For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
103
views
34
references
 Top references
cited by
20
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      100
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A survey among Korea Medicine doctors (KMDs) in Korea on patterns of integrative Korean Medicine practice for lumbar intervertebral disc displacement: Preliminary research for clinical practice guidelines

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Patients seek Korean Medicine (KM) treatment for a broad range of complaints in Korea, but predominantly for musculoskeletal disorders. We investigated lumbar Intervertebral Disc Displacement (IDD) practice patterns of Korean Medicine doctors (KMDs) within a hospital/clinic network specializing in KM treatment of spinal disorders through survey of diagnosis and treatment methods.

          Methods

          Questionnaires on clinical practice patterns of KM treatment for lumbar IDD were distributed to 149 KMDs on January 25th, 2015. The questionnaire included items on sociodemographic characteristics, clinical practice patterns, and preferred method of lumbar IDD diagnosis and treatment. KMDs were asked to grade each treatment method for absolute and relative importance in treatment and prognosis, and safety.

          Results

          A total 79.19 % KMDs ( n = 118/149) completed the survey, and results showed that integrative care mainly consisting of acupuncture, herbal medicine, Chuna manipulation, and pharmacopuncture was administered to IDD patients. The participant KMDs largely relied on radiological findings (MRI and X-ray) for diagnosis. ‘Eight principle pattern identification’, ‘Qi and Blood syndrome differentiation’ and ‘Meridian system syndrome differentiation’ theories were generally used for KM syndrome differentiation. The most frequently prescribed herbal medication was Chungpa-jun, and most commonly used Chuna technique was ‘sidelying lumbar extension displacement treatment’. IDD patients received 1.9 ± 0.3 treatment sessions/week, and KMDs estimated that an average 9.6 ± 3.5 weeks were needed for 80 % pain relief.

          Conclusions

          This is the first study to investigate expert opinion on KM treatment of IDD. Further randomized controlled trials and clinical guidelines based on clinical practice patterns of KM are called for.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12906-015-0956-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy.

          Jeffrey T Summers, C K Taleghani, R. Patel … (2013)
          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. To provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists in the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy. Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline. 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. 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. 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. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
          Article 0 comments Cited 175 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Low back pain and best practice care: A survey of general practice physicians.

            Christopher M. Williams (2010)
            Acute low back pain (LBP) is primarily managed in general practice. We aimed to describe the usual care provided by general practitioners (GPs) and to compare this with recommendations of best practice in international evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute LBP. Care provided in 3533 patient visits to GPs for a new episode of LBP was mapped to key recommendations in treatment guidelines. The proportion of patient encounters in which care arranged by a GP aligned with these key recommendations was determined for the period 2005 through 2008 and separately for the period before the release of the local guideline in 2004 (2001-2004). Although guidelines discourage the use of imaging, over one-quarter of patients were referred for imaging. Guidelines recommend that initial care should focus on advice and simple analgesics, yet only 20.5% and 17.7% of patients received these treatments, respectively. Instead, the analgesics provided were typically nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (37.4%) and opioids (19.6%). This pattern of care was the same in the periods before and after the release of the local guideline. The usual care provided by GPs for LBP does not match the care endorsed in international evidence-based guidelines and may not provide the best outcomes for patients. This situation has not improved over time. The unendorsed care may contribute to the high costs of managing LBP, and some aspects of the care provided carry a higher risk of adverse effects.
            Article 0 comments Cited 87 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Epidemiology of low back pain.

              L Manchikanti (2000)
              Low back pain is a symptom that cannot be validated by an external standard. It is a disorder with many possible etiologies, occurring in many groups of the population, and with many definitions. Low back pain is a common problem, with a prevalence in the United States ranging from 8% to 56%. It is estimated that 28% experience disabling low back pain sometime during their lives, 14% experience episodes lasting at least 2 weeks, 8% of the entire working population will be disabled in any given year, and the lifetime prevalence of low back pain is 65% to 80%. It is believed that most episodes of low back pain will be short-lived and that 80% to 90% of attacks of low back pain resolve in about 6 weeks, irrespective of the administration or type of treatment. However, multiple studies in the late 90s showed recurrent or chronic low back pain, evaluated at 3 months, 6 months, or 12 months, ranging from 35% to 79%. Risk factors of low back pain are multifactorial, with many possible etiologies. Multiple risk factors of low back pain and lower-extremity pain include physical factors, social demographic characteristics, habits, and psychosocial factors. This review will discuss the epidemiology of low back pain, with emphasis on frequency, causes, and consequences of low back pain; the influence of age, gender, morphologic characteristics, and genetics; and the influence of occupational, mechanical, social, habitual, and psychological factors.
              Article 0 comments Cited 56 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Ye-sle Shin: yesle.emilie.shin@gmail.com
                Joon-Shik Shin: Jasengmaster@gmail.com
                Jinho Lee: jasengjsr@gmail.com
                Yoon Jae Lee: goodsmile8119@gmail.com
                Me-riong Kim: krmkmr@naver.com
                Yong-jun Ahn: ahnyj322@gmail.com
                Ki Byung Park: kbpark@jaseng.co.kr
                Byung-Cheul Shin: drshinbc@pusan.ac.kr
                Myeong Soo Lee: drmslee@gmail.com
                Joo-Hee Kim: jhkim714v@gmail.com
                Jae-Heung Cho: vetkong95@hanmail.net
                In-Hyuk Ha: +82 2 3218 2188 , hanihata@gmail.com
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Complement Altern Med
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Complement Altern Med
                Title: BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
                Publisher: BioMed Central (London )
                ISSN (Electronic): 1472-6882
                Publication date (Electronic): 7 December 2015
                Publication date PMC-release: 7 December 2015
                Publication date Collection: 2015
                Volume: 15
                Electronic Location Identifier: 432
                Affiliations
                [ ]Jaseng Spine and Joint Research Institute, Jaseng Medical Foundation, 858 Eonju-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul Republic of Korea
                [ ]Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Korean Medicine, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Republic of Korea
                [ ]Medical Research Division, Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
                [ ]Department of Korean Rehabilitation Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
                Article
                Publisher ID: 956
                DOI: 10.1186/s12906-015-0956-1
                PMC ID: 4672541
                PubMed ID: 26643853
                SO-VID: e77cb86f-0511-4cc1-876a-1755d2fa229e
                Copyright © © Shin et al. 2015
                License:

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                Date received : 30 June 2015
                Date accepted : 3 December 2015
                Categories
                Subject: Research Article
                Custom metadata
                issue-copyright-statement © The Author(s) 2015

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Complementary & Alternative medicine
                Keywords: intervertebral disc displacement,health surveys,complementary therapies,integrative medicine
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Complementary & Alternative medicine
                Keywords: intervertebral disc displacement, health surveys, complementary therapies, integrative medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content100

                See all similar

                Cited by20

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors502

                See all reference authors