This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Back pain.
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ACBurnette. Peer reviewers: Amole90.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chandlerblack.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The referenced article stated that multiple RCT's show no decrease in the rate of surgery, not that there was no pain relief. The pain relief is temporary and that is the reason epidurals are best discussed under temporary/short term therapy no therapy of questionable value —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.117.53 ( talk) 05:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The Cochrane reference given regarding spinal injections states "there is no strong evidence for or against the use of any type of injection therapy for individuals with subacute or chronic low-back pain." That is very different from what is conveyed in the article where it states that there is no benefits. There is simply not enough evidence from RCT to determine if this is valuable. I am going to change the wording to reflect the actual remarks of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.117.53 ( talk) 05:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
www.joebartel.com leads here. fireryone 118.208.38.102 ( talk) 16:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC) I was randomly trying friends names as domain names and this one lead here...
This article is extremely helpful and I was wondering if it is linked to the original Pain article. 68.3.214.66 ( talk) 07:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This reads like an ad for Johnston-Ruyer Back Therapy, which gets a lot of prominence here, and is linked every time. 213.253.40.2316 13:59, December 2002
I have added two external links with information about back excersices and back risk scales,people with back pain could find it very useful. -- Chirostudent 19 April 2006 9:55 (UTC)
-- Chirostudent 19 May 2006 21:39 (UTC)
--Changed Dr. Sarno text-- My understanding is that Dr. Sarno's beliefs and approach to treatment are not widely practiced or supported in the medical community, so I changed the text that represented those as statements of fact and referenced and article that presents an alternative view in the debate.
I believe that this article is clearer without specific reference to the qualifications of Dr. Sarno--a reference to his theory is sufficient. The establishment of Dr. Sarno's theories by peer-reviewed citation might justify their inclusion to what is intended to be the most general treatment of the subject. Ghostoroy 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The efficacy of Dr. Sarno's methods has not been established to the degree that Dr. Freud's has in psychology, nor is Dr. Sarno's name presently a "household name" with which the study of back pain will always be associated. His theory may deserve inclusion in this article--it survives my edit--but the listing of Dr. Sarno's qualifications upsets its balance: these topics can be treated in the linked article on the theory itself. Further, the passage in question belongs in the "causes" section and not in the introductory material. Changes concerning Dr. Sarno have been reverted several times in the history of this article, is compromise possible? Ghostoroy 20:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It's been 13 years now since the last conversation on John Sarno and TMS happened here. A lot of developments have happened since then and John Sarno's TMS diagnosis is becoming popular now. Sarno HAS become a house-hold name now, e.g. in 2017 book "Crooked", which covers back pain in detail says this about Sarno: "Every time I told anyone I was writing about back pain, I learned to expect questions about whether I knew Sarno’s work. Almost everyone had run into someone who had been cured by Sarno, often after years of discomfort. I was happy to be able to inform his many admirers that, yes, I had actually spoken with the rock star of the back world." Besides this, in 2012, Sarno was finally given recognition by the US Senate hearing on Health. Capachow ( talk) 02:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I removed some text from this article:
Epolk June 28, 2005 23:43 (UTC)
I am relatively new to wikipedia and so I hope I have not made too many mistakes, but I found myself compelled to change this page because it lacked vital information about back pain (such as underlying conditions that cause it and a range of typical treatment alternatives) and presented incorrect information (such as routine advice to use inversion therapy for back pain, which has not been proven in the medical literature to have beneficial results), and was poorly structured - more of a treatise to a specific belief about how to treat back pain than a balanced overview of back pain.
I have not had time to put all revelant information in and to find all the right references but will try to do that later. I hope this draft is a useful one that now can be continually edited by all to be a more useful resource.
Wikipedia's policy of verifiability (which I also linked above) states that "Sources must support the material clearly and directly." This means that the reference must verify the content. Providing additional detail is not an appropriate use of a reference if the reference doesn't do a good job of verifying the sentence where the reference is placed, unless you have a quotation of Wikipedia policy to back up your personal opinions of how references should be used on Wikipedia.
