Talk:Back pain

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed spinal injections from qustionable therapy section

message: 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)
thread_title: Cochrane reference

message: www.joebartel.com leads here. fireryone 118.208.38.102 (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Domain name lands here

message: 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)
thread_title: Very helpful article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Publication date for Backache from Occiput to Coccyx 

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

text: Good work! -- Fyslee 10:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The treatments on this page need links to supporting evidence 

message: * 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)
replies: text: Good work! -- Fyslee 10:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits done to the treatment section:

message: 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)
thread_title: Back pain and low back pain and lumbar disc herniation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article could use a section on suggestions for immediate response to back injuries

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Should there be a section for "Famous Suffers" (of Chronic Back Pain)? 

message: "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)
replies: text: Context ok but fix.  WLU (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing something here. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Acupressure

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, go for it.DoctorDW (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differentials 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Grammar cleanup 

message: 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 , , , . LeadSongDog come howl! 18:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing is in rough shape 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Online VAS 

message: 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.
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Theories of back pain 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Surely by this logic upper back pain should have its own article?Stub Mandrel (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Upper back pain would be either neck pain or middle back pain. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Upcoming edit

message: 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)
thread_title: Contradictory sentence

message: 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)
thread_title:  Work Plan 

message: 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)
thread_title: Imaging

message: 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)
thread_title:  1100 page textbook; no pages cited 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiMed Project Medical Student Edits