately owned clinics, and 38% practice in multidisciplinary clinics. Nearly 92% reported using diversified technique and 27% used McKenzie exercises for treatment. Patients presented with a variety of conditions, predominantly chronic pain (59%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a general overview on the status, supply, demographics, and characteristics of chiropractic practice in the continent of Africa. The supply of chiropractors in Africa is scarce and unevenly distributed. Although in the early stages of recognition, chiropractors in Africa are contributing to the care of people with musculoskeletal and spine-related disorders. Considering the high burden of spine pain, there appears to be potential for growth for chiropractic in the continent of Africa.

Health systems strengthening to arrest the global disability burden: empirical development of prioritised components for a global strategy for improving musculoskeletal health

INTRODUCTION

Despite the profound burden of disease, a strategic global response to optimise musculoskeletal (MSK) health and guide national-level health systems strengthening priorities remains absent. Auspiced by the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health (G-MUSC), we aimed to empirically derive requisite priorities and components of a strategic response to guide global and national-level action on MSK health.

METHODS

Design: mixed-methods, three-phase design.Phase 1: qualitative study with international key informants (KIs), including patient representatives and people with lived experience. KIs characterised the contemporary landscape for MSK health and priorities for a global strategic response.Phase 2: scoping review of national health policies to identify contemporary MSK policy trends and foci.Phase 3: informed by phases 1-2, was a global eDelphi where multisectoral panellists rated and iterated a framework of priorities and detailed components/actions.

RESULTS

Phase 1: 31 KIs representing 25 organisations were sampled from 20 countries (40% low and middle income (LMIC)). Inductively derived themes were used to construct a logic model to underpin latter phases, consisting of five guiding principles, eight strategic priority areas and seven accelerators for action.Phase 2: of the 165 documents identified, 41 (24.8%) from 22 countries (88% high-income countries) and 2 regions met the inclusion criteria. Eight overarching policy themes, supported by 47 subthemes, were derived, aligning closely with the logic model.Phase 3: 674 panellists from 72 countries (46% LMICs) participated in round 1 and 439 (65%) in round 2 of the eDelphi. Fifty-nine components were retained with 10 (17%) identified as essential for health systems. 97.6% and 94.8% agreed or strongly agreed the framework was valuable and credible, respectively, for health systems strengthening.

CONCLUSION

An empirically derived framework, co-designed and strongly supported by multisectoral stakeholders, can now be used as a blueprint for global and country-level responses to improve MSK health and prioritise system strengthening initiatives.

Invasive Treatments for Low Back Disorders

OBJECTIVE

This abbreviated version of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's Low Back Disorders guideline reviews the evidence and recommendations developed for invasive treatments used to manage low back disorders.

METHODS

Comprehensive systematic literature reviews were accomplished with article abstraction, critiquing, grading, evidence table compilation, and guideline finalization by a multidisciplinary expert panel and extensive peer-review to develop evidence-based guidance. Consensus recommendations were formulated when evidence was lacking and often relied on analogy to other disorders for which evidence exists. A total of 47 high-quality and 321 moderate-quality trials were identified for invasive management of low back disorders.

RESULTS

Guidance has been developed for the invasive management of acute, subacute, and chronic low back disorders and rehabilitation. This includes 49 specific recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Quality evidence should guide invasive treatment for all phases of managing low back disorders.

Temporal Trends and Geographic Variations in the Supply of Clinicians Who Provide Spinal Manipulation to Medicare Beneficiaries: A Serial Cross-Sectional Study

OBJECTIVE

Spinal manipulation (SM) is recommended for first-line treatment of patients with low back pain. Inadequate access to SM may result in inequitable spine care for older US adults, but the supply of clinicians who provide SM under Medicare is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to measure temporal trends and geographic variations in the supply of clinicians who provide SM to Medicare beneficiaries.

METHODS

Medicare is a US government-administered health insurance program that provides coverage primarily for older adults and people with disabilities. We used a serial cross-sectional design to examine Medicare administrative data from 2007 to 2015 for SM services identified by procedure code. We identified unique providers by National Provider Identifier and distinguished between chiropractors and other specialties by Physician Specialty Code. We calculated supply as the number of providers per 100 000 beneficiaries, stratified by geographic location and year.

