Decompression - Yeah right

Image by planetc1 via Flickr

Marketplace, a Canadian Broadcasting Corp (CBC) investigative TV show did a piece on decompression for low back pain.  This news item might get a lot of people angry.  I figure those who get mad will mostly be those who own and market the "decompression" machines.  Some of my chiropractic colleagues might get mad because they might believe that the chiropractic profession is put in a bad light but really I don't think so.  There was no inference that the problem with decompression machines is a chiropractic problem, the news piece just looked at one chiropractor's offices.  In fact they note that the College of Chiropractors of Ontario (the regulatory board for chiropractors in ONT) after being notified by Marketplace, will be investigating the chiropractor in the news piece regarding his advertisements.

So what are these non-surgical decompression machines?  Well they are just low back traction devices that cost a lot of money, thus require lots of patients to make the expenditure worth the money for the doctor.  Big bills means big advertising.  It is not uncommon for one to see very large advertisements in local newspapers.  These ads often have lots of claims of great success rates.  There are also claims that these are NASA technology.  Well those claims don't hold water as Marketplace found.  In fact the Oregon Attorney General's office has ruled that neither of these claims are valid and can't be used in Oregon.  I guess it's too bad if you live elsewhere.  I live in Connecticut and regularly see these ads in my local paper.

The real problem here is that people suffering with back pain are vulnerable to believing the advertisements because they are desperate to get relief.  The ads make it sound so good.  Go to the office, get an exam (may be just a wallet exam) and then get relief from this device with NASA technology and an 86% success rate.  Seems too good to be true, and of course it is.

Are there people with low back pain for whom traction is helpful?  The answer is yes but it shouldn't take thousands of dollars and months of care.  Research (1, 2) is starting to identify those people for whom traction is the best option but a definitive answer hasn't bee found yet.

So what is a poor suffering person to do?  Well one needs to find the doctor who isn't quick ordering any treatment or isn't really a one trick pony.  That means one that doesn't do traction on everyone.  Or doesn't do spinal manipulation on every patient.  Or doesn't schedule surgery - first thing. Or doesn't say exercise is a must for everyone.  Really treatment needs to be individualized to the patient.  One method for doing that is to use what my colleague Dr. Donald Murphy of the Rhode Island Spine Center has published as the diagnosis-based clinical decision rule.(3, 4)  There is more research that needs to be conducted on this method but I think it's the best model for how to manage the patient with spinal pain and determine the appropriate treatment.

SMP

1.    Fritz JM, Lindsay W, Matheson JW, Brennan GP, Hunter SJ, Moffit SD, et al. Is there a subgroup of patients with low back pain likely to benefit from mechanical traction? Results of a randomized clinical trial and subgrouping analysis. Spine. 2007 Dec 15;32(26):E793-800.
2.    Raney NH, Petersen EJ, Smith TA, Cowan JE, Rendeiro DG, Deyle GD, et al. Development of a clinical prediction rule to identify patients with neck pain likely to benefit from cervical traction and exercise. Eur Spine J. 2009 Mar;18(3):382-91.
3.    Murphy DR, Hurwitz EL. A theoretical model for the development of a diagnosis-based clinical decision rule for the management of patients with spinal pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:75.
4.    Murphy DR, Hurwitz EL, Nelson CF. A diagnosis-based clinical decision rule for spinal pain part 2: review of the literature. Chiropr Osteopat. 2008;16:7.

What does it take to put an ugly fact through the heart of a beautiful hypothesis?

NPR yesterday did a piece on treating fractured vertebra and so did the NYTimes This is hot news because two papers appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine that compared vertebroplasty to placebo and found them comparable.

The great problem is that the treatment is perceived by both doctors and patients as effective. This treatment provides opportunity for discussion about a huge problem for health care reform. When common knowledge suggests a treatment is effective but the data show, in a compelling way, that the treatment (which has risks and financial costs) is no better than placebo should insurance pay for the treatment?

