Faculty of Medicine, University of Western São Paulo (UNOESTE), Presidente Prudente, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney Local Health District, Level 10N, King George V Building, Missenden Road, P. O. Box M179, Camperdown, 2050, Australia.
Rheumatol Int. 2024 Jul;44(7):1197-1207. doi: 10.1007/s00296-024-05543-2. Epub 2024 Feb 29.
The objective of this study is to compare and contrast the quality statements and quality indicators across clinical care standards for low back pain. Searches were performed in Medline, guideline databases, and Google searches to identify clinical care standards for the management of low back pain targeting a multidisciplinary audience. Two independent reviewers reviewed the search results and extracted relevant information from the clinical care standards. We compared the quality statements and indicators of the clinical care standards to identify the consistent messages and the discrepancies between them. Three national clinical care standards from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom were included. They provided from 6 to 8 quality statements and from 12 to 18 quality indicators. The three standards provide consistent recommendations in the quality statements related to imaging, and patient education/advice and self-management. In addition, the Canadian and Australian standards also provide consistent recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. However, the three clinical care standards differ in the statements related to psychological assessment, opioid analgesics, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies. The three national clinical care standards provide consistent recommendations on imaging and patient education/advice, self-management of the condition, and two standards (Canadian and Australian) agree on recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. The standards differ in the quality statements related to psychological assessment, opioid prescription, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies.
本研究旨在比较和对比针对多学科受众的腰痛管理临床护理标准中的质量声明和质量指标。在 Medline、指南数据库和 Google 搜索中进行了检索,以确定针对腰痛管理的临床护理标准。两名独立的审查员审查了检索结果,并从临床护理标准中提取了相关信息。我们比较了临床护理标准的质量声明和指标,以确定它们之间的一致信息和差异。纳入了来自澳大利亚、加拿大和英国的三个国家临床护理标准。它们提供了 6 到 8 个质量声明和 12 到 18 个质量指标。这三个标准在与影像学、患者教育/建议和自我管理相关的质量声明中提供了一致的建议。此外,加拿大和澳大利亚的标准还就全面评估、心理支持以及审查和患者转介提供了一致的建议。然而,这三个临床护理标准在与心理评估、阿片类镇痛药、非阿片类镇痛药和非药物治疗相关的声明中存在差异。这三个国家的临床护理标准在影像学和患者教育/建议、疾病的自我管理方面提供了一致的建议,而两个标准(加拿大和澳大利亚)在全面评估、心理支持以及审查和患者转介方面的建议一致。这些标准在与心理评估、阿片类药物处方、非阿片类镇痛药和非药物治疗相关的质量声明方面存在差异。