RESULTS

Of all clinicians who provide SM to Medicare beneficiaries, 97% to 98% are doctors of chiropractic. The geographic supply of doctors of chiropractic providing SM services in 2015 ranged from 20/100 000 in the District of Columbia to 260/100 000 in North Dakota. The supply of other specialists performing the same services ranged from fewer than 1/100 000 in 11 states to 8/100 000 in Colorado. Nationally, the number of Medicare-active chiropractors declined from 47 102 in 2007 to 45 543 in 2015. The count of other clinicians providing SM rose from 700 in 2007 to 1441 in 2015.

CONCLUSION

Chiropractors constitute the vast majority of clinicians who bill for SM services to Medicare beneficiaries. The supply of Medicare-active SM providers varies widely by state. The overall supply of SM providers under Medicare is declining, while the supply of nonchiropractors who provide SM is growing.

Distance Management of Spinal Disorders During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond: Evidence-Based Patient and Clinician Guides From the Global Spine Care Initiative

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly limited patients' access to care for spine-related symptoms and disorders. However, physical distancing between clinicians and patients with spine-related symptoms is not solely limited to restrictions imposed by pandemic-related lockdowns. In most low- and middle-income countries, as well as many underserved marginalized communities in high-income countries, there is little to no access to clinicians trained in evidence-based care for people experiencing spinal pain.

Objective

The aim of this study is to describe the development and present the components of evidence-based patient and clinician guides for the management of spinal disorders where in-person care is not available.

Methods

Ultimately, two sets of guides were developed (one for patients and one for clinicians) by extracting information from the published Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) papers. An international, interprofessional team of 29 participants from 10 countries on 4 continents participated. The team included practitioners in family medicine, neurology, physiatry, rheumatology, psychology, chiropractic, physical therapy, and yoga, as well as epidemiologists, research methodologists, and laypeople. The participants were invited to review, edit, and comment on the guides in an open iterative consensus process.

Results

The Patient Guide is a simple 2-step process. The first step describes the nature of the symptoms or concerns. The second step provides information that a patient can use when considering self-care, determining whether to contact a clinician, or considering seeking emergency care. The Clinician Guide is a 5-step process: (1) Obtain and document patient demographics, location of primary clinical symptoms, and psychosocial information. (2) Review the symptoms noted in the patient guide. (3) Determine the GSCI classification of the patient’s spine-related complaints. (4) Ask additional questions to determine the GSCI subclassification of the symptom pattern. (5) Consider appropriate treatment interventions.

Conclusions

The Patient and Clinician Guides are designed to be sufficiently clear to be useful to all patients and clinicians, irrespective of their location, education, professional qualifications, and experience. However, they are comprehensive enough to provide guidance on the management of all spine-related symptoms or disorders, including triage for serious and specific diseases. They are consistent with widely accepted evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. They also allow for adequate documentation and medical record keeping. These guides should be of value during periods of government-mandated physical or social distancing due to infectious diseases, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. They should also be of value in underserved communities in high-, middle-, and low-income countries where there is a dearth of accessible trained spine care clinicians. These guides have the potential to reduce the overutilization of unnecessary and expensive interventions while empowering patients to self-manage uncomplicated spinal pain with the assistance of their clinician, either through direct in-person consultation or via telehealth communication.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: World Spine Care executive summary on reducing spine-related disability in low- and middle-income communities

PURPOSE

Spinal disorders, including back and neck pain, are major causes of disability, economic hardship, and morbidity, especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries. Currently, there is no model of care to address this issue. This paper provides an overview of the papers from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI), which was convened to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable, spinal healthcare model for communities around the world with various levels of resources.

METHODS

Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders.

RESULTS

Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care.

CONCLUSION

The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: resources to implement a spine care program

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the development of a list of resources necessary to implement a model of care for the management of spine-related concerns anywhere in the world, but especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

Contents from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) Classification System and GSCI care pathway papers provided a foundation for the resources list. A seed document was developed that included resources for spine care that could be delivered in primary, secondary and tertiary settings, as well as resources needed for self-care and community-based settings for a wide variety of spine concerns (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, pathology and spinal diseases). An iterative expert consensus process was used using electronic surveys.

