BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Clinical outcomes are directly related to patient selection and treatment indications for improved quality of life. With emphasis on quality and value, it is essential that treatment recommendations are optimized. PURPOSE: The purpose of the North American Spine Society (NASS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) is to determine the appropriate (ie, reasonable) multidisciplinary treatment recommendations for patients with metastatic neoplastic vertebral fractures across a spectrum of more common clinical scenarios. STUDY DESIGN: A Modified Delphi process. PATIENT SAMPLE: Systematic Review. OUTCOME MEASURES: Final rating for cervical fusion recommendation as either "Appropriate," "Uncertain," or "Rarely Appropriate" based on the median final rating among the raters. METHODS: The methodology was based on the AUC development process established by the Research AND Development (RAND) Corporation. The topic of neoplastic vertebral fracture was selected by NASS for its Clinical Practice Guideline development (CPG). In conjunction, the AUC work group determined key modifiers and adopted the standard definitions developed by CPG, with minimal modifications. A literature search and evidence analysis performed by the CPG were reviewed by the AUC work group. A separate multidisciplinary rating group was assembled. Based on the literature, provider experience, and group discussion, each scenario was scored on a 9-point scale on 2 separate occasions, once without discussion and then a second time following discussion based on the initial responses. The median rating for each scenario was then used to determine if indications were rarely appropriate (1-3), uncertain/maybe appropriate (4-6), or appropriate (7-9). Consensus was not mandatory. RESULTS: Medical management was essentially always appropriate. Radiation therapy was appropriate 50% of the time and uncertain otherwise, and directly related to radiosensitivity of the tumor. Ablation was never rated appropriate with agreement, and about 50% of the time was rated as uncertain. For cement augmentation, the scenarios without stenosis or neurological changes, stable fractures with less than 80% height loss and intact posterior wall, and higher VAS pain scores accounted for 88% probability of an appropriate rating. Otherwise, cement augmentation was uncertain 68% of the time. Surgery was rated as appropriate with agreement in 35%, and uncertain or appropriate with disagreement in 59% of scenarios. The most important variables determining final rating for surgery (in order) were stability, spinal stenosis, and prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary appropriate treatment criteria were generated based on the RAND methodology. Recommendations were made for medical treatment, ablation, radiation, cement augmentation, and surgery based on 432 practical clinical scenarios. This document provides comprehensive evidence-based recommendations for evaluation and treatment of metastatic neoplastic vertebral fractures. The document in its entirety will be found on the NASS website (https://www.spine.org/Research-Clinical-Care/Quality-Improvement/Appropriate-Use-Crite ria). (c) 2025 Elsevier Inc. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT:There is a lack of consensus regarding optimal indications for treatment of patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures. An opportunity exists to improve outcomes if these indications can be clarified. PURPOSE:The purpose of the North American Spine Society (NASS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) was to determine the appropriate (ie, reasonable) multidisciplinary treatment recommendations for patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures across a spectrum of more common clinical scenarios. STUDY DESIGN:A Modified Delphi process. PATIENT SAMPLE:Modified consensus based guideline. OUTCOME MEASURES:Final rating for treatment recommendations as either "Appropriate," "Uncertain," or "Rarely Appropriate" based on the median final rating among the raters. METHODS:The methodology was based on the AUC development process established by the Research AND Development (RAND) Corporation. The topic of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture was selected by NASS for its Clinical Practice Guideline development (CPG). In conjunction, the AUC committee determined key modifiers and adapted the standard definitions developed by the CPG with minimal modifications. A literature search and evidence analysis performed by the CPG were reviewed by the AUC work group. A separate multidisciplinary rating group was assembled. Clinical scenarios were generated based on a matrix of the modifiers, to rate the appropriateness of medical management, cement augmentation, or surgery. Based on the literature, provider experience, and group discussion, each scenario was scored on a 9-point scale on two separate occasions: once without discussion and again following discussion of the initial responses. The median rating for each scenario and level of agreement was then used to determine final indications as rarely appropriate with agreement (1 - 3), uncertain or disagreement (4-6), or appropriate with agreement (7-9). Consensus was not mandatory. RESULTS:Medical management was appropriate across all scenarios. Cement augmentation was rarely appropriate in 60% of scenarios and uncertain or disagreement in 35% of scenarios. In the 5% of scenarios rated as appropriate with agreement for cement augmentation, high pain scores, acute duration, and simple fracture pattern were always present. Surgery was appropriate in 35% of scenarios and strongly influenced by instability and stenosis with neurological findings. Surgery was rarely appropriate in 18%, and uncertain or disagreement in 47% of scenarios. CONCLUSIONS:Multidisciplinary appropriate treatment criteria for osteoporotic vertebral fractures were generated based on the RAND methodology. This document provides comprehensive evidence-based recommendations for evaluation and treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures. The document in its entirety will be found on the NASS website (https://www.spine.org/Research-Clinical-Care/Quality-Improvement/Appropriate-Use-Criteria).