A source that is nearly 50 years old is not an appropriate way to verify the effectiveness of discectomy. A source that old would not be able to take into account the research done in the last 50 years, such as this study. I also do not accept the argument that the Kindle version is updated. See the subsection below. If you like the Burke book for its description of surgical procedure, then why are you placing the reference on a sentence about effectiveness rather than surgical procedure? -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 05:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Santamoly changed the publication date for Backache from Occiput to Coccyx from 1964 to "1964, 2012". Apparently, this was because of the recently released [http://www.amazon.com/Backache-From-Occiput-Coccyx-ebook/dp/B0089IR70G Kindle version of the book]. The problem is that Amazon states that the publication year of the Kindle version is 1964. Is there a reliable source which says that the date on Amazon is wrong? If not, the 1964 date must be used for the Kindle version. -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 05:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I assume you are referring to the main page of that website. That page lists a date of 2012 for the Kindle edition, but it doesn't say what type of date it is. Books can have more than one date, such as publication date, copyright date, distribution date and date of manufacture. Per WP:CITEHOW, it is the Wikipedia standard to use a book's publication date. So far, the Amazon page I linked above is the only reliable source to state a date which is explicitly called a publication date. -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 04:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of unsupported recommendations on this page. I added the references to TENS, which are not favorable. Eventually, the treatments should be divided into those with underlying evidence that supports their benefit versus those with underlying evidence that show lack of benefit. Badgettrg 19:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
So...
Persisting problems:
Badgettrg 08:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems the articles Back pain and low back pain need to be merged? Badgettrg 09:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
What about upper back pain and lumbago? Ralphyde 19:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not. They're not a direct relationship to each other. Lower back pain is always back pain, but back pain isn't always lower back pain. I, myself, have a thoracic back problem which has nothing to do with the lumbar vertebrae. Tommyinla 03:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
To be honest the merge suggestion was a good maybe signal or flag raised and we missed out on reacting to it accordingly.
Conside that the main stream notion and understanding of the back pain was is and will stay the low back pain. There is a terminology isssue at the level of a less common medical aspect based on where the pain is ANATOMICALLY versus the deeply rooted common sense meaning - well for maybe several thousands years deeper on the timeline (we do not need to get things written to recorded to think of meaning of something, but we must use word to communicate this to others!) than the former one (i e medical anatomically systematical, purely scientific).
Nevermind, for the sake of having our Wikipedia as clean and instructive as possible if possible (please keep clear off trying to cut this sentece shorter thank you very much indeed) we may want so start a completely self-standing article or entry in Wikipedia featuring low or lower or arch back pain, no matter whether this appear out of the systematic approach of medicine.
Let us treasure life itself being the supreme quide for this decision, and having a clear and direct connection to the word group i e expression 'low back pain', rather than having it sterilely (in a sterile way may be a better English - please get advise to an eternal English student in Prague) filtered as a medical term concentrating on the beauty and clarity of the system of Ars Medica for itself rather than for normal life & practice and for users of Wikipedia.
To cut it short, this is a shining exaple where we have spotted that a particular science has got out of touch with usual understaning of some common term or group of words via an ongoing uncontrolled over-sophistication gradually loosing touch with reality and basic requirement of language siplicity and clarity (both) here specifically with the mainstream notion of an extremely important word combination i e:
LOW BACK PAIN (synonyms are cited above, please commplette the list, I am not a native English speaker).
We have detected this discrepancy and what has happened? So far little, and we make Wikipedia quality suffer.-- Capekm ( talk) 03:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Two very important articles came out today in the New England Journal of Medicine about surgery for back pain. However, it is impossible to easily add this to WikiPedia - should the content go in low back pain, back pain, lumbago, or under lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis? Consequently, I aggregated the surgical content from low back pain and back pain and placed in the appropriate specific disease such as lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis. Now surgical information only needs to go in under the disease that is being treated.
Hope this is ok, feel free to revert if not, but better would be if you can find a better way to organize these sections. Badgettrg 15:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not an expert in this field but I'm pretty sure that some people or organizations are doing research on back pain besides the good people at Cochrane. If so, why is (almost?) every reference for this group? I believe it weakens the article to have such a lack of diverse links. Can someone help by replacing some/most of the Cochrane links with studies from elsewhere? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I believe this article would benefit if there was a section describing what people could/should do when first suffering a back injury. Should people lie down? Take a bath? Immediately rush to the hospital (and if so, under what conditions)? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Other chronic ailments pages on wikipedia often have a list of famous sufferers. I think I recall John F Kennedy had chronic back pain problems for all of his life (this is mentioned a bit on the wikipedia page, and can be found via google searches). Also, I believe that Shah Rukh Khan also suffers from constant back pain. -- 85.92.161.25 20:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
"Medications, such as muscle relaxants,[15] narcotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs/NSAIAs)[16] or paracetamol (acetaminophen)."