RESULTS

Thirty-five experts completed the process. An iterative consensus process was used through an electronic survey. A consensus was reached after two rounds. The checklist of resources included the following categories: healthcare provider knowledge and skills, materials and equipment, human resources, facilities and infrastructure. The list identifies resources needed to implement a spine care program in any community, which are based upon spine care needs.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first international and interprofessional attempt to develop a list of resources needed to deliver care in an evidence-based care pathway for the management of people presenting with spine-related concerns. This resource list needs to be field tested in a variety of communities with different resource capacities to verify its utility. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: classification system for spine-related concerns

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the development of a classification system that would apply to anyone with a spine-related concern and that can be used in an evidence-based spine care pathway.

METHODS

Existing classification systems for spinal disorders were assembled. A seed document was developed through round-table discussions followed by a modified Delphi process. International and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate.

RESULTS

Thirty-six experts from 15 countries participated. After the second round, there was 95% agreement of the proposed classification system. The six major classifications included: no or minimal symptoms (class 0); mild symptoms (i.e., neck or back pain) but no interference with activities (class I); moderate or severe symptoms with interference of activities (class II); spine-related neurological signs or symptoms (class III); severe bony spine deformity, trauma or pathology (class IV); and spine-related symptoms or destructive lesions associated with systemic pathology (class V). Subclasses for each major class included chronicity and severity when different interventions were anticipated or recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

An international and interprofessional group developed a comprehensive classification system for all potential presentations of people who may seek care or advice at a spine care program. This classification can be used in the development of a spine care pathway, in clinical practice, and for research purposes. This classification needs to be tested for validity, reliability, and consistency among clinicians from different specialties and in different communities and cultures. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: methodology, contributors, and disclosures

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) contributors, disclosures, and methods for reporting transparency on the development of the recommendations.

METHODS

World Spine Care convened the GSCI to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable healthcare model for spinal care. The initiative aims to improve the management, prevention, and public health for spine-related disorders worldwide; thus, global representation was essential. A series of meetings established the initiative's mission and goals. Electronic surveys collected contributorship and demographic information, and experiences with spinal conditions to better understand perceptions and potential biases that were contributing to the model of care.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight clinicians and scientists participated in the deliberations and are authors of one or more of the GSCI articles. Of these experts, 57 reported providing spine care in 34 countries, (i.e., low-, middle-, and high-income countries, as well as underserved communities in high-income countries.) The majority reported personally experiencing or having a close family member with one or more spinal concerns including: spine-related trauma or injury, spinal problems that required emergency or surgical intervention, spinal pain referred from non-spine sources, spinal deformity, spinal pathology or disease, neurological problems, and/or mild, moderate, or severe back or neck pain. There were no substantial reported conflicts of interest.

CONCLUSION

The GSCI participants have broad professional experience and wide international distribution with no discipline dominating the deliberations. The GSCI believes this set of papers has the potential to inform and improve spine care globally. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: care pathway for people with spine-related concerns

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the development of an evidence-based care pathway that can be implemented globally.

METHODS

The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) care pathway development team extracted interventions recommended for the management of spinal disorders from six GSCI articles that synthesized the available evidence from guidelines and relevant literature. Sixty-eight international and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate. An iterative consensus process was used.

RESULTS

After three rounds of review, 46 experts from 16 countries reached consensus for the care pathway that includes five decision steps: awareness, initial triage, provider assessment, interventions (e.g., non-invasive treatment; invasive treatment; psychological and social intervention; prevention and public health; specialty care and interprofessional management), and outcomes. The care pathway can be used to guide the management of patients with any spine-related concern (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spinal injury, neurological conditions, pathology, spinal diseases). The pathway is simple and can be incorporated into educational tools, decision-making trees, and electronic medical records.

CONCLUSION

A care pathway for the management of individuals presenting with spine-related concerns includes evidence-based recommendations to guide health care providers in the management of common spinal disorders. The proposed pathway is person-centered and evidence-based. The acceptability and utility of this care pathway will need to be evaluated in various communities, especially in low- and middle-income countries, with different cultural background and resources. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

A scoping review of biopsychosocial risk factors and co-morbidities for common spinal disorders

