A Critical Review of the American Pain Society Clinical Practice Guidelines For Interventional Techniques: Part 2. Therapeutic Interventions (original) (raw)
Related papers
Pain physician
Clinical guidelines are defined as systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances. The clinical guideline industry has been erupting even faster than innovation in health care, constantly adding unhealthy perspectives with broad and complex mandates to health care interventions. Clinical guidelines are based on evidence-based medicine (EBM) and comparative effectiveness research (CER). Multiple issues related to the development of clinical guidelines are based on conflicts of interest, controversies, and limitations of the guideline process. Recently, the American Pain Society (APS) developed and published multiple guidelines in managing low back pain resulting in multiple publications. However, these guidelines have been questioned regarding their development process, their implementation, and their impact on various specialties. To reassess the APS guidelines' evidence synthesis...
A critical review of guidelines for low back pain treatment
European Spine Journal, 2006
Main problem: Little is known about the methodological quality of guidelines for low back pain treatment. We evaluated the methods used by the developers according to established standards. Methods: PubMed, guideline databases, and the World Wide Web were used to identify guidelines. Seventeen guidelines met the inclusion criteria: interventions for low back pain stated, recommendations based on or explicitly linked to evidence, and English version available. Guidelines were evaluated independently by two appraisers using a practical tool for this purpose, Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature, and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. Results: Thirteen guidelines (76%) specified the most important therapies applied, but only nine (53%) included a complete description of the target population. Explicit processes to identify, select, and combine evidence were described in only six guidelines (35%). Few guidelines (3; 18%) explicitly considered all main outcomes when formulating therapeutic recommendations, and none contained a process to determine the relative value of different outcomes. Methodological criteria for grading the strength of the recommendations varied, and were often insufficiently specified. None of the guidelines assessed the impact of uncertainty associated with the evidence and values used. According to AGREE the quality score was highest for the scope and purpose, and clarity and presentation domains, and lowest for editorial independence and applicability. With regard to the recommendations, there was consensus for some of the interventions for acute pain (analgesics and NSAIDs, maintaining physical activity, and avoiding excessive bed rest), but explicit recommendations were lacking or ambiguous for 41% of the interventions. Most of the guidelines did not contemplate specific recommendations for chronic pain. Conclusions: A small number of the available guidelines for low back pain treatment achieved acceptable results for specific quality criteria. In general, the methods to develop the guidelines’ therapeutic recommendations need to be more rigorous, more explicit and better explained. In addition, greater importance should be placed on the recommendations for chronic pain.
Effectiveness of clinical guidelines in interventional pain management
Pain physician, 2002
Many commissions and groups throughout the world have proposed clinical guidelines on the management of low back pain, spinal pain, and chronic pain. Practice guidelines are systematically developed statements to assist the practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate healthcare for specific clinical circumstances. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians developed practice guidelines for interventional techniques which are professional practice recommendations for practices for prevention, diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic painful disorders, and in some cases, disability management. The effectiveness of so-called evidence-based guidelines has not proven. This study was designed to evaluate a total of 300 patients with 100 randomized patients seen in the month of January 1999, 2000 and 2001, in one private pain management practice in a non-university setting. The study was retrospective for 1999 and 2000, whereas it was prospective for 2001. The resu...
2020
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide specific recommendations for practice but, due to the increasing number of CPGs developed by multiple organisations over the last years, there are concerns about their quality. The aim is to systematically appraise the CPGs quality for low back pain (LBP) interventions and explore the inter-rater reliability (IRR) among quality appraisers. Time span intended as time from systematic reviews searches to CPGs publication was also assessed.METHODS: We undertook comprehensive searches in Pubmed, Embase, PEDro, TRIP, guideline organisation databases, websites and grey literature from January 2016 to March 2019 to identify all GPCs focus on rehabilitative, pharmacological or surgical interventions for LBP management. Four reviewers independently apprised the selected GPCs by using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II-AGREE II tool. Year of CPGs publication and year of search strategies were collected. RESULTS: 21...
The Journal of Pain, 2011
As guidelines proliferate and are used to inform efforts to improve the quality and efficiency of care, disputes over guideline recommendations are likely to become more common and contentious. It is appropriate for guidelines to come under close scrutiny, given their important clinical and policy implications, and critiques that point out missing evidence, improper methods, or errors in interpretation can be valuable. But for critiques to be valid, they should be based on accurate information and a sound scientific basis. A 2009 guideline sponsored by the American Pain Society (APS) on the use of invasive tests and interventional procedures found insufficient evidence to make recommendations for most interventional procedures. It was subsequently the subject of lengthy critiques by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) that sought to challenge the methods used to develop the APS guideline, point out alleged errors in the evidence review commissioned to inform the guideline, and question the integrity of the APS guideline process. We show that the ASIPP critiques contain numerous errors and fail to adhere to scientific standards for reviewing evidence, and provide suggestions on how future disputes regarding guidelines might be addressed in a more constructive manner. Perspective: In order to best serve patients and clinicians, debates over guidelines should be based on accurate information, adhere to current methodological standards, acknowledge important deficiencies in the evidence when they are present, and handle conflicts of interest in a vigorous and transparent manner.
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide recommendations for practice, but the proliferation of CPGs issued by multiple organisations in recent years has raised concern about their quality. The aim of this study was to systematically appraise CPGs quality for low back pain (LBP) interventions and to explore inter-rater reliability (IRR) between quality appraisers. The time between systematic review search and publication of CPGs was recorded.METHODS: Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, PEDro, TRIP), guideline organisation databases, websites, and grey literature were searched from January 2016 to January 2020 to identify GPCs on rehabilitative, pharmacological or surgical intervention for LBP management. Four independent reviewers used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool to evaluate CPGs quality and record the year the CPGs were published and the year the search strategies were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 21 CPGs met the inc...
Disability and Rehabilitation, 2019
Aim: Chronic low back pain represents a major problem throughout the world which is increasing largely because of the aging world population. Clinical practice Guidelines can be powerful tools for promoting evidence-based practice, as they integrate research findings in order to support decision making. This study aimed to review recommendations for the management of Chronic low Back Pain in primary care based on high-quality recent and recently updated Clinical practice Guidelines. Methods: CINHAL, PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro, Google Scholar, Government websites, Scientific Association websites were searched until April 2019. The retrieved documents underwent several consecutive selection steps: semi-automated duplicate screening, documents selection based on title and abstract screening. Finally, three independent investigators screened the documents for the selected inclusion criteria and reviewed the retrieved documents by means of the AGREE II instrument. Results: A total of 3055 records were retrieved, of which 10 Clinical practice Guidelines met the inclusion criteria. The overall quality of these Clinical practice Guidelines was moderately variable. The recommendations of four Clinical practice Guidelines deemed as "excellent" were extracted and summarized. Although we tried to implement the most comprehensive research strategies, some Clinical practice Guidelines may be missing due to publication bias or incomplete indexing. Conclusions: This study showed a partial progress in respect of the methodological quality of the Clinical practice Guidelines. Several AGREE II domains demonstrated low scores, particularly the "applicability" and "monitoring and auditing criteria" are the domains most susceptible to amendments in future. ä IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION Clinicians should be aware that among recently published/updated clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic low back pain in primary care only few were deemed to have high quality. Increasing evidence suggests the efficacy for self-management to improve low back pain outcome. Physical treatments are recommended in order to improve low back pain outcome while many physical modalities such as TENS, ultrasound, laser therapy are not. Psychological treatments are recommended and should be included as part of a broader treatment plan.
European Spine Journal, 2018
Objective The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment contained in current clinical practice guidelines for patients with non-specific low back pain in primary care. We also aimed to examine how recommendations have changed since our last overview in 2010. Method The searches for clinical practice guidelines were performed for the period from 2008 to 2017 in electronic databases. Guidelines including information regarding either the diagnosis or treatment of non-specific low back pain, and targeted at a multidisciplinary audience in the primary care setting, were considered eligible. We extracted data regarding recommendations for diagnosis and treatment, and methods for development of guidelines. Results We identified 15 clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care. For diagnosis of patients with non-specific low back pain, the clinical practice guidelines recommend history taking and physical examination to identify red flags, neurological testing to identify radicular syndrome, use of imaging if serious pathology is suspected (but discourage routine use), and assessment of psychosocial factors. For treatment of patients with acute low back pain, the guidelines recommend reassurance on the favourable prognosis and advice on returning to normal activities, avoiding bed rest, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and weak opioids for short periods. For treatment of patients with chronic low back pain, the guidelines recommend the use of NSAIDs and antidepressants, exercise therapy, and psychosocial interventions. In addition, referral to a specialist is recommended in case of suspicion of specific pathologies or radiculopathy or if there is no improvement after 4 weeks. While there were a few discrepancies across the current clinical practice guidelines, a substantial proportion of recommendations was consistently endorsed. In the current review, we identified some differences compared to the previous overview regarding the recommendations for assessment of psychosocial factors, the use of some medications (e.g., paracetamol) as well as an increasing amount of information regarding the types of exercise, mode of delivery, acupuncture, herbal medicines, and invasive treatments.