Talk:Back pain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Neurology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Neurology task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Removed spinal injections from qustionable therapy section[edit]

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)

Cochrane reference[edit]

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)

Domain name lands here[edit]

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...

Very helpful article[edit]

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)

Original remarks[edit]

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

This is a very lame article and not much good and inaccurate too Dokane 18:40, 19 October 2004


Removal of links[edit]

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)

Someone deleted two external links that I added to this page on April 19 . I want to say that I found them as very interesting resources. The first one talks about the back pain risk scale and shows people what to do to prevent it. The second one leads to a page with some very useful exercises. I think that practicing a correct exercises routine people with back pain can find a very helpful way to relieve it. If someone wants to remove my content again I would love to be asked before because I consider top quality the content added on this page and my intention is to keep people well informed about this illness.

--Chirostudent 19 May 2006 21:39 (UTC)

I still don't understand why someone keeps removing the links that I post here, I am not spamming, I am not trying to vandalize this topic on Wikipedia, I really want the sites that I posted online, my interest is to bring people the best help they can get and it the link to the back pain exercises was removed again. Please discuss it with me before to remove it again. Thanks Chirostudent 22:08, 13 October 2006


Tension Myositis Syndrome[edit]

--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.

You should sign your talk posts with four tildes as stated in the wikipedia rules, but thanks also for the new reference on Dr. Sarno. And, the number of physicians subscribing to Dr. Sarno's approach is steadily increasing, frequently because he has cured their own back pain, as with Dr. Marc Sopher, Dr. Scott Brady, Dr. David Schechter, or Dr. Andrea Leonard-Segal among others. His latest book, The Divided Mind: The Epidemic of Mindbody Disorders, 2006, [1] includes chapters by six other physicians. Ralphyde 09:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

To remove all references to the pioneering and highly successful work of Dr. Sarno and his followers from a discussion of back pain would be like removing all references to Freud in a discussion of psychology. Dr. Sarno, who is still seeing patients at age 83, has perhaps the best record for relieving back pain of any medical practioner in the world, having totally healed tens of thousands of patients in person and through his four books on the subject. He believes that 90% of back pain is stress related tension myositis syndrome and has a 90% cure rate for those who accept this diagnosis. [2] He continues as a Professor of Clinical Rehabilitation Medicine at the New York University School of Medicine and attending physician at their Howard A. Rusk Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine. He's been a practicing physician since 1950, and developed his successful techniques through long experience with thousands of chronic back pain sufferers for whom conventional medical approaches weren't working. I suggest that doubters read some of the hundreds of reviews of his pioneering books at Amazon.com, [3] and watch the 20/20 segment [4] about his work. Back pain sufferers need to know of this highly successful alternative to surgery and drugs. Ralphyde 17:43, 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)

Listen, Ghostoroy, it's not considered good Wikiquette to just remove a cited paragraph without discussion, and you have done that three times now in one day. Why are you so intent on removing all references to Dr. Sarno? What is your interest in 'back pain' if I may ask?
I believe that a person going to a reference like Wikipedia to find out about back pain, is in all likelihood a person suffering from back pain, and some back pain can be extremely painful and debilitating. Shouldn't that person be able to find out the alternative treatments that work, especially those with the best results? Dr. Sarno's long experience working with back pain patients has given him an especially successful treatment which people need to know about so they can end their suffering before they resort to surgery, which is much less successful, and frequently leads to "failed back syndrome," where the pain continues after the surgery because a TMS diagnosis wasn't considered.
The medical-industrial complex, which focuses on surgery and drugs and has a $50 billion business going, hasn't been enthusiastic about adopting Dr. Sarno's approach because they have been taught since Descartes' bargain with the Pope to treat the body as a machine and look for physical causes for physical symptoms. The ones who have finally adopted Dr. Sarno's very successful approach have been for the most part those he has actually cured of their own chronic back pain with his mindbody treatment. These include Dr. Marc Sopher, Dr. David Schechter, Dr. Scott Brady, and Dr. Andrea Leonard-Segal among others. Have you checked out those references I gave you above? Please continue the discussion if you like rather than deleting cited material. Ralphyde 04:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of some text[edit]

I removed some text from this article:

  1. "Stairs are also a contributing factor because small muscles at the knee are overworked by the stereotyped repetitive motion. (As opposed to going up or down a real hill involves much more varied muscle movements). Note that it is now never recommended that anyone walk or run down stairs for exercise, ever, only up! "Paradoxical movements" in which muscles lower weights can be very effective exercise because they work the muscles harder, but this means that going down stairs is simply too much strain on a few isolated muscles, and an invitation to athletic injury. (We'd all be healthier, and have better backs, if the escalators in subway systems took us down, and let us walk up the stairs. Fewer tumbles would result, too, as paradoxical motion is less easily controlled.)" - this was removed as it was about the knees and stairs, not about the back.
  2. Description of how Johnston-Ruyer Back Therapy is done - There is another entry for this therapy and there is no need to explain it in this article. If someone wants to know more about it, they can click the wikilink and get tons more info than the description here gave.

Epolk June 28, 2005 23:43 (UTC)

changed entire page[edit]

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.

Start with this one: Backache from Occiput to Coccyx, GL Burke, MD. It was published in 1964, but has very detailed (for the time) research based on autopsies and surgery. It also includes an excellent summary of historical information on back pain and treatments for back pain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santamoly (talkcontribs) 07:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
A book that's almost fifty years old is too old for most uses in this article. I remove it as a reference for surgery effectiveness, since the source is missing the last 50 years of research. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's not "too old" since it's the theoretical source of all modern surgical approaches. There is very little that is as complete as this pioneering work, and it's still being referred to in modern medical texts. It's quoted in "Suspensionthérapie et pouliethérapie - Guide pratique" by Suramps Medical Press 2011, for example, which is how I came across it. Let's put it back since I wouldn't want to think that you were condemning it without knowing anything about it. Santamoly (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Here is the sentence where the reference was being used: "This is one of the most popular types of back surgeries and which also has a high rate of success." This sentence has nothing to do with theory or history. This is about frequency of use and effectiveness. A book that's almost fifty years old inappropriate for those subjects. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Since the book describes the early research and results of modern methods in back surgery, the reference is still valid - even if as mere medical history. It's not easy to find a reference that describes this surgical procedure so clearly. It's even available on-line and it's still referred to in medical schools. I can see that this is not your area of expertise, so there's room for discussion on restoring the reference. Your opinion is noted, but it's still insufficient reason for removing useful information that improves the article. If you have medical credentials, please let us know so that we can have an informed discussion. Otherwise, since the reference is useful, please let it stand. Santamoly (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
In a Wikipedia article, the purpose of references is to verify the content of the article. Period. It is not the purpose of a reference to provide historical context, to describe more detailed information or to show what sources are used in medical schools. A book that's almost fifty years old inappropriate for verifying Wikipedia article content about frequency of use and effectiveness. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The original date of the book is irrelevant if the science is up-to-date and verifiable. This is not mere "historical context". The reference describes diagnostic and surgical procedures, reported & verified in dozens of international scientific journals. It doesn't help anyone if you insist on applying your own personal views on this topic. If you can find any other reference that describes the subject in this detail, please bring it forward. I admit that my personal copy is an original collector's edition, but there's an updated Kindle edition available from Amazon if you're on a budget. The basic principles haven't changed a bit since the first edition. Santamoly (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

The section is titled "Surgery" and the sentence is about the effectiveness of the surgical procedure. Are you saying it's not about surgery? As for the study you mention, the Burke book describes and predicts the long-term results of the modern surgical procedures. The study you mention simply verifies the the Burke procedures are correct. The Burke book also describes surgical procedures that DON'T work. I haven't found any other detailed, illustrated, documentation of the modern surgical procedures than this book. Perhaps you might have better luck. Santamoly (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Since you continuing to argue that the Brooke book should be used on a sentence about the effectiveness of discectomy, take a look at the evidence assessment section of Wikipedia's guideline on medical sources. Tell me where Brooke's evidence falls on Wikipedia's scale of high-quality to low-quality medical evidence. For example, is "predicting long-term results" considered high or low quality evidence? Does Wikipedia value prediction or verification of effectiveness? Also, take a look at that guideline's section named "Use up-to-date evidence". Look at the emphasis on using recent sources for medical research.
It doesn't help that you continue to apply your personal opinion about the importance of detailed sources. Where is this opinion supported in Wikipedia policy? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


Publication date for Backache from Occiput to Coccyx[edit]

Santamoly changed the publication date for Backache from Occiput to Coccyx from 1964 to "1964, 2012". Apparently, this was because of the recently released 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)