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review was to identify risk factors, prognostic factors, and comorbidities associated with common spinal disorders.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature of common spinal disorders was performed through September 2016. To identify search terms, we developed 3 terminology groups for case definitions: 1) spinal pain of unknown origin, 2) spinal syndromes, and 3) spinal pathology. We used a comprehensive strategy to search PubMed for meta-analyses and systematic reviews of case-control studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials for risk and prognostic factors and cross-sectional studies describing associations and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Of 3,453 candidate papers, 145 met study criteria and were included in this review. Risk factors were reported for group 1: non-specific low back pain (smoking, overweight/obesity, negative recovery expectations), non-specific neck pain (high job demands, monotonous work); group 2: degenerative spinal disease (workers' compensation claim, degenerative scoliosis), and group 3: spinal tuberculosis (age, imprisonment, previous history of tuberculosis), spinal cord injury (age, accidental injury), vertebral fracture from osteoporosis (type 1 diabetes, certain medications, smoking), and neural tube defects (folic acid deficit, anti-convulsant medications, chlorine, influenza, maternal obesity). A range of comorbidities was identified for spinal disorders.

CONCLUSION

Many associated factors for common spinal disorders identified in this study are modifiable. The most common spinal disorders are co-morbid with general health conditions, but there is a lack of clarity in the literature differentiating which conditions are merely comorbid versus ones that are risk factors. Modifiable risk factors present opportunities for policy, research, and public health prevention efforts on both the individual patient and community levels. Further research into prevention interventions for spinal disorders is needed to address this gap in the literature.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: a summary of the global burden of low back and neck pain studies

PURPOSE

This article summarizes relevant findings related to low back and neck pain from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) reports for the purpose of informing the Global Spine Care Initiative.

METHODS

We reviewed and summarized back and neck pain burden data from two studies that were published in Lancet in 2016, namely: "Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015" and "Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 315 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE), 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015."

RESULTS

In 2015, low back and neck pain were ranked the fourth leading cause of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) globally just after ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and lower respiratory infection {low back and neck pain DALYs [thousands]: 94 941.5 [95% uncertainty interval (UI) 67 745.5-128 118.6]}. In 2015, over half a billion people worldwide had low back pain and more than a third of a billion had neck pain of more than 3 months duration. Low back and neck pain are the leading causes of years lived with disability in most countries and age groups.

CONCLUSION

Low back and neck pain prevalence and disability have increased markedly over the past 25 years and will likely increase further with population aging. Spinal disorders should be prioritized for research funding given the huge and growing global burden. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: a summary of guidelines on invasive interventions for the management of persistent and disabling spinal pain in low- and middle-income communities

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to synthesize recommendations on the use of common elective surgical and interventional procedures for individuals with persistent and disabling non-radicular/axial with or without myelopathy, radicular back pain, cervical myelopathy, symptomatic spinal stenosis, and fractures due to osteoporosis. This review was to inform a clinical care pathway on the patient presentations where surgical interventions could reasonably be considered.

METHODS

We synthesized recommendations from six evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and one appropriate use criteria guidance for the surgical and interventional management of persistent and disabling spine pain.

RESULTS

Lower priority surgery/conditions include fusion for lumbar/non-radicular neck pain and higher priority surgery/conditions include discectomy/decompressive surgery for cervical or lumbar radiculopathy, cervical myelopathy, and lumbar spinal stenosis. Epidural steroid injections are less expensive than most surgeries with fewer harms; however, benefits are small and short lived. Vertebroplasty should be considered over kyphoplasty as an option for patients with severe pain and disability due to osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture.

CONCLUSION

Elective surgery and interventional procedures could be limited in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries due to a lack of resources and surgeons and thus surgical and interventional procedures should be prioritized within these settings. There are non-invasive alternatives that produce similar outcomes and are a recommended option where surgical procedures are not available. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: a consensus process to develop and validate a stratification scheme for surgical care of spinal disorders as a guide for improved resource utilization in low- and middle-income communities

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to develop a stratification scheme for surgical spinal care to serve as a framework for referrals and distribution of patients with spinal disorders.

METHODS

We used a modified Delphi process. A literature search identified experts for the consensus panel and the panel was expanded by inviting spine surgeons known to be global opinion leaders. After creating a seed document of five hierarchical levels of surgical care, a four-step modified Delphi process (question validation, collection of factors, evaluation of factors, re-evaluation of factors) was performed.

RESULTS

Of 78 invited experts, 19 participated in round 1, and of the 19, 14 participated in 2, and 12 in 3 and 4. Consensus was fairly heterogeneous for levels of care 2-4 (moderate resources). Only simple assessment methods based on the clinical skills of the medical personnel were considered feasible and safe in low-resource settings. Diagnosis, staging, and treatment were deemed feasible and safe in a specialized spine center. Accurate diagnostic workup was deemed feasible and safe for lower levels of care complexity (from level 3 upwards) compared to non-invasive procedures (level 4) and the full range of invasive procedures (level 5).