The fear of some is that because a treatment does not appear to be clinically effective "big brother" will say, "we won't pay." I understand the fear that some all powerful insurance company will get to decide what is and is not effective. But is this bad, per se? I do not think so. Both doctors and patients have for years mistakenly believed that various treatments that aren't effective actually are. I've blogged on this before, see Treatments That Don't Work.

I recently read a great paper whose title I love: What does it take to put an ugly fact through the heart of a beautiful hypothesis? (1) The title is from a quote by Thomas Huxley who lamented "The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." The point in this article is that our modern history of health care is full of beautiful hypotheses, that some treatment is effective, slayed by a ugly fact, research showing the treatment to be ineffective. The problem is that although the hypothesis, that the treatment is effective is dead, the belief in the effectiveness of the treatment isn't dead. Both doctors and patients alike have resurrected these treatments that ugly facts have slayed like the zombies in the classic Night of the Living Dead.

Another quote from Haynes (1) paper from Max Planck, renowned physicist

‘‘A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.’’

However, it seems that while opponents of the new scientific truth die they unfortunately are capable of infecting a new generation that because of truthiness will accept these slain hypotheses.

Truthiness, is defined by Merriam-Webster as:

Truth that comes from the gut, not books
The quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true.

For more on truthiness and the danger it poses for patients see my article in Dynamic Chiropractic, The Dangers of Truthiness

As Prof. Dov Cooperman of the University of Maryland wrote in a letter to the editor of Newsweek: "...our society is more than happy to accept spin and cant because we have come to believe that all expertise is bias, that all knowledge is opinion, that every judgment is relative. I see this daily in my university classroom. Many of even my best students seem to have lost the ability to think critically about the world. They do not believe in the transformative power of knowledge because they do not believe in knowledge itself"

Unfortunately I see it everyday in my classroom and hear it from many of my professional colleagues too.

My final quote from Haynes (1): Samuel Johnson, the 18th century poet and critic

‘‘The chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken.’’

The habits that are so problematic are a lack of critical thinking skills and reliance upon the "wisdom" of others (i.e. dogma), unsystematic and uncontrolled observation, and just truthiness.

For more information on critical thinking I recommend the Foundation for Critical Thinking.

SMP

1. Haynes RB, Haynes GA. What does it take to put an ugly fact through the heart of a beautiful hypothesis? Evid Based Med. 2009 Jun;14(3):68-9. Pubmed link

Ultracrepidarian Doctors and Back Pain

An ultracrepidarian is a person who professes expertise the they do not posses. This is an epithet not often used but I am fond of and have used in presentations and my ethics column. Some might say that fondness is because it should be applied to me. Nevertheless, I like it because I find so many experts who pontificate on that which they know so little. Think of my earlier blog entry about Katz.

There is a classic paper that sort of tested the prevalence of this disorder amongst very smart college students. The title says it all, "Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments". (The link goes to free full text)

A new study, published in today's Spine by Buchbinder et al could be called ultracrepidarian doctors and back pain. The paper, "Doctors With a Special Interest in Back Pain Have Poorer Knowledge About How to Treat Back Pain" details a study that surveyed general practitioners about their interest and knowledge regarding how to treat back pain. The results are counter-intuitive because those with the greatest interest in treating back pain had the poorest knowledge of the current best evidence of how to treat it. Thus, they were ultracrepidarians.

It was almost comical but the doctors with a special interest in back pain thought that guidelines are very helpful in determining how to treat patients with back pain, yet they choose treatments, such as bed rest, that are clearly bad for patients. Bed rest in particular has been known to be harmful for a long time.

This paper is very similar to one published quite a while ago also showing that doctors choose treatments that are ineffective and avoid ones that are effective such as spinal manipulation.

Buchbinder and colleagues previously published studies that showed that public education reduces disability from workers compensation type claims. Sometimes the public is teachable and their doctors aren't. I wish I could give patients hope that the doctor they go to really is up-to-date but clearly if the doctor says they are does not mean that they actually are.

SMP