Haswell Kate, Gilmour John, Moore Barbara
Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Akoranga Campus, Auckland, New Zealand.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Jan 1;33(1):68-73. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e3949.
Descriptive study.
To compare clinical decision rules in low back pain guidelines for identification of neurologic involvement.
Low back pain guidelines have been developed in a number of countries. Guideline recommendations for assessment of patients with low back pain in primary care include clinical decision rules for identification of neurologic involvement. Broad variation in recommended clinical assessments has previously been identified. More specific investigation of these clinical assessments seems warranted given that guidelines have an important role in facilitating accurate and timely identification of neurologic involvement in patients with low back pain presenting in primary care.
Guidelines were included that met the following criteria: the guideline included clinical decision rules for low back pain assessments; recommendations were for clinical management of low back pain in primary care; and the guideline was available in English.
Three categories of neurologic involvement were identified in the guidelines: cauda equina syndrome; nerve root syndrome; and spinal stenosis. However, only cauda equina syndrome was included in all guidelines. Spinal stenosis or both nerve root syndrome and spinal stenosis categories were omitted from some guidelines. Decision factors for assignment to categories were: generally consistent for cauda equina syndrome; agreed to be conduction block in sensory and motor nerves and pain on straight leg raise for nerve root syndrome; and agreed to be reduced walking distance resulting from pseudoclaudication for spinal stenosis. Disagreement related to postural factors for nerve root syndrome and spinal stenosis categories.
This study has identified differences between the guidelines in the clinical decision rules for identification of neurologic involvement including omission of categories. Decision-making that employs all 3 categories of neurologic involvement will arguably facilitate accurate and timely identification of patients with low back pain so affected in primary care.
描述性研究。
比较腰痛指南中用于识别神经受累情况的临床决策规则。
许多国家都制定了腰痛指南。基层医疗中腰痛患者评估的指南建议包括用于识别神经受累情况的临床决策规则。此前已发现推荐的临床评估存在广泛差异。鉴于指南在促进准确及时识别基层医疗中出现的腰痛患者的神经受累情况方面具有重要作用,对这些临床评估进行更具体的研究似乎很有必要。
纳入符合以下标准的指南:该指南包括腰痛评估的临床决策规则;建议针对基层医疗中腰痛的临床管理;且该指南有英文版本。
指南中确定了三类神经受累情况:马尾综合征;神经根综合征;以及椎管狭窄。然而,所有指南中仅包括马尾综合征。一些指南未纳入椎管狭窄或神经根综合征和椎管狭窄这两类情况。分类的决策因素为:马尾综合征基本一致;神经根综合征确定为感觉和运动神经传导阻滞以及直腿抬高试验时疼痛;椎管狭窄确定为因假性间歇性跛行导致行走距离缩短。对于神经根综合征和椎管狭窄这两类情况,在姿势因素方面存在分歧。
本研究发现了指南在识别神经受累情况的临床决策规则方面存在差异,包括类别的遗漏。采用所有三类神经受累情况进行决策可能有助于准确及时识别基层医疗中受此类影响的腰痛患者。