CONCLUSION

This study introduces a five-level stratification scheme for the surgical care of spinal disorders. This stratification may provide input into the Global Spine Care Initiative care pathway that will be applied in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Global Forum: Spine Research and Training in Underserved, Low and Middle-Income, Culturally Unique Communities: The World Spine Care Charity Research Program's Challenges and Facilitators

The World Spine Care (WSC), established by volunteers from 5 continents, is dedicated to providing sustainable, evidence-based spine care to individuals and communities in low and middle-income countries consistent with available health-care resources and integrated within the local culture. The research committee approves and oversees the WSC's collaborative research and training projects worldwide and serves to create a sustainable research community for underserved populations focused on preventing disability from spinal disorders. The purpose of this article is to describe 4 projects overseen by the WSC research committee and to discuss several challenges and specific facilitators that allowed successful completion of initiatives. These novel projects, which involved establishing spine surgery expertise and data collection in the WSC clinics and surrounding communities, all met their aims. This was achieved by overcoming language and resource challenges, adapting to local customs, and taking time to build mutual respect and to nurture relationships with local investigators and stakeholders.

Risk of Carotid Stroke after Chiropractic Care: A Population-Based Case-Crossover Study

BACKGROUND

Chiropractic manipulation is a popular treatment for neck pain and headache, but may increase the risk of cervical artery dissection and stroke. Patients with carotid artery dissection can present with neck pain and/or headache before experiencing a stroke. These are common symptoms seen by both chiropractors and primary care physicians (PCPs). We aimed to assess the risk of carotid artery stroke after chiropractic care by comparing association between chiropractic and PCP visits and subsequent stroke.

METHODS

A population-based, case-crossover study was undertaken in Ontario, Canada. All incident cases of carotid artery stroke admitted to hospitals over a 9-year period were identified. Cases served as their own controls. Exposures to chiropractic and PCP services were determined from health billing records.

RESULTS

We compared 15,523 cases to 62,092 control periods using exposure windows of 1, 3, 7, and 14 days prior to the stroke. Positive associations were found for both chiropractic and PCP visits and subsequent stroke in patients less than 45 years of age. These associations tended to increase when analyses were limited to visits for neck pain and headache-related diagnoses. There was no significant difference between chiropractic and PCP risk estimates. We found no association between chiropractic visits and stroke in those 45 years of age or older.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no excess risk of carotid artery stroke after chiropractic care. Associations between chiropractic and PCP visits and stroke were similar and likely due to patients with early dissection-related symptoms seeking care prior to developing their strokes.

Low Back Pain Prevalence and Related Workplace Psychosocial Risk Factors: A Study Using Data From the 2010 National Health Interview Survey

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to estimate prevalence of low back pain, to investigate associations between low back pain and a set of emerging workplace risk factors, and to identify worker groups with an increased vulnerability for low back pain in the United States.

METHODS

The data used for this cross-sectional study came from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey, which was designed to collect data on health conditions and related risk factors from the US civilian population. The variance estimation method was used to compute weighted data for prevalence of low back pain. Multivariable logistic regression analyses stratified by sex and age were performed to determine the odds ratios (ORs) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for low back pain. The examined work-related psychosocial risk factors included work-family imbalance, exposure to a hostile work environment, and job insecurity. Work hours, occupation, and other work organizational factors (nonstandard work arrangements and alternative shifts) were also examined.

RESULTS

The prevalence of self-reported low back pain in the previous 3 months among workers in the United States was 25.7% in 2010. Female or older workers were at increased risk of experiencing low back pain. We found significant associations between low back pain and a set of psychosocial factors, including work-family imbalance (OR 1.27, CI 1.15-1.41), exposure to hostile work (OR 1.39, CI 1.25-1.55), and job insecurity (OR 1.44, CI 1.24-1.67), while controlling for demographic characteristics and other health-related factors. Older workers who had nonstandard work arrangements were more likely to report low back pain. Women who worked 41 to 45 hours per week and younger workers who worked >60 hours per week had an increased risk for low back pain. Workers from several occupation groups, including male health care practitioners, female and younger health care support workers, and female farming, fishing, and forestry workers, had an increased risk of low back pain.