I removed the following here for discussion. It appears slightly promotional, and I suspect a conflict of interest given the editors other contribution. The sources certainly don't verify the information, nor can they be used as reliable sources for such information. There seems to be considerable original research/synthesis here, as well as a lack of balance:
* Acupressure is more effective in reducing lower back pain than standard physical therapies. The effects of the therapy which involves applying pressure on points stimulated by acupuncture. Acupressure devices such as Tibetan Applicator are effective alone or used in combination with Chinese physical therapies and with techniques that teach the muscles to regain the original shape they had before injury.
- Frost H, Stewart-Brown S (2006). "Acupressure for low back pain". BMJ. 332 (7543): 680–1. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7543.680. PMID 16565098.
- Hsieh LL, Kuo CH, Lee LH, Yen AM, Chien KL, Chen TH (2006). "Treatment of low back pain by acupressure and physical therapy: randomised controlled trial". BMJ. 332 (7543): 696–700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38744.672616.AE. PMID 16488895.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)
-- Ronz ( talk) 18:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Given there is an Osteopath/Acupuncturist... on every High Street, a section clearly labelled “Alternatives” I think needs to be entered : It has becoming quite standard for GP’s to refer patients to some of these practionaries. Patient testimonional’s from new techniques like Theraflex look very promising : “I was in back pain for four years and one go of Theraflex and the pain is all gone … etc” so a small A to Z list or even table of Alternatives would be good :
Name | Back Pain Relevance | Research | Patient Testimonials | Criticisms |
---|---|---|---|---|
Acupuncture | Claims to be Symptom Reliever | Links Available here | htt:/// | htt:/// |
Theraflex | Claims to be Cause Remover | Patient Testimonials | TBA | |
Z... | Example | Example | Example | Example |
A lot of these alternatives have research that is being done and when available the links can be updated in the table. DamienMea ( talk) 10:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any study linking milk consumption with back pain? Or milk allergies? Lakinekaki ( talk) 22:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it worth listing a few important differential causes of back pain somewhere in the article? Though they're not from 'back' pathology, I would have thought it'd be worth mentioning things like pancreatitis and aortic aneurysms which can cause back pain and should be ruled out because they're potentially fatal. McPat ( talk) 03:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I cleaned up a few grammatical problem sin the clinical trials section. I am somewhat iffy though of the section. Scirocco6 ( talk) 09:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC) test —Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.207.107.6 ( talk) 15:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
This article needs some serious attention to sourcing per wp:MEDRS. There are recent high quality systematic reviews available from Clin Evid and the Cochrane Back Group, such as PMID 19445792, PMID 21418678, PMID 16437495, PMID 17909210. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a simple on-line interactive pain/back pain VAS measurement tool - eVAS(Pain_0-10)
This on-line tool is based on the extensive investigative experimental work by Dr
Frederik Funke supervised by Dr
Reips
Maybe adding it somewhere to the article one day could be helpful - balancing this kind of articles is agonizingly hard for there are uncountably many promotional interests - sorry for diverting from the topic. Anyway the above data are verifiable and have some notability, let alone practical meaning for the readers, many of whom may be patients in pain, wishing to know how to simple measure it using a subjective yet accepted method.
--
Capekm (
talk) 16:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello all,
I am hoping to start major work on this article to try to get it to publishable status in Open Medicine per Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaborative_publication. Hopefully that work should get done in the coming 2 months or so! If others would like to jump in, obviously feel free! Tarek ( talk) 02:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I am new here. I made an addition to the article but it was removed. Reason “Need proper ref”. In my opinion the source is suitable for wikipedia criteria because the source provides enough details to replicate and verify the claims. Any reader can follow a method described and verify the claim and make his/her own conclusions. So it is verifiable. Which I did. Before I make more changes I will put it in the Talk section for other readers/editors to discuss it.
The addition: Breathing techniques can be used to create intra abdominal pressure and increase the separation of vertebrae between the diaphragm and pelvic floor. Back pain relief, in this case, is achieved by the separation of the vertebrae[http://www.amazon.com/YAWN-YOUR-BACK-PAIN-ebook/dp/B009NBE04O/ref=sr_1_9?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1367581035&sr=1-9&keywords=back+pain].
Also, I suggest the article can be improved by adding a “theories of back pain" section. For example Dr Sarno’s work can be included there. His thinking is distinctive enough and there is enough logic and reasoning to his conclusions. Even if not everybody agrees. Perhaps my entry also belongs there. Claims of Dr Sarno are very difficult to test in an objective way. The article can not verify the claims but it can inform that a theory exists. That is more accurate and informative to the reader. 119.12.163.250 ( talk) 12:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
12:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Hello all! My colleagues and I have identified several recent reviews with which to update this page. In particular, we intend to give this article a stronger emphasis on upper back pain, as lower back pain is comprehensively covered in its own article. We wish to preserve as much of the existing content as possible; our goal is to improve the clarity of the information by working on its structure. Our work should be complete in the next two months, and we welcome collaborators! Lazorach ( talk) 19:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The following sentence appears to be two separate ones (about causes and methods of getting relief) that have been run together to create a singe contradictory one:
″The avoidance of high impact, weight-bearing activities and especially those that asymmetrically load the involved structures such as: extensive twisting with lifting, single-leg stance postures, stair climbing, and repetitive motions at or near the end-ranges of back or hip motion can ease the pain.″
Presumably the sentence should be divided, but where? Stub Mandrel ( talk) 14:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I will be contributing to this article over the next month or so. I plan to focus on the Causes and Management sections. The Classification/ Associated Conditions/ Causes sections all contain overlapping information, so I would like to rework these sections to make them more clear and defined. In the Causes section, I will break down the causes of back pain by etiology. I also want to add information about the emergent symptoms of back pain. For the Management section, I plan to research the current treatment guidelines, and organize this information into more clearly-defined sections. I also think adding an Epidemiology/Statistics section would also be beneficial, as well as expanding the Risk Factors section.-- ACBurnette ( talk) 20:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why the Xray, CT and MRI? Expecially when the MRI and Xray are normal?
Also why does "Computed Tomography" have capital letters to it? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
ACBurnette in a fall 2017 class added good information to this article but they cited a large textbook and did not list pages. I know the Wikipedia interface makes this difficult but regardless the article as a problem.
The edit was 14 December 2017 and it added Wall and Melzack's textbook of pain. Currently this wiki article cites this book 9 times including to state clinical recommendations.
It would be hard to match these citations with page numbers. In the future it is best to address this ASAP - editors need to add page numbers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I am a 4th year medical student working on this page for my WikiMedicine project. I am entering the field of neurology and believe back pain is a highly relevant page for many individuals. My goal is to make this page easier to follow, provide reliable sources, and link the page to other relevant Wikipedia pages. The topic of back pain is rather nebulous so I would like to make focused changes targeting at improving a layman's general understanding of how clinicians categorize, diagnosis, and treat back pain.
Plan:
1. Classification: Categorization could be further refined beyond acute and subacute. I believe the location description could be added to this section.
2. Causes: I would like to organize this section between central nervous system causes (compression/injury to spinal cord), peripheral nervous system causes (muscle strain, scoliosis, etc), and referred pain. I would like to update the statistics for this section based on more recent reviews.
3. Diagnosis: Symptoms by location should be added to this section. For this section, a diagnostic tree would be a helpful graphic. Guidelines for when to pursue imaging would be helpful for readers.
4. Prevention: Modifiable risk factors could be mentioned in this section. Evidence can be updated.
5. Management: Guidelines for management should be added. Management should be divided up by etiology and timeframe (chronic/acute).
6. Add prognosis section.
This is a tentative plan but I am up for suggestions! Dw616612 ( talk) 03:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review:
I feel like everything in the article is very relevant and unbiased. I feel the organization changes were helpful and contributed greatly to the overall effect of the article. Although this is a very broad topic, I feel each area was adequately represented and discussed. The article is well supported by relevant sources. My only suggests are related to some typos and grammar points as well as a couple sentences needing updated citations. I am copying these below - hope it's helpful!
Tumors of the verteba, (please correct spelling) neural tissues and adjacent structures can also manifest as back pain.
Symptoms unilateral or bilateral and correlate to the region of the spine affected. – correct grammar
Cauda equina syndrome refers to severe compression of the cauda equina and presents initially with pain followed by motor and sensory. – motor and sensory what- involvement? Symptoms? – needs an additional word
Unlike other causes of back pain which common (ly?) affect the lumbar spine, the thoracic spine is most commonly affected.
Unlike other causes of back pain, neoplasm-associated back pain is constant, dull, poorly localized, and worst (worse) with rest. to the inflammatory distruction of the bony components of the spine.
Only a minority of people with back pain (most estimates are 1% - 10%) require surgery.[citation needed]
However, one study found that exercise is effective for chronic back pain, but not for acute pain.[citation needed] I
However, one study found that exercise is effective for chronic back pain, but not for acute pain.[citation needed] I
Amccarthy13 ( talk) 01:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Back pain.
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ACBurnette. Peer reviewers: Amole90.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chandlerblack.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The referenced article stated that multiple RCT's show no decrease in the rate of surgery, not that there was no pain relief. The pain relief is temporary and that is the reason epidurals are best discussed under temporary/short term therapy no therapy of questionable value —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.117.53 ( talk) 05:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The Cochrane reference given regarding spinal injections states "there is no strong evidence for or against the use of any type of injection therapy for individuals with subacute or chronic low-back pain." That is very different from what is conveyed in the article where it states that there is no benefits. There is simply not enough evidence from RCT to determine if this is valuable. I am going to change the wording to reflect the actual remarks of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.117.53 ( talk) 05:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
www.joebartel.com leads here. fireryone 118.208.38.102 ( talk) 16:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC) I was randomly trying friends names as domain names and this one lead here...
This article is extremely helpful and I was wondering if it is linked to the original Pain article. 68.3.214.66 ( talk) 07:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This reads like an ad for Johnston-Ruyer Back Therapy, which gets a lot of prominence here, and is linked every time. 213.253.40.2316 13:59, December 2002
I have added two external links with information about back excersices and back risk scales,people with back pain could find it very useful. -- Chirostudent 19 April 2006 9:55 (UTC)
-- Chirostudent 19 May 2006 21:39 (UTC)
--Changed Dr. Sarno text-- My understanding is that Dr. Sarno's beliefs and approach to treatment are not widely practiced or supported in the medical community, so I changed the text that represented those as statements of fact and referenced and article that presents an alternative view in the debate.
I believe that this article is clearer without specific reference to the qualifications of Dr. Sarno--a reference to his theory is sufficient. The establishment of Dr. Sarno's theories by peer-reviewed citation might justify their inclusion to what is intended to be the most general treatment of the subject. Ghostoroy 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The efficacy of Dr. Sarno's methods has not been established to the degree that Dr. Freud's has in psychology, nor is Dr. Sarno's name presently a "household name" with which the study of back pain will always be associated. His theory may deserve inclusion in this article--it survives my edit--but the listing of Dr. Sarno's qualifications upsets its balance: these topics can be treated in the linked article on the theory itself. Further, the passage in question belongs in the "causes" section and not in the introductory material. Changes concerning Dr. Sarno have been reverted several times in the history of this article, is compromise possible? Ghostoroy 20:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It's been 13 years now since the last conversation on John Sarno and TMS happened here. A lot of developments have happened since then and John Sarno's TMS diagnosis is becoming popular now. Sarno HAS become a house-hold name now, e.g. in 2017 book "Crooked", which covers back pain in detail says this about Sarno: "Every time I told anyone I was writing about back pain, I learned to expect questions about whether I knew Sarno’s work. Almost everyone had run into someone who had been cured by Sarno, often after years of discomfort. I was happy to be able to inform his many admirers that, yes, I had actually spoken with the rock star of the back world." Besides this, in 2012, Sarno was finally given recognition by the US Senate hearing on Health. Capachow ( talk) 02:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I removed some text from this article:
Epolk June 28, 2005 23:43 (UTC)
I am relatively new to wikipedia and so I hope I have not made too many mistakes, but I found myself compelled to change this page because it lacked vital information about back pain (such as underlying conditions that cause it and a range of typical treatment alternatives) and presented incorrect information (such as routine advice to use inversion therapy for back pain, which has not been proven in the medical literature to have beneficial results), and was poorly structured - more of a treatise to a specific belief about how to treat back pain than a balanced overview of back pain.
I have not had time to put all revelant information in and to find all the right references but will try to do that later. I hope this draft is a useful one that now can be continually edited by all to be a more useful resource.
Wikipedia's policy of verifiability (which I also linked above) states that "Sources must support the material clearly and directly." This means that the reference must verify the content. Providing additional detail is not an appropriate use of a reference if the reference doesn't do a good job of verifying the sentence where the reference is placed, unless you have a quotation of Wikipedia policy to back up your personal opinions of how references should be used on Wikipedia.
A source that is nearly 50 years old is not an appropriate way to verify the effectiveness of discectomy. A source that old would not be able to take into account the research done in the last 50 years, such as this study. I also do not accept the argument that the Kindle version is updated. See the subsection below. If you like the Burke book for its description of surgical procedure, then why are you placing the reference on a sentence about effectiveness rather than surgical procedure? -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 05:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Santamoly changed the publication date for Backache from Occiput to Coccyx from 1964 to "1964, 2012". Apparently, this was because of the recently released [http://www.amazon.com/Backache-From-Occiput-Coccyx-ebook/dp/B0089IR70G Kindle version of the book]. The problem is that Amazon states that the publication year of the Kindle version is 1964. Is there a reliable source which says that the date on Amazon is wrong? If not, the 1964 date must be used for the Kindle version. -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 05:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I assume you are referring to the main page of that website. That page lists a date of 2012 for the Kindle edition, but it doesn't say what type of date it is. Books can have more than one date, such as publication date, copyright date, distribution date and date of manufacture. Per WP:CITEHOW, it is the Wikipedia standard to use a book's publication date. So far, the Amazon page I linked above is the only reliable source to state a date which is explicitly called a publication date. -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 04:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of unsupported recommendations on this page. I added the references to TENS, which are not favorable. Eventually, the treatments should be divided into those with underlying evidence that supports their benefit versus those with underlying evidence that show lack of benefit. Badgettrg 19:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
So...
Persisting problems:
Badgettrg 08:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems the articles Back pain and low back pain need to be merged? Badgettrg 09:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
What about upper back pain and lumbago? Ralphyde 19:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not. They're not a direct relationship to each other. Lower back pain is always back pain, but back pain isn't always lower back pain. I, myself, have a thoracic back problem which has nothing to do with the lumbar vertebrae. Tommyinla 03:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
To be honest the merge suggestion was a good maybe signal or flag raised and we missed out on reacting to it accordingly.
Conside that the main stream notion and understanding of the back pain was is and will stay the low back pain. There is a terminology isssue at the level of a less common medical aspect based on where the pain is ANATOMICALLY versus the deeply rooted common sense meaning - well for maybe several thousands years deeper on the timeline (we do not need to get things written to recorded to think of meaning of something, but we must use word to communicate this to others!) than the former one (i e medical anatomically systematical, purely scientific).
Nevermind, for the sake of having our Wikipedia as clean and instructive as possible if possible (please keep clear off trying to cut this sentece shorter thank you very much indeed) we may want so start a completely self-standing article or entry in Wikipedia featuring low or lower or arch back pain, no matter whether this appear out of the systematic approach of medicine.
Let us treasure life itself being the supreme quide for this decision, and having a clear and direct connection to the word group i e expression 'low back pain', rather than having it sterilely (in a sterile way may be a better English - please get advise to an eternal English student in Prague) filtered as a medical term concentrating on the beauty and clarity of the system of Ars Medica for itself rather than for normal life & practice and for users of Wikipedia.
To cut it short, this is a shining exaple where we have spotted that a particular science has got out of touch with usual understaning of some common term or group of words via an ongoing uncontrolled over-sophistication gradually loosing touch with reality and basic requirement of language siplicity and clarity (both) here specifically with the mainstream notion of an extremely important word combination i e:
LOW BACK PAIN (synonyms are cited above, please commplette the list, I am not a native English speaker).
We have detected this discrepancy and what has happened? So far little, and we make Wikipedia quality suffer.-- Capekm ( talk) 03:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Two very important articles came out today in the New England Journal of Medicine about surgery for back pain. However, it is impossible to easily add this to WikiPedia - should the content go in low back pain, back pain, lumbago, or under lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis? Consequently, I aggregated the surgical content from low back pain and back pain and placed in the appropriate specific disease such as lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis. Now surgical information only needs to go in under the disease that is being treated.
Hope this is ok, feel free to revert if not, but better would be if you can find a better way to organize these sections. Badgettrg 15:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not an expert in this field but I'm pretty sure that some people or organizations are doing research on back pain besides the good people at Cochrane. If so, why is (almost?) every reference for this group? I believe it weakens the article to have such a lack of diverse links. Can someone help by replacing some/most of the Cochrane links with studies from elsewhere? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I believe this article would benefit if there was a section describing what people could/should do when first suffering a back injury. Should people lie down? Take a bath? Immediately rush to the hospital (and if so, under what conditions)? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Other chronic ailments pages on wikipedia often have a list of famous sufferers. I think I recall John F Kennedy had chronic back pain problems for all of his life (this is mentioned a bit on the wikipedia page, and can be found via google searches). Also, I believe that Shah Rukh Khan also suffers from constant back pain. -- 85.92.161.25 20:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
"Medications, such as muscle relaxants,[15] narcotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs/NSAIAs)[16] or paracetamol (acetaminophen)."
I removed the following here for discussion. It appears slightly promotional, and I suspect a conflict of interest given the editors other contribution. The sources certainly don't verify the information, nor can they be used as reliable sources for such information. There seems to be considerable original research/synthesis here, as well as a lack of balance:
* Acupressure is more effective in reducing lower back pain than standard physical therapies. The effects of the therapy which involves applying pressure on points stimulated by acupuncture. Acupressure devices such as Tibetan Applicator are effective alone or used in combination with Chinese physical therapies and with techniques that teach the muscles to regain the original shape they had before injury.
- Frost H, Stewart-Brown S (2006). "Acupressure for low back pain". BMJ. 332 (7543): 680–1. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7543.680. PMID 16565098.
- Hsieh LL, Kuo CH, Lee LH, Yen AM, Chien KL, Chen TH (2006). "Treatment of low back pain by acupressure and physical therapy: randomised controlled trial". BMJ. 332 (7543): 696–700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38744.672616.AE. PMID 16488895.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)
-- Ronz ( talk) 18:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Given there is an Osteopath/Acupuncturist... on every High Street, a section clearly labelled “Alternatives” I think needs to be entered : It has becoming quite standard for GP’s to refer patients to some of these practionaries. Patient testimonional’s from new techniques like Theraflex look very promising : “I was in back pain for four years and one go of Theraflex and the pain is all gone … etc” so a small A to Z list or even table of Alternatives would be good :
Name | Back Pain Relevance | Research | Patient Testimonials | Criticisms |
---|---|---|---|---|
Acupuncture | Claims to be Symptom Reliever | Links Available here | htt:/// | htt:/// |
Theraflex | Claims to be Cause Remover | Patient Testimonials | TBA | |
Z... | Example | Example | Example | Example |
A lot of these alternatives have research that is being done and when available the links can be updated in the table. DamienMea ( talk) 10:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any study linking milk consumption with back pain? Or milk allergies? Lakinekaki ( talk) 22:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it worth listing a few important differential causes of back pain somewhere in the article? Though they're not from 'back' pathology, I would have thought it'd be worth mentioning things like pancreatitis and aortic aneurysms which can cause back pain and should be ruled out because they're potentially fatal. McPat ( talk) 03:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I cleaned up a few grammatical problem sin the clinical trials section. I am somewhat iffy though of the section. Scirocco6 ( talk) 09:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC) test —Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.207.107.6 ( talk) 15:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
This article needs some serious attention to sourcing per wp:MEDRS. There are recent high quality systematic reviews available from Clin Evid and the Cochrane Back Group, such as PMID 19445792, PMID 21418678, PMID 16437495, PMID 17909210. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a simple on-line interactive pain/back pain VAS measurement tool - eVAS(Pain_0-10)
This on-line tool is based on the extensive investigative experimental work by Dr
Frederik Funke supervised by Dr
Reips
Maybe adding it somewhere to the article one day could be helpful - balancing this kind of articles is agonizingly hard for there are uncountably many promotional interests - sorry for diverting from the topic. Anyway the above data are verifiable and have some notability, let alone practical meaning for the readers, many of whom may be patients in pain, wishing to know how to simple measure it using a subjective yet accepted method.
--
Capekm (
talk) 16:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello all,
I am hoping to start major work on this article to try to get it to publishable status in Open Medicine per Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaborative_publication. Hopefully that work should get done in the coming 2 months or so! If others would like to jump in, obviously feel free! Tarek ( talk) 02:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I am new here. I made an addition to the article but it was removed. Reason “Need proper ref”. In my opinion the source is suitable for wikipedia criteria because the source provides enough details to replicate and verify the claims. Any reader can follow a method described and verify the claim and make his/her own conclusions. So it is verifiable. Which I did. Before I make more changes I will put it in the Talk section for other readers/editors to discuss it.
The addition: Breathing techniques can be used to create intra abdominal pressure and increase the separation of vertebrae between the diaphragm and pelvic floor. Back pain relief, in this case, is achieved by the separation of the vertebrae[http://www.amazon.com/YAWN-YOUR-BACK-PAIN-ebook/dp/B009NBE04O/ref=sr_1_9?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1367581035&sr=1-9&keywords=back+pain].
