Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Palmer College of Chiropractic, Davenport, IA.
Integrated Musculoskeletal Care.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2021 Nov-Dec;44(9):683-689. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2022.03.010. Epub 2022 Jun 24.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between procedures and care patterns in back pain episodes by analyzing health insurance claims.
We performed a retrospective cohort study of insurance claims data from a single Fortune 500 company. The 3 care patterns we analyzed were initial spinal manipulative therapy, delayed spinal manipulative therapy, and no spinal manipulative therapy. The 3 procedures analyzed were imaging studies, injection procedures, and back surgery. We considered "escalated care" to be any claims with diagnostic imaging, injection procedures, or back surgery. Modified-Poisson regression modeling was used to determine relative risk of escalated care.
There were 83 025 claims that were categorized into 10 372 unique patient first episodes. Spinal manipulative therapy was present in 2943 episodes (28%). Initial spinal manipulation was present in 2519 episodes (24%), delayed spinal manipulation was present in 424 episodes (4%), and 7429 (72%) had no evidence of spinal manipulative therapy. The estimated relative risk, adjusted for age, sex, and risk score, for care escalation (eg, imaging, injections, or surgery) was 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.75, P < .001) for initial spinal manipulation and 1.22 (95% confidence interval 1.10-1.35, P < .001) for delayed spinal manipulation with no spinal manipulation used as the reference group.
For claims associated with initial episodes of back pain, initial spinal manipulative therapy was associated with an approximately 30% decrease in the risk of imaging studies, injection procedures, or back surgery compared with no spinal manipulative therapy. The risk of imaging studies, injection procedures, or back surgery in episodes in the delayed spinal manipulative therapy group was higher than those without spinal manipulative therapy.
本研究旨在通过分析医疗保险理赔数据来评估腰痛发作中治疗程序与治疗模式之间的关系。
我们对一家财富 500 强公司的医疗保险理赔数据进行了回顾性队列研究。我们分析了 3 种治疗模式,分别为初始脊柱手法治疗、延迟脊柱手法治疗和无脊柱手法治疗。分析了 3 种治疗程序,分别为影像学检查、注射治疗和脊柱手术。我们将“升级治疗”定义为任何包含诊断性影像学检查、注射治疗或脊柱手术的理赔。采用修正泊松回归模型来确定升级治疗的相对风险。
共有 83025 份理赔,分为 10372 个患者首次发作的独特病例。脊柱手法治疗出现在 2943 个病例(28%)中。初始脊柱推拿治疗出现在 2519 个病例(24%),延迟脊柱推拿治疗出现在 424 个病例(4%),7429 个病例(72%)没有脊柱手法治疗的证据。调整年龄、性别和风险评分后,与无脊柱手法治疗相比,初始脊柱手法治疗的升级治疗(如影像学检查、注射治疗或手术)的估计相对风险为 0.70(95%置信区间 0.65-0.75,P<.001),延迟脊柱手法治疗的相对风险为 1.22(95%置信区间 1.10-1.35,P<.001)。
对于与初始腰痛发作相关的理赔,与无脊柱手法治疗相比,初始脊柱手法治疗可使影像学检查、注射治疗或脊柱手术的风险降低约 30%。在延迟脊柱手法治疗组中,与无脊柱手法治疗相比,影像学检查、注射治疗或脊柱手术的风险更高。