CONCLUSIONS

This study linked low back pain to work-family imbalance, exposure to a hostile work environment, job insecurity, long work hours, and certain occupation groups. These factors should be considered by employers, policymakers, and health care practitioners who are concerned about the impact of low back pain in workers.

Workplace psychosocial and organizational factors for neck pain in workers in the United States

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is a prevalent musculoskeletal condition among workers in the United States. This study explores a set of workplace psychosocial and organization-related factors for neck pain.

METHODS

Data used for this study come from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey which provides a representative sample of the US population. To account for the complex sampling design, the Taylor linearized variance estimation method was used. Logistic regression models were constructed to measure the associations.

RESULTS

This study demonstrated significant associations between neck pain and a set of workplace risk factors, including work-family imbalance, exposure to a hostile work environment and job insecurity, non-standard work arrangements, multiple jobs, and long work hours.

CONCLUSION

Workers with neck pain may benefit from intervention programs that address issues related to these workplace risk factors. Future studies exploring both psychosocial risk factors and physical risk factors with a longitudinal design will be important. Am. J. Ind. Med. 59:549-560, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Challenges of the Past, Challenges of the Present

The McAndrews Leadership Lecture was developed by the American Chiropractic Association to honor the legacy of Jerome F. McAndrews, DC, and George P. McAndrews, JD, and their contributions to the chiropractic profession. This article is a transcription of the presentation made by Dr Scott Haldeman on February 28, 2015, in Washington, DC, at the National Chiropractic Leadership Conference.

A systematic review comparing the costs of chiropractic care to other interventions for spine pain in the United States

Background

Although chiropractors in the United States (US) have long suggested that their approach to managing spine pain is less costly than other health care providers (HCPs), it is unclear if available evidence supports this premise.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted using a comprehensive search strategy to uncover studies that compared health care costs for patients with any type of spine pain who received chiropractic care or care from other HCPs. Only studies conducted in the US and published in English between 1993 and 2015 were included. Health care costs were summarized for studies examining: 1. private health plans, 2. workers’ compensation (WC) plans, and 3. clinical outcomes. The quality of studies in the latter group was evaluated using a Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list.

Results

The search uncovered 1276 citations and 25 eligible studies, including 12 from private health plans, 6 from WC plans, and 7 that examined clinical outcomes. Chiropractic care was most commonly compared to care from a medical physician, with few details about the care received. Heterogeneity was noted among studies in patient selection, definition of spine pain, scope of costs compared, study duration, and methods to estimate costs. Overall, cost comparison studies from private health plans and WC plans reported that health care costs were lower with chiropractic care. In studies that also examined clinical outcomes, there were few differences in efficacy between groups, and health care costs were higher for those receiving chiropractic care. The effects of adjusting for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, or other factors between study groups were unclear.

Conclusions

Although cost comparison studies suggest that health care costs were generally lower among patients whose spine pain was managed with chiropractic care, the studies reviewed had many methodological limitations. Better research is needed to determine if these differences in health care costs were attributable to the type of HCP managing their care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1140-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

How can we assess the burden of muscle, bone and joint conditions in rural Botswana: context and methods for the MuBoJo focused ethnography

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal diseases are the most common causes of long-term pain and disability worldwide and a growing international public health concern. However, the everyday burden and impact of musculoskeletal conditions are not well understood, especially among people living in low- and middle-income countries in Africa. Since 2011, World Spine Care, a nongovernmental organisation, has collaborated with the Botswana Ministry of Health to open spine care centres and to conduct research. The broad aim of the Muscle, Bone and Joint (MuBoJo) research project is to examine the sociocultural, organisational and clinical characteristics for the burden of living with and caring for people living with musculoskeletal conditions in rural Botswana. In this paper, we describe the community context, theoretical framework, and research methods to address the project aim with a qualitative study.

METHODS/DESIGN

This focused ethnography is based on eight months (November 2011, April 2013, October 2013-March 2014) of fieldwork in Botswana. The project was theoretically informed by the concepts of explanatory models of illness, social suffering, and biographical disruption. Data collection included fieldnotes, non-participant and participant observations, and informal and in-depth interviews with villagers and healthcare providers. Villager interviews were typically conducted in Setswana with an interpreter. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim in the language spoken with Setswana contextually translated into English. Computer software supported qualitative data management. Analysis is ongoing using constant comparison and a template organising style to facilitate pattern-finding and reveal insights for the burden and care of musculoskeletal conditions.

