德尔菲共识揭示疼痛管理和转诊专科对不适合脊柱手术的慢性背痛患者使用SCS的想法。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Pain Practice Pub Date : 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1111/papr.70069
David A Provenzano, Alaa Abd-Elsayed, Magdalena Anitescu, Domagoj Coric, Mehul J Desai, Jad G Khalil, Paul H Kim, Erika A Petersen, Glade Roper
{"title":"德尔菲共识揭示疼痛管理和转诊专科对不适合脊柱手术的慢性背痛患者使用SCS的想法。","authors":"David A Provenzano, Alaa Abd-Elsayed, Magdalena Anitescu, Domagoj Coric, Mehul J Desai, Jad G Khalil, Paul H Kim, Erika A Petersen, Glade Roper","doi":"10.1111/papr.70069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Chronic back pain is a significant global healthcare challenge, with a lifetime incidence affecting approximately 80% of people worldwide. Most patients respond positively to nonsurgical management, while a substantial proportion of the remainder obtain relief from surgical therapy. For the minority of patients with chronic back pain who do not respond to conventional medical management (CMM) and are not candidates for spine surgery, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) may be a viable treatment option. This Delphi consensus focused on identifying the thoughts and opinions of pain management and referral specialties on the use of SCS in patients with chronic back pain who are not suitable for spine surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A steering group of US healthcare professionals specialized in spine surgery and chronic back pain management generated 35 statements across six main domains. Using a four-point Likert scale, the survey was created and shared with a wider panel of specialists. Results were analyzed to produce an aggregated agreement level for each statement. The consensus threshold was set at 75% agreement, which is defined as strong consensus, and ≥ 90% agreement was considered powerful consensus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 211 responses were received from the following specialties: pain physician (18%; n = 38), physical therapist (18%; n = 38), orthopedic surgeon (18%; n = 37), neurosurgeon (17%; n = 36), primary care physician (15%; n = 32), and musculoskeletal radiologist (14%; n = 30). Of the 35 consensus statements developed for broader testing, 30/35 (86%) achieved consensus; 18 (51%) of which achieved ≥ 90% agreement. The remaining five (15%) statements failed to achieve consensus among the wider panel.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on the agreement scores, the steering group agreed on seven key findings to consider for pain management in patients with chronic back pain who are not candidates for spine surgery. These findings are opinion-based and are meant to be a starting point to help identify appropriate patients who may benefit from SCS therapy and when an evaluation for SCS candidacy should be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":"25 7","pages":"e70069"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Delphi Consensus Revealing the Thoughts of Pain Management and Referral Specialties on the Use of SCS for Chronic Back Pain Patients Not Suitable for Spine Surgery.\",\"authors\":\"David A Provenzano, Alaa Abd-Elsayed, Magdalena Anitescu, Domagoj Coric, Mehul J Desai, Jad G Khalil, Paul H Kim, Erika A Petersen, Glade Roper\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/papr.70069\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Chronic back pain is a significant global healthcare challenge, with a lifetime incidence affecting approximately 80% of people worldwide. Most patients respond positively to nonsurgical management, while a substantial proportion of the remainder obtain relief from surgical therapy. For the minority of patients with chronic back pain who do not respond to conventional medical management (CMM) and are not candidates for spine surgery, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) may be a viable treatment option. This Delphi consensus focused on identifying the thoughts and opinions of pain management and referral specialties on the use of SCS in patients with chronic back pain who are not suitable for spine surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A steering group of US healthcare professionals specialized in spine surgery and chronic back pain management generated 35 statements across six main domains. Using a four-point Likert scale, the survey was created and shared with a wider panel of specialists. Results were analyzed to produce an aggregated agreement level for each statement. The consensus threshold was set at 75% agreement, which is defined as strong consensus, and ≥ 90% agreement was considered powerful consensus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 211 responses were received from the following specialties: pain physician (18%; n = 38), physical therapist (18%; n = 38), orthopedic surgeon (18%; n = 37), neurosurgeon (17%; n = 36), primary care physician (15%; n = 32), and musculoskeletal radiologist (14%; n = 30). Of the 35 consensus statements developed for broader testing, 30/35 (86%) achieved consensus; 18 (51%) of which achieved ≥ 90% agreement. The remaining five (15%) statements failed to achieve consensus among the wider panel.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on the agreement scores, the steering group agreed on seven key findings to consider for pain management in patients with chronic back pain who are not candidates for spine surgery. These findings are opinion-based and are meant to be a starting point to help identify appropriate patients who may benefit from SCS therapy and when an evaluation for SCS candidacy should be considered.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19974,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain Practice\",\"volume\":\"25 7\",\"pages\":\"e70069\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.70069\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.70069","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

慢性背痛是一项重大的全球医疗保健挑战,其终生发病率影响全球约80%的人。大多数患者对非手术治疗反应积极,而其余相当大比例的患者从手术治疗中获得缓解。对于少数对常规医疗管理(CMM)无效且不适合脊柱手术的慢性背痛患者,脊髓刺激(SCS)可能是一种可行的治疗选择。德尔菲共识的重点是确定疼痛管理和转诊专科对不适合脊柱手术的慢性背痛患者使用SCS的想法和意见。方法:一个由美国医疗保健专业人员组成的指导小组专门从事脊柱外科和慢性背痛管理,在六个主要领域产生了35份声明。该调查采用李克特四分制,并与更广泛的专家小组共享。对结果进行分析,以生成每个语句的聚合协议级别。共识阈值设定为75%的一致度,定义为强共识,≥90%的一致度被认为是强共识。结果:共收到211份来自以下专业的回复:疼痛医生(18%,n = 38)、物理治疗师(18%,n = 38)、骨科医生(18%,n = 37)、神经外科医生(17%,n = 36)、初级保健医生(15%,n = 32)和肌肉骨骼放射科医生(14%,n = 30)。在为更广泛的测试开发的35个共识声明中,30/35(86%)达成了共识;其中18例(51%)达到≥90%的一致性。其余5份(15%)声明未能在更广泛的专家组中达成共识。结论:基于共识评分,指导小组同意了七个关键发现,以考虑慢性背痛患者的疼痛管理,而这些患者不适合脊柱手术。这些发现是基于意见的,旨在作为一个起点,帮助确定可能受益于SCS治疗的合适患者,以及何时应该考虑对SCS候选性进行评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Delphi Consensus Revealing the Thoughts of Pain Management and Referral Specialties on the Use of SCS for Chronic Back Pain Patients Not Suitable for Spine Surgery.

Introduction: Chronic back pain is a significant global healthcare challenge, with a lifetime incidence affecting approximately 80% of people worldwide. Most patients respond positively to nonsurgical management, while a substantial proportion of the remainder obtain relief from surgical therapy. For the minority of patients with chronic back pain who do not respond to conventional medical management (CMM) and are not candidates for spine surgery, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) may be a viable treatment option. This Delphi consensus focused on identifying the thoughts and opinions of pain management and referral specialties on the use of SCS in patients with chronic back pain who are not suitable for spine surgery.

Methods: A steering group of US healthcare professionals specialized in spine surgery and chronic back pain management generated 35 statements across six main domains. Using a four-point Likert scale, the survey was created and shared with a wider panel of specialists. Results were analyzed to produce an aggregated agreement level for each statement. The consensus threshold was set at 75% agreement, which is defined as strong consensus, and ≥ 90% agreement was considered powerful consensus.

Results: A total of 211 responses were received from the following specialties: pain physician (18%; n = 38), physical therapist (18%; n = 38), orthopedic surgeon (18%; n = 37), neurosurgeon (17%; n = 36), primary care physician (15%; n = 32), and musculoskeletal radiologist (14%; n = 30). Of the 35 consensus statements developed for broader testing, 30/35 (86%) achieved consensus; 18 (51%) of which achieved ≥ 90% agreement. The remaining five (15%) statements failed to achieve consensus among the wider panel.

Conclusion: Based on the agreement scores, the steering group agreed on seven key findings to consider for pain management in patients with chronic back pain who are not candidates for spine surgery. These findings are opinion-based and are meant to be a starting point to help identify appropriate patients who may benefit from SCS therapy and when an evaluation for SCS candidacy should be considered.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pain Practice
Pain Practice ANESTHESIOLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.80%
发文量
92
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain Practice, the official journal of the World Institute of Pain, publishes international multidisciplinary articles on pain and analgesia that provide its readership with up-to-date research, evaluation methods, and techniques for pain management. Special sections including the Consultant’s Corner, Images in Pain Practice, Case Studies from Mayo, Tutorials, and the Evidence-Based Medicine combine to give pain researchers, pain clinicians and pain fellows in training a systematic approach to continuing education in pain medicine. Prior to publication, all articles and reviews undergo peer review by at least two experts in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信