|
|
Is
the "Standard" of Musculoskeletal Pain Care Good for
Patient?
Interventions
such as prescription of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and
intraarticular injection of corticosteroids have been investigated
repeatedly, in well designed, randomized, controlled trials, and
the results do riot support their use (3,4,7),
The
efficacy of epidural steroid injections for low back pain was
assessed as well. The best studies showed inconsistent results
of epidural steroid injections. The efficacy of epidural steroid
injections has not been established. The benefits of epidural
steroid injections, if any, seems to be of short duration only
(8).
Meta
analyses were performed for spinal manipulation, exercise therapy,
traction, ultrasound, and laser therapy, and for disorders of
the back neck, shoulder and knee. In general, the methodological
quality of the studies appeared to be low, and the efficacy of
physiotherapy was shown to be convincing for only a few indications
and treatments (1,2,9)
Disparities
between current practice and the knowledge base are epitomized
by the results of a recent study. Baruji et al' reported that
three consultant rheumatologists who each examined a cohort of
patients with shoulder pain diagnosed a variety of conditions,
about which they agreed in only 46% of cases, yet all recommended
the same treatment, injection of corticosteroid, in almost every
case (6).
It
seem that senior clinicians recognized as experts in the field
are unable to determine what is wrong with painful shoulders,
yet they unswervingly apply treatment that has been shown to be
ineffective.
When
the evidence base challenges traditional practices, clinicians
tend to respond in one of three ways. Some choose to ignore the
evidence and simply go on as before; effectively they abandon
the scientific method as the basis of medicine. Some acknowledge
the evidence but rationalize that it does not apply to them, that
somehow their practices are not subject to the liabilities shown
in the literature; this also amounts to denial of the scientific
method . The third scientific
response is to accept the bad news, to assess its significance
and then to reevaluate and modify methods of practice accordingly, even if that means giving
up traditional interventions and seeking more effective ways of
managing patients' problems. The evidence on the current management
of musculoskeletal pain presents
several such challenges.
References
1.
Feine, JS, Lund PL. An assessment of the efficacy of physical
therapy and physical modalities for the control of chronic musculoskeletal
pain. Pain, 1997; 71: 5-23.
2.
van der HeJjden GJMG, van der Windt DAWK de Winter AF.
Physiotherapy for patients with soft tissue shoulder disorders.
Br Med J, 1997; 315: 25-29.
3,
van der Windt DAWK van der HeiJden GJMG, Scholten RJPNL
Koes BW, Bouter LM. The efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs (NSAIDS) for shoulder complaints, A systematic review. J.
Clin Epidemiol, 1995; 48: 691704.
4.
van der HeiJden GJMG, van der Windt DAWM, Ydeijaen J, Koes
BW, Bouter LM. Steroid injections for shoulder disorders. a systematic
review of randomized clinical trials. Br J Gen Pract, 1996 46:
301) 316.
5.
Green, S, Buchbinder R, Glazier R, Forbes A. Systematic
review of randomized controlled trials of interventions for painful
shoulder, selection criteria, outcome assessment and efficacy.
BMT, 1998; 316: 354-360.
6.
Bamii AN, Erhardt CC, Price TR, Williams PL. 1he painful
shoulder: can consultants agree? Br J Rheumatol, 11996; 35: 1172-1174.
7.
Koes BW, Scholten RJ, Mens JM, Bouter LM: Efficacy of non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain: a systematic review
of randomized clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis 1997 Apr;56(4):214-223
8.
Koes BW, Scholten RJ, Mens JM, Bouter LM: Efficacy of epidural
steroid injections for low back pain and sciatica: a systematic
review of randomized clinical trials. Pain 1995 Dec;63(3):279-288
9.
Beckerman R Bouter LK van der 1*Jjden GJ, de Bie RA, Koes
BW: Efficacy of physiotherapy for musculoskeletal disorders: what
can we learn from research? Br J Gen Pract 1993 Feb;43(367):73-77
|
|