You've got me there! Kindle wasn't invented in 1964, so I can't explain why Amazon would state that the Kindle version was released in 1964. AFAICT, the Kindle version is slightly updated, with some new illustrations, etc. So there's two versions. Accordingly, using either date would not be entirely correct. What do you suggest as a correct description? Santamoly (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC) (with apologies - I didn't notice that I wasn't logged in)
Wikipedia policy is clear here. When you compare two sources (in this case, the paper and Kindle versions) to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by either, that is called a synthesis of sources and the conclusion should not be part of article content. Unless there is a reliable source saying that this Kindle book has a publication date of 2012, the article should not say 2012. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Help me out here, Schreib: I'm being overwhelmed by the complexity of this issue. What is being synthesised in your opinion? Are you referring to the publication date, or something else? What conclusion alluded to here is "not explicitly stated by either" version? Thanks. Santamoly (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am referring to the publication date as being synthesized. In order to claim a date of 2012, you need a reliable source which says the date is 2012. Otherwise, the publication date needs to match what Amazon says. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this helps: the website for the book (macdonaldpublishing.com) says the original was first published in 1964, the web edition in 2008, and the Kindle edition in 2012. Santamoly (talk) 06:43, 11 July 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)

How about I leave this in your hands? The Kindle link you provided for the Kindle edition says "Publication date: January 1, 2008". I've run out of ideas. Santamoly (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, since Amazon has changed the publication year to 2008, I'll update the article to use that date. I'll get back to the other issues in the above section soon. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

Can we add this link under extarnal links? This site is FREE (Non commercial) and managed by health professionals. Hope this link will be useful for everyone. Manjubalaw 19:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Added back link to spine-health.com - this site is referenced in the text of the article (#2), but has hundreds of pages of articles on the topic, which cannot be included on this page, but should be linked to for people who want to read more about a topic, such as degenerative discs or herniated discs. This is in accordance with the Wiki rule about "what should be linked to". It is a credible site with more information on it than any other site I hvae found.

The treatments on this page need links to supporting evidence[edit]

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)

Good point. -- Fyslee 23:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits done to the treatment section:[edit]

  • there were no references
  • treatments without supporting empiric evidence were presented indistinguishably from useful treatments.

So...

  • I added many references, especially using the {{Cochrane Collaboration]].
  • I divided the non-surgical treatments into two sections, treatments with and those without supporting evidence.

Persisting problems:

  • I do not like surgery being in its own section apart from the dichotomy above.
  • there are some text I would like to remove because there is no supporting evidence cited and is an opinion only. However, I have not removed these.
  • The section still does not read well.

Badgettrg 08:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work! -- Fyslee 10:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Back pain and low back pain[edit]

Seems the articles Back pain and low back pain need to be merged? Badgettrg 09:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems both titles should remain, but as most of the back pain article concerns low back pain, that content should be moved to low back pain.Badgettrg 13:54, 20 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)

Disagree. The articles should not be merged. In fact, as there is an article for both Upper Back Pain and Low Back Pain, alll we need is an article for Cervical Back Pain and make this a disambiguation page!
PS. "Lumbago" already exists, it is redirected to "Low Back Pain". TinyMark 19:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong DON'T MERGE! Perhaps there are other kinds of back pain besides what each of the three specific categories encompasses (cervical, lower, upper); i.e., perhaps some conditions transcend all 3 categories, and would be best included under a general article for all back pain, instead of assuming that all Wiki users have the medical knowledge to know where to look, or where to go to quickly find it. ---Shanoman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.34.107 (talk) 23:44, 12 November 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)

Back pain and low back pain and lumbar disc herniation[edit]

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)

Is this article an advertisement for Cochrane?[edit]

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)

I do not think you should not delete Cochrane links; that would be censoring and would not make sense. Whereas if you want to add alternative sources, that would be great - especially if they disagree.Badgettrg
I don't understand the objection to Cochrane - it's got a PMID number, suggesting it's not vanity or professional press. Is Cochrane not a scientific journal? WLU 19:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Cochrane is a system of meta-analysis that is widely considered as the 'last word' on issues. They take all published literature and appraise and collate it. That's probably why there's so much reference to it. Tarek (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Article could use a section on suggestions for immediate response to back injuries[edit]

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)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Could be integrated as non-proscriptive chunk of info, or if refs could be found, how each step acts to reduce the injury. WLU 19:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


Should there be a section for "Famous Suffers" (of Chronic Back Pain)?[edit]

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)

It would need sources as per WP:BIO, but in addition, it's not particularly encyclopedic unless it impacted their lives significantly or illustrates a point on the page. WLU 06:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing something here.[edit]

"Medications, such as muscle relaxants,[15] narcotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs/NSAIAs)[16] or paracetamol (acetaminophen)."