The authors would like to make the following two corrections: Reference 138 incorrectly cited a protocol report rather than the full report that was reviewed by the authors. The original reference (138: Ebadi S, Ansari NN, Henschke N, Naghdi S, Tulder MW. The effect of continuous ultrasound on chronic low back pain: protocol of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011; 12: 59) should be replaced with 138: Ebadi S, Ansari NN, Naghdi S, et al. The effect of continuous ultrasound on chronic non-specific low back pain: a single blind placebo-controlled randomized trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:192. 10.1186/1471-2474-13-192. This citation error had no impact on the authors' evaluation of the full report. Additionally, the recommendation, "In patients with chronic low back pain, ultrasound is not recommended to improve functional outcomes [137,138]. Grade of Recommendation: A" should be corrected to, "It is suggested that ultrasound does not improve functional outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain [137,138]. Grade of Recommendation: B" due to the levels of evidence of the supporting references. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused. Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back painThe Spine JournalVol. 20Issue 7PreviewThe North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain features evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for nonspecific low back pain as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2016. Full-Text PDF

Background contextThe North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain features evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for nonspecific low back pain as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2016.PURPOSEThe purpose of the guideline is to provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists when making clinical decisions for adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. This article provides a brief summary of the evidence-based guideline recommendations for diagnosing and treating patients with this condition.Study designThis is a guideline summary review.MethodsThis guideline is the product of the Low Back Pain Work Group of NASS’ Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The methods used to develop this guideline are detailed in the complete guideline and technical report available on the NASS website. In brief, a multidisciplinary work group of spine care specialists convened to identify clinical questions to address in the guideline. The literature search strategy was developed in consultation with medical librarians. Upon completion of the systematic literature search, evidence relevant to the clinical questions posed in the guideline was reviewed. Work group members utilized NASS evidentiary table templates to summarize study conclusions, identify study strengths and weaknesses, and assign levels of evidence. Work group members participated in webcasts and in-person recommendation meetings to update and formulate evidence-based recommendations and incorporate expert opinion when necessary. The draft guideline was submitted to an internal and external peer review process and ultimately approved by the NASS Board of Directors.ResultsEighty-two clinical questions were addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded according to the levels of evidence of the supporting literature.ConclusionsThe evidence-based clinical guideline has been created using techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, literature search parameters, literature attrition flowchart, suggestions for future research, and all of the references, is available electronically on the NASS website at https://www.spine.org/ResearchClinicalCare/QualityImprovement/ClinicalGuidelines.aspx

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis features evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The guideline updates the 2008 guideline on this topic and is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for symptomatic degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of May 2013. The NASS guideline on this topic is the only guideline on degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis included in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC).PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists when making clinical decisions for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. This article provides a brief summary of the evidence-based guideline recommendations for diagnosing and treating patients with this condition.STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of clinical studies relevant to degenerative spondylolisthesis was carried out.METHODS: This NASS spondyolisthesis guideline is the product of the Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Work Group of NASS' Evidence-Based Guideline Development Committee. The methods used to develop this guideline are detailed in the complete guideline and technical report available on the NASS website. In brief, a multidisciplinary work group of spine care specialists convened to identify clinical questions to address in the guideline. The literature search strategy was developed in consultation with medical librarians. Upon completion of the systematic literature search, evidence relevant to the clinical questions posed in the guideline was reviewed. Work group members used the NASS evidentiary table templates to summarize study conclusions, identify study strengths and weaknesses, and assign levels of evidence. Work group members participated in webcasts and in-person recommendation meetings to update and formulate evidence-based recommendations and incorporate expert opinion when necessary. The draft guidelines were submitted to an