Also, I suggest the article can be improved by adding a “theories of back pain" section. For example Dr Sarno’s work can be included there. His thinking is distinctive enough and there is enough logic and reasoning to his conclusions. Even if not everybody agrees. Perhaps my entry also belongs there. Claims of Dr Sarno are very difficult to test in an objective way. The article can not verify the claims but it can inform that a theory exists. That is more accurate and informative to the reader. 119.12.163.250 ( talk) 12:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
12:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Hello all! My colleagues and I have identified several recent reviews with which to update this page. In particular, we intend to give this article a stronger emphasis on upper back pain, as lower back pain is comprehensively covered in its own article. We wish to preserve as much of the existing content as possible; our goal is to improve the clarity of the information by working on its structure. Our work should be complete in the next two months, and we welcome collaborators! Lazorach ( talk) 19:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The following sentence appears to be two separate ones (about causes and methods of getting relief) that have been run together to create a singe contradictory one:
″The avoidance of high impact, weight-bearing activities and especially those that asymmetrically load the involved structures such as: extensive twisting with lifting, single-leg stance postures, stair climbing, and repetitive motions at or near the end-ranges of back or hip motion can ease the pain.″
Presumably the sentence should be divided, but where? Stub Mandrel ( talk) 14:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I will be contributing to this article over the next month or so. I plan to focus on the Causes and Management sections. The Classification/ Associated Conditions/ Causes sections all contain overlapping information, so I would like to rework these sections to make them more clear and defined. In the Causes section, I will break down the causes of back pain by etiology. I also want to add information about the emergent symptoms of back pain. For the Management section, I plan to research the current treatment guidelines, and organize this information into more clearly-defined sections. I also think adding an Epidemiology/Statistics section would also be beneficial, as well as expanding the Risk Factors section.-- ACBurnette ( talk) 20:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why the Xray, CT and MRI? Expecially when the MRI and Xray are normal?
Also why does "Computed Tomography" have capital letters to it? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
ACBurnette in a fall 2017 class added good information to this article but they cited a large textbook and did not list pages. I know the Wikipedia interface makes this difficult but regardless the article as a problem.
The edit was 14 December 2017 and it added Wall and Melzack's textbook of pain. Currently this wiki article cites this book 9 times including to state clinical recommendations.
It would be hard to match these citations with page numbers. In the future it is best to address this ASAP - editors need to add page numbers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I am a 4th year medical student working on this page for my WikiMedicine project. I am entering the field of neurology and believe back pain is a highly relevant page for many individuals. My goal is to make this page easier to follow, provide reliable sources, and link the page to other relevant Wikipedia pages. The topic of back pain is rather nebulous so I would like to make focused changes targeting at improving a layman's general understanding of how clinicians categorize, diagnosis, and treat back pain.
Plan:
1. Classification: Categorization could be further refined beyond acute and subacute. I believe the location description could be added to this section.
2. Causes: I would like to organize this section between central nervous system causes (compression/injury to spinal cord), peripheral nervous system causes (muscle strain, scoliosis, etc), and referred pain. I would like to update the statistics for this section based on more recent reviews.
3. Diagnosis: Symptoms by location should be added to this section. For this section, a diagnostic tree would be a helpful graphic. Guidelines for when to pursue imaging would be helpful for readers.
4. Prevention: Modifiable risk factors could be mentioned in this section. Evidence can be updated.
5. Management: Guidelines for management should be added. Management should be divided up by etiology and timeframe (chronic/acute).
6. Add prognosis section.
This is a tentative plan but I am up for suggestions! Dw616612 ( talk) 03:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review:
I feel like everything in the article is very relevant and unbiased. I feel the organization changes were helpful and contributed greatly to the overall effect of the article. Although this is a very broad topic, I feel each area was adequately represented and discussed. The article is well supported by relevant sources. My only suggests are related to some typos and grammar points as well as a couple sentences needing updated citations. I am copying these below - hope it's helpful!
Tumors of the verteba, (please correct spelling) neural tissues and adjacent structures can also manifest as back pain.
Symptoms unilateral or bilateral and correlate to the region of the spine affected. – correct grammar
Cauda equina syndrome refers to severe compression of the cauda equina and presents initially with pain followed by motor and sensory. – motor and sensory what- involvement? Symptoms? – needs an additional word
Unlike other causes of back pain which common (ly?) affect the lumbar spine, the thoracic spine is most commonly affected.
Unlike other causes of back pain, neoplasm-associated back pain is constant, dull, poorly localized, and worst (worse) with rest. to the inflammatory distruction of the bony components of the spine.
Only a minority of people with back pain (most estimates are 1% - 10%) require surgery.[citation needed]
However, one study found that exercise is effective for chronic back pain, but not for acute pain.[citation needed] I
However, one study found that exercise is effective for chronic back pain, but not for acute pain.[citation needed] I
Amccarthy13 ( talk) 01:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)