TY - JOUR
T1 - What does best practice care for musculoskeletal pain look like? Eleven consistent recommendations from high-quality clinical practice guidelines
T2 - Systematic review
AU - Lin, Ivan
AU - Wiles, Louise
AU - Waller, Rob
AU - Goucke, Roger
AU - Nagree, Yusuf
AU - Gibberd, Michael
AU - Straker, Leon
AU - Maher, Chris G.
AU - O'Sullivan, Peter P.B.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
PY - 2020/1
Y1 - 2020/1
N2 - Objectives To identify common recommendations for high-quality care for the most common musculoskeletal (MSK) pain sites encountered by clinicians in emergency and primary care (spinal (lumbar, thoracic and cervical), hip/knee (including osteoarthritis [OA] and shoulder) from contemporary, high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Design Systematic review, critical appraisal and narrative synthesis of MSK pain CPG recommendations. Eligibility criteria Included MSK pain CPGs were written in English, rated as high quality, published from 2011, focused on adults and described development processes. Excluded CPGs were for: traumatic MSK pain, single modalities (eg, surgery), traditional healing/medicine, specific disease processes (eg, inflammatory arthropathies) or those that required payment. Data sources Four scientific databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Physiotherapy Evidence Database) and four guideline repositories. Results 6232 records were identified, 44 CPGs were appraised and 11 were rated as high quality (low back pain: 4, OA: 4, neck: 2 and shoulder: 1). We identified 11 recommendations for MSK pain care: ensure care is patient centred, screen for red flag conditions, assess psychosocial factors, use imaging selectively, undertake a physical examination, monitor patient progress, provide education/information, address physical activity/exercise, use manual therapy only as an adjunct to other treatments, offer high-quality non-surgical care prior to surgery and try to keep patients at work. Conclusion These 11 recommendations guide healthcare consumers, clinicians, researchers and policy makers to manage MSK pain. This should improve the quality of care of MSK pain.
AB - Objectives To identify common recommendations for high-quality care for the most common musculoskeletal (MSK) pain sites encountered by clinicians in emergency and primary care (spinal (lumbar, thoracic and cervical), hip/knee (including osteoarthritis [OA] and shoulder) from contemporary, high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Design Systematic review, critical appraisal and narrative synthesis of MSK pain CPG recommendations. Eligibility criteria Included MSK pain CPGs were written in English, rated as high quality, published from 2011, focused on adults and described development processes. Excluded CPGs were for: traumatic MSK pain, single modalities (eg, surgery), traditional healing/medicine, specific disease processes (eg, inflammatory arthropathies) or those that required payment. Data sources Four scientific databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Physiotherapy Evidence Database) and four guideline repositories. Results 6232 records were identified, 44 CPGs were appraised and 11 were rated as high quality (low back pain: 4, OA: 4, neck: 2 and shoulder: 1). We identified 11 recommendations for MSK pain care: ensure care is patient centred, screen for red flag conditions, assess psychosocial factors, use imaging selectively, undertake a physical examination, monitor patient progress, provide education/information, address physical activity/exercise, use manual therapy only as an adjunct to other treatments, offer high-quality non-surgical care prior to surgery and try to keep patients at work. Conclusion These 11 recommendations guide healthcare consumers, clinicians, researchers and policy makers to manage MSK pain. This should improve the quality of care of MSK pain.
KW - education
KW - effectiveness
KW - evidence based
KW - knowledge translation
KW - review
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85062358877
U2 - 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099878
DO - 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099878
M3 - Review article
C2 - 30826805
AN - SCOPUS:85062358877
SN - 0306-3674
VL - 54
SP - 79
EP - 86
JO - British Journal of Sports Medicine
JF - British Journal of Sports Medicine
IS - 2
ER -