Consensus on a standardised treatment pathway algorithm for lumbar spinal stenosis: an international Delphi study
dc.contributor.author | Comer, Christine | |
dc.contributor.author | Ammendolia, Carlo | |
dc.contributor.author | Battié, Michele C. | |
dc.contributor.author | Bussières, André | |
dc.contributor.author | Fairbank, Jeremy | |
dc.contributor.author | Haig, Andrew | |
dc.contributor.author | Melloh, Markus | |
dc.contributor.author | Redmond, Anthony | |
dc.contributor.author | Schneider, Michael J. | |
dc.contributor.author | Standaert, Christopher J. | |
dc.contributor.author | Tomkins-Lane, Christy | |
dc.contributor.author | Williamson, Esther | |
dc.contributor.author | Wong, Arnold Y. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-08-10T18:17:21Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-08-10T18:17:21Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2022-06-08 | |
dc.identifier.citation | BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2022 Jun 08;23(1):550 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05485-5 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/173634 | en |
dc.description.abstract | Abstract Background Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative spinal condition in older adults associated with disability, diminished quality of life, and substantial healthcare costs. Individual symptoms and needs vary. With sparse and sometimes inconsistent evidence to guide clinical decision-making, variable clinical care may lead to unsatisfactory patient outcomes and inefficient use of healthcare resources. Methods A three-phase modified Delphi study comprising four consensus rounds was conducted on behalf of the International Taskforce for the Diagnosis and Management of LSS to develop a treatment algorithm based on multi-professional international expert consensus. Participants with expertise in the assessment and management of people with LSS were invited using an international distribution process used for two previous Delphi studies led by the Taskforce. Separate treatment pathways for patients with different symptom types and severity were developed and incorporated into a proposed treatment algorithm through consensus rounds 1 to 3. Agreement with the proposed algorithm was evaluated in the final consensus round. Results The final algorithm combines stratified and stepped approaches. When indicated, immediate investigation and surgery is advocated. Otherwise, a stepped approach is suggested when self-directed care is unsatisfactory. This starts with tailored rehabilitation, then more complex multidisciplinary care, investigations and surgery options if needed. Treatment options in each step depend on clinical phenotype and symptom severity. Treatment response guides pathway entrance and exit points. Of 397 study participants, 86% rated their agreement ≥ 4 for the proposed algorithm on a 0–6 scale, of which 22% completely agreed. Only 7% disagreed. Over 70% of participants felt that the algorithm would be useful for clinicians in public healthcare (both primary care and specialist settings) and in private healthcare settings, and that a simplified version would help patients in shared decision-making. Conclusions International and multi-professional agreement was achieved for a proposed LSS treatment algorithm developed through expert consensus. The algorithm advocates different pathway options depending on clinical indications. It is not intended as a treatment protocol and will require evaluation against current care for clinical and cost-effectiveness. It may, however, serve as a clinical guide until evidence is sufficient to inform a fully stratified care model. | |
dc.title | Consensus on a standardised treatment pathway algorithm for lumbar spinal stenosis: an international Delphi study | |
dc.type | Journal Article | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/173634/1/12891_2022_Article_5485.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | https://dx.doi.org/10.7302/5365 | |
dc.language.rfc3066 | en | |
dc.rights.holder | The Author(s) | |
dc.date.updated | 2022-08-10T18:17:19Z | |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.