DISCUSSION

Findings from the MuBoJo Project will document the context of musculoskeletal burden, illness beliefs, self-care behaviours, and healthcare options in a Botswana rural village. These data will inform ongoing efforts to establish spine care clinics for underserved populations in low-middle income countries and sustain these healthcare services through local providers and volunteer health professionals. This study also will generate new knowledge about the burden and impact of muscle, bone and joint disorders for cross-cultural comparisons and patient-centred interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic and transparent methodology to conduct musculoskeletal research in more than one language and in a cross-cultural setting may be useful for investigators and NGO healthcare personnel.

Award-winning articles and posters from the World Federation of Chiropractic's 12th Biennial Congress 2013

This editorial reviews the original research submissions to the World Federation of Chiropractic's 12th Biennial Congress held in Durban, South Africa from April 10 - 13, 2013, and the four award-winning scientific articles in the NCMIC Louis Sportelli Research Awards competition at the Congress which are published in this issue of the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics.

Commentary: we can tell where it hurts, but can we tell where the pain is coming from or where we should manipulate?

The shared decision making process has become increasingly important in the management of spinal disorders where there remains a variety of treatment options. Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is often recommended as a conservative option by evidence based clinical practice guidelines and a treatment modality frequently utilized by chiropractors and other clinicians who offer SMT to their patients. This article serves as a commentary to a review of the methods that are often used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying their manipulative intervention. Though it may be easy to criticize any review of this type of literature and point out shortcomings there are strong take away messages for the clinician interested in employing SMT as a part of their treatment protocol. Most notably, clinicians can be reassured that a history on the localization of pain, tissue palpation, provocative testing, range of motion testing and the demonstration by the patient of the locus and description of pain have reasonable consistency between observers. What this paper does not inform us on is the nature of the lesion causing the pain or where the manipulation should be applied to obtain the best outcome.

Regional variation in survival before and after pediatric heart transplantation--an analysis of the UNOS database

Geographic variation occurs in a variety of health outcomes. Regional influences on outcomes before and after listing for pediatric heart transplantation have not been assessed. Review of the UNOS dataset identified 5398 pediatric (≤ 18 years) patients listed for heart transplantation 2000-2011. Patients were stratified based on the region of listing. Regional-level variables were correlated with individual risk-adjusted outcomes. Mean time spent on the waitlist varied from 91.0 ± 163 days (Region 6 [R6]) to 248.1 ± 493 days (R4, p < 0.0001). Regions with more transplant centers (p < 0.0001) and fewer transplants (p = 0.0015) had higher waitlist mortality. Risk-adjusted individual waitlist mortality varied from 6.9% (R1, CI 6.2-7.8) to 19.2% (R5, CI 18.0-20.6). Waitlist mortality was higher for individuals awaiting transplant in regions with more listings per center (OR 1.04, CI 1.01-1.08) and lower in regions with more donors per center (OR 0.95, CI 0.90-0.99 per donor). Posttransplant risk-adjusted survival varied across regions (R4: 5.4%, CI 4.2-7.4; R7: 18.0%, CI 12.4-32.5), but regional variables were not correlated with outcomes. Outcomes among children undergoing heart transplantation vary by region. Factors leading to increased competition for donor allografts are associated with poorer waitlist survival. Equitable allocation of cardiac allografts requires further investigation of these findings.

Commentary: is patient satisfaction a reasonable outcome measure?

Hazard RG, Spratt KF, McDonough CM, et al. Patient-centered evaluation of outcomes from rehabilitation for chronic disabling spinal disorders: the impact of personal goal achievement on patient satisfaction. Spine J 2012;12:1132-7 (in this issue).

Commentary: Laboring to understand the economic impact of spinal disorders

Schofield DJ, Shrestha RN, Percival R, et al. The personal and national costs of early retirement because of spinal disorders: impacts on income, taxes, and government support payments. Spine J 2012;12:1111-8 (in this issue).

Award-winning articles and posters from the World Federation of Chiropractic's 11th Biennial Congress 2011

This editorial reviews the scientific sessions and announces the 4 award-winning scientific articles from the World Federation of Chiropractic 11th Biennial Congress held in Rio de Janeiro from April 6, to 9, 2011, that are published in this issue of the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics.