Faculty Bibliography

STUDY DESIGN: Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise and synthesize the literature on assessment of neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The published literature on assessment of neck pain is large and of variable quality. There have been no prior systematic reviews of this literature. METHODS: The Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders conducted a critical review of the literature (published 1980-2006) on assessment tools and screening protocols for traumatic and nontraumatic neck pain. RESULTS: We found 359 articles on assessment of neck pain. After critical review, 95 (35%) were judged scientifically admissible. Screening protocols have high predictive values to detect cervical spine fracture in alert, low-risk patients seeking emergency care after blunt neck trauma. Computerized tomography (CT) scans had better validity (in adults and elderly) than radiographs in assessing high-risk and/or multi-injured blunt trauma neck patients. In the absence of serious pathology, clinical physical examinations are more predictive at excluding than confirming structural lesions causing neurologic compression. One exception is the manual provocation test for cervical radiculopathy, which has high positive predictive value. There was no evidence that specific MRI findings are associated with neck pain, cervicogenic headache, or whiplash exposure. No evidence supports using cervical provocative discography, anesthetic facet, or medial branch blocks in evaluating neck pain. Reliable and valid self-report questionnaires are useful in assessing pain, function, disability, and psychosocial status in individuals with neck pain. CONCLUSION: The scientific evidence supports screening protocols in emergency care for low-risk patients; and CT-scans for high-risk patients with blunt trauma to the neck. In nonemergency neck pain without radiculopathy, the validity of most commonly used objective tests is lacking. There is support for subjective self-report assessment in monitoring patients' course, response to treatment, and in clinical research

Study Design. Best evidence synthesis. Objective. To critically appraise and synthesize the literature on assessment of neck pain. Summary of Background Data. The published literature on assessment of neck pain is large and of variable quality. There have been no prior systematic reviews of this literature. Methods. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders conducted a critical review of the literature (published 1980-2006) on assessment tools and screening protocols for traumatic and nontramatic neck pain. Results. We found 359 articles on assessment of neck pain. After critical review, 95 (35%) were judged scientifically admissible. Screening protocols have high predictive values to detect cervical spine fracture in alert, low-risk patients seeking emergency care after blunt neck trauma. Computerized tomography (CT) scans had better validity (in adults and elderly) than radiographs in assessing high-risk and/or multi-injured blunt trauma neck patients. In the absence of serious pathology, clinical physical examinations are more predictive at excluding than confirming structural lesions causing neurologic compression. One exception is the manual provocation test for cervical radiculopathy, which has high positive predictive value. There was no evidence that specific MRI findings are associated with neck pain, cervicogenic headache, or whiplash exposure. No evidence supports using cervical provocative discography, anesthetic facet, or medial branch blocks in evaluating neck pain. Reliable and valid self-report questionnaires are useful in assessing pain, function, disability, and psychosocial status in individuals with neck pain. Conclusion. The scientific evidence supports screening protocols in emergency care for low-risk patients; and CT-scans for high-risk patients with blunt trauma to the neck. In nonemergency neck pain without radiculopathy, the validity of most commonly used objective tests is lacking. There is support for subjective self-report assessment in monitoring patients' course, response to treatment, and in clinical research

STUDY DESIGN: Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise and synthesize the literature on assessment of neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The published literature on assessment of neck pain is large and of variable quality. There have been no prior systematic reviews of this literature. METHODS: The Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders conducted a critical review of the literature (published 1980-2006) on assessment tools and screening protocols for traumatic and nontraumatic neck pain. RESULTS: We found 359 articles on assessment of neck pain. After critical review, 95 (35%) were judged scientifically admissible. Screening protocols have high predictive values to detect cervical spine fracture in alert, low-risk patients seeking emergency care after blunt neck trauma. Computerized tomography (CT) scans had better validity (in adults and elderly) than radiographs in assessing high-risk and/or multi-injured blunt trauma neck patients. In the absence of serious pathology, clinical physical examinations are more predictive at excluding than confirming structural lesions causing neurologic compression. One exception is the manual provocation test for cervical radiculopathy, which has high positive predictive value. There was no evidence that specific MRI findings are associated with neck pain, cervicogenic headache, or whiplash exposure. No evidence supports using cervical provocative discography, anesthetic facet, or medial branch blocks in evaluating neck pain. Reliable and valid self-report questionnaires are useful in assessing pain, function, disability, and psychosocial status in individuals with neck pain. CONCLUSION: The scientific evidence supports screening protocols in emergency care for low-risk patients; and CT-scans for high-risk patients with blunt trauma to the neck. In nonemergency neck pain without radiculopathy, the validity of most commonly used objective tests is lacking. There is support for subjective self-report assessment in monitoring patients' course, response to treatment, and in clinical research

Work in construction is associated with a high risk for musculoskeletal disorders and injuries. The symptom survey was conducted to determine the magnitude and musculoskeletal injury characteristics among the cement and concrete workers and identify the most problematic work-related activities and job factors that might have contributed to the occurrence of these disorders. Findings revealed that a large proportion of the laborers (77%) experienced at least one musculoskeletal disorder in the last year. Low back pain was reported as the most frequently experienced symptom (66%). 'Working while in pain' the concrete workers perceived as the major problem in the trade. Other problematic work-related activities included 'bending or twisting the back', 'work in hot, cold or wet conditions', and 'handling heavy objects'. Most of the laborers (82%) requested on-the-job safety training. Survey results combined with the outcomes of focus groups discussions and work site observations were used in the design of a training program aimed at the prevention of musculoskeletal morbidity in the trade. The program incorporated ergonomics principles, hazard recognition, safe work practices, problem solving and personal protection in the training curriculum for membership of the trade

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) constitutes a major problem in construction. The magnitude and musculoskeletal injury characteristics in certain construction trades have been studied extensively. Musculoskeletal research targeting mason tenders is limited. High physical demands of the job primarily contribute to an increased risk of LBP experienced by these laborers. METHODS: A symptom survey was conducted to determine the magnitude and musculoskeletal injury characteristics among the mason tenders, and to identify work-related activities perceived by them as contributing to their disorders. RESULTS: The findings revealed that 82% of the mason tenders experienced at least one musculoskeletal symptom in the last year. LBP was the most frequently reported symptom (65%). Due to LBP, 12% of the laborers missed work and 18% of them visited a physician. Bending or twisting the back, working in the same position or in pain, and heavy lifting they perceived as the most problematic work-related activities. The vast majority of the laborers requested job-safety training. CONCLUSIONS: The mason tenders experienced high prevalence of LBP. To address the problem a model for primary prevention of LBP was developed and implemented in the trade. The model incorporated ergonomic principles, hazard recognition, and problem solving in the training curriculum for the union instructors teaching apprentices the trade-specific skills