This sentence no verb. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Context ok but fix. WLU (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Acupressure[edit]

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.

--Ronz (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Block-quoted to make it a bit more separate and tracked down some better referencing. The second seems to support accupressure being better than physical therapy, but is it physical therapy, or 'Chinese' physical therapy? Also, 'is' more effective is pretty strong for two studies, one of which doesn't have an abstract. And what's with the Tibetan thing? There's also some replies I can't seem to access. I agree with the OR comment (lacking further information) WLU (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Also note that based on this, I believe the full Frost article, accupressure is actually quite unsupported by the medical orthodoxy. WLU (talk) 01:01, 28 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)

Alternative therapies are discussed in the article, but they are not divided out in a separate section. As far as the sources you have provided, please see Wikipedia's guideline on medical sources. Patient testamonials are a form of anectodotal evidence and are generally not considered reliable sources. The source you have provided for accupuncture is OK, but the Cochrane review already in the article is more up-to-date. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

milk and backpain?[edit]

Does anyone know of any study linking milk consumption with back pain? Or milk allergies? Lakinekaki (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Differentials[edit]

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)

Yes, go for it.DoctorDW (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Grammar cleanup[edit]

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)

Sourcing is in rough shape[edit]

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)

Online VAS[edit]

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)

In order to have eVAS added to the back pain article, you would need to provide a reliable medical source which discusses the use of this tool for back pain. www.stopache.us is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Bringing the article to publish-worthy[edit]

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)

That's great news. I'd have no problem with you doing a complete rewrite, starting from scratch, if that will improve the overall structure and distribution of weight. But any way you want to address it is fine by me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
And me, even if I am disabled and a lot of time in bed rather than at my bedsiide Pc, I would be happpy to jump in as well. Nevertheless, the distribution of weight and the global structure appears very good, perhaps the only thing that may need to get addressed is some of the new methods of treatment adding latest data on their notability and verifiability of effects as well.
This includes TENS, vibration, magnetic field - both stationary and alternating including high energy pulses. The chronic pain and acute may need more disambiguation for the therapy and causes are considerably differennt. Anyway, I share Tarek's view that Open Medicine per Wikipedia on back pain which is a civilization disease on the increase as we are on-line and some kind of keyboard and screen device bond and partially imobilized is a subject worth our time: the only thing I DO NOT agree is the time - 2 months for such a vast and economically important topic does not seem enough. --Capekm (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Yep. My comment was not a reflection on the existing scope of the article. I could only assess that by looking carefully at a half a dozen textbooks, to see what the experts generally consider relevant. And I think 2 months could be a pretty relaxed pace, depending on how many hours/day you have.
Tarek, if there's anything I can do let me know. I have access to most medical journals to the present, and most textbooks prior to 2006 (the library I use doesn't offer access to ebooks). If you want to farm out drone work, like "find a WP:MEDRS-compliant source supporting x" or similar, don't hesitate to ask. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC):
Hello all. Thank you for all of the supportive comments. Certainly I'm not thinking of a complete rewrite - the information here is already quite good. Just tightening up the material, adding more supportive references, and expanding to make it usable for a medical professional in clinical practice (as well as of course everybody else). I think 2 months sounds reasonable in my world, if a bit ambitious. Obviously the article has to pass rigorous peer review, so no sense submitting if it's not ready. But why not aim for that?
I should have more time to work on this in the next few weeks, and hopefully will make a good dent into the whole thing. Would it be beneficial to share a Zotero group on some references? Tarek (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I've never used Zotero or anything like it, but will be playing with it soon now that you've pointed it out. I'll let you know how I'm getting on with it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Theories of back pain[edit]

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[5].

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)

Hello, thanks for discussing this on the article Talk page. What you're describing isn't the kind of "verifiability" Wikipedia requires. Wikipedia requires cites to published reliable sources that others can verify. Please read WP:MEDRS for a discussion of the kinds of sources we are looking for to support medical information on Wikipedia. Thanks... Zad68 12:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming edit[edit]

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)