internal peer review process and ultimately approved by the NASS Board of Directors. Upon publication, the Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis guideline was accepted into the NGC and will be updated approximately every 5 years.RESULTS: Twenty-seven clinical questions were addressed in this guideline update, including 15 clinical questions from the original guideline and 12 new clinical questions. The respective recommendations were graded by strength of the supporting literature, which was stratified by levels of evidence. Twenty-one new or updated recommendations or consensus statements were issued and 13 recommendations or consensus statements were maintained from the original guideline.CONCLUSIONS: The clinical guideline was created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the care of patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, literature search parameters, literature attrition flow chart, suggestions for future research, and all of the references, is available electronically on the NASS website at https://www.spine.org/Pages/ResearchClinicalCare/QualityImprovement/ClinicalGuidelines.aspx and will remain updated on a timely schedule. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background context The objective of the North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation with Radiculopathy is to provide evidence-based recommendations to address key clinical questions surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of July 2011. The goals of the guideline recommendations are to assist in delivering optimum efficacious treatment and functional recovery from this spinal disorder. Purpose To provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists in the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy. Study design Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline. Methods This guideline is a product of the Lumbar Disc Herniation with Radiculopathy Work Group of NASS' Evidence-Based Guideline Development Committee. The work group consisted of multidisciplinary spine care specialists trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific search protocol was performed on English-language references found in Medline, Embase (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional evidence-based databases to identify articles. The relevant literature was then independently rated using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final recommendations to answer each clinical question were developed via work group discussion, and grades were assigned to the recommendations using standardized grades of recommendation. In the absence of Level I to IV evidence, work group consensus statements have been developed using a modified nominal group technique, and these statements are clearly identified as such in the guideline. Results Twenty-nine clinical questions were formulated and addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded by strength of the supporting literature, which was stratified by levels of evidence. Conclusions The clinical guideline has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the care of patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all the references, is available electronically on the NASS Web site at http://www.spine.org/Pages/PracticePolicy/ClinicalCare/ClinicalGuidlines/Default.aspx and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy from Degenerative Disorders provides evidence-based recommendations on key clinical questions concerning the diagnosis and treatment of cervical radiculopathy from degenerative disorders. The guideline addresses these questions based on the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of May 2009. The guideline's recommendations assist the practitioner in delivering optimum efficacious treatment of and functional recovery from this common disorder.PURPOSE: Provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine care providers in improving quality and efficiency of care delivered to patients with cervical radiculopathy from degenerative disorders.STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline.METHODS: This report is from the Cervical Radiculopathy from Degenerative Disorders Work Group of the NASS' Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The work group consisted of multidisciplinary spine care specialists trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. Each member of the group formatted a series of clinical questions to be addressed by the group. The final questions agreed on by the group are the subjects of this report. A literature search addressing each question using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional evidence-based databases. The relevant literature was then independently rated by a minimum of three reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final recommendations to answer each clinical question were arrived at via work group discussion, and grades were assigned to the recommendations using standardized grades of recommendation. In the absence of Levels I to IV evidence, work group consensus statements have been developed using a modified nominal group technique, and these statements are clearly identified as such in the guideline.RESULTS: Eighteen clinical questions were formulated, addressing issues of natural history, diagnosis, and treatment of cervical radiculopathy from degenerative disorders. The answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature, which was stratified by levels of evidence.CONCLUSIONS: A clinical guideline for cervical radiculopathy from degenerative disorders has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid both practitioners and patients involved with the care of this condition. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references, is available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT:The objective of the North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline on antithrombotic therapies in spine surgery was to provide evidence-based recommendations to address key clinical questions surrounding the use of antithrombotic therapies in spine surgery. The guideline is intended to address these questions based on the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2008. The goal of the guideline recommendations was to assist in delivering optimum, efficacious treatment with the goal of preventing thromboembolic events.PURPOSE:To provide an evidence-based, educational tool to assist spine surgeons in minimizing the risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE).STUDY DESIGN:Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline.METHODS:This report is from the Antithrombotic Therapies Work Group of the NASS Evidence-Based Guideline Development Committee. The work group was composed of multidisciplinary spine care specialists, all of whom were trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. Each member of the group was involved in formatting a series of clinical questions to be addressed by the group. The final questions agreed on by the group are the subject of this report. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional, evidence-based databases. The relevant literature was then independently rated by at least three reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final grades of recommendation for the answers to each clinical question were arrived at via Web casts among members of the work group using standardized grades of recommendation. When Level I to IV evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation to answer a specific clinical question, expert consensus was arrived at by the work group through the modified nominal group technique and is clearly identified as such in the guideline.RESULTS:Fourteen clinical questions were formulated, addressing issues of incidence of DVT and PE in spine surgery and recommendations regarding utilization of mechanical prophylaxis and chemoprophylaxis in spine surgery. The answers to these 14 clinical questions are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature that was stratified by levels of evidence.CONCLUSIONS:A clinical guideline addressing the use of antithrombotic therapies in spine surgery has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and using the best available evidence as a tool to assist spine surgeons in minimizing the risk of DVT and PE. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references, is available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.

Background context The objective of the North American Spine Society (NASS) evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) is to provide evidence-based recommendations to address key clinical questions surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of DLSS. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for symptomatic DLSS as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of April 2006. The goals of the guideline recommendations are to assist in delivering optimum, efficacious treatment, and functional recovery from this spinal disorder. Purpose To provide an evidence-based tool that assists practitioners in improving the quality and efficiency of care delivered to patients with DLSS. Study design/setting Evidence-based clinical guideline. Methods This report is from the Spinal Stenosis Work Group of the NASS Clinical Guidelines Committee. The work group comprised medical, diagnostic, interventional, and surgical spinal care specialists, all of whom were trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. In the development of this guideline, the work group arrived at a consensus definition of a working diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis by use of a modification of the nominal group technique. Each member of the group formatted a series of clinical questions to be addressed by the group and the final list of questions agreed on by the group is the subject of this report. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific literature search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional, evidence-based, databases. The relevant literature to answer each clinical question was then independently rated by at least two reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Any discrepancies in evidence levels among the initial raters were resolved by at least two additional members' review of the reference and independent rating. Final grades of recommendation for the answer to each clinical question were arrived at in face-to-face meetings among members of the work group using the NASS-adopted standardized grades of recommendation. When Levels I to IV evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation to answer a specific clinical question, expert consensus was arrived at by the work group through the modified nominal group technique and is clearly identified as such in the guideline. Results Eighteen clinical questions were asked, addressing issues of prognosis, diagnosis, and treatment of DLSS. The answers to these 18 clinical questions are summarized in this document along with their respective levels of evidence and grades of recommendation in support of these answers. Conclusions A clinical guideline for DLSS has been created using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and using the best available evidence as a tool to aid both practitioners and patients involved with the care of this disease. The entire guideline document including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references is available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule.