Jon D Lurie

Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States

Are you Jon D Lurie?

Claim your profile

Publications (161)813.87 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study design: Analysis of the State Inpatient Database of North Carolina, 2005-2012, and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, including all inpatient lumbar fusion admissions from non-federal hospitals. Objective: To examine the influence of a major commercial policy change that restricted lumbar fusion for certain indications, and to forecast the potential impact if the policy were adopted nationally. Summary of background data: Few studies have examined the effects of recent changes in commercial coverage policies that restrict the use of lumbar fusion. Methods: We included adults undergoing elective lumbar fusion or re-fusion operations in North Carolina. We aggregated data into a monthly time series to report changes in the rates and volume of lumbar fusion operations for disc herniation or degeneration, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, or revision fusions. Time series regression models were used to test for significant changes in the use of fusion operation following a major commercial coverage policy change initiated on January 1st, 2011. Results: There was a substantial decline in the use of lumbar fusion for disc herniation or degeneration following the policy change on January 1st, 2011. Overall rates of elective lumbar fusion operations in North Carolina (per 100,000 residents) increased from 103.2 in 2005 to 120.4 in 2009, before declining to 101.9 by 2012. The population rate (per 100,000 residents) of fusion among those under age 65 increased from 89.5 in 2005 to 101.2 in 2009, followed by a sharp decline to 76.8 by 2012. There was no acceleration in the already increasing rate of fusion for spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis or revision procedures, but there was a coincident increase in decompression without fusion. Conclusions: This commercial insurance policy change had its intended effect of reducing fusion operations for indications with less evidence of effectiveness without changing rates for other indications or resulting in an overall reduction in spine surgery. Nevertheless, broader adoption of the policy could significantly reduce the national rates of fusion operations and associated costs. Level of evidence: 3.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Spine
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study design: Secondary analysis of randomized and non-randomized prospective cohorts. Objective: To examine the effect of patient treatment expectations on treatment outcomes for patients with intervertebral disc herniation. Summary of background data: Patient expectations about treatment effectiveness may have important relationships with clinical outcomes. Methods: Sub-group and re-analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial, a randomized trial and comprehensive cohort study enrolling patients between March 2000 and November 2004 from 13 multidisciplinary spine clinics in 11 US states. Overall 501 randomized and 744 observational patients (1244 total) who were surgical candidates with radiculopathy and imaging confirmed lumbar intervertebral disc herniation were enrolled. The primary study compared surgical discectomy to usual non-operative care; this sub-group analysis reassessed outcomes based on treatment expectations at baseline. Expectations about symptomatic and functional improvement for both surgery and non-operative care were assessed on 5-point scales (1="No Chance (0%)" to 5="Certain (100%)"). Outcomes were assessed using longitudinal regression models analyzed by treatment received. Results: Among 1244 IDH SPORT participants, 1168 provided data on both outcomes and baseline expectations and were included in the current analysis: 467 from the randomized and 701 from the observational cohort. Low expectations of outcomes with surgery predicted poorer outcome regardless of treatment. High expectations of outcomes with non-operative care predicted better non-operative outcomes but did not affect surgical results. These differences were of similar magnitude to the difference in outcomes between surgery and non-operative care. Conclusions: High expectations of treatment benefit had clinically significant positive associations with outcomes. Level of evidence: 2.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Spine
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study design: A retrospective subgroup analysis was performed on surgically treated patients from the lumbar spinal stenosis (SpS) arm of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT), randomized and observational cohorts. Objective: To identify risk factors for reoperation in patients treated surgically for SpS and compare outcomes between patients who underwent reoperation with those that did not. Summary of background data: SpS is one of the most common indications for surgery in the elderly; however, few long-term studies have identified risk factors for reoperation. Methods: A post-hoc subgroup analysis was performed on patients from the SpS arm of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT), randomized and observational cohorts. Baseline characteristics were analyzed between reoperation and no reoperation groups using univariate and multivariate analysis on data eight years post-operation. Results: Of the 417 study patients, 88% underwent decompression only, 5% non-instrumented fusion and 6% instrumented fusion. At the 8 year follow up, the reoperation rate was 18%; 52% of reoperations were for recurrent stenosis or progressive spondylolisthesis, 25% for complication or other reason and 16% for new condition. Of patients who underwent a reoperation, 42% did so within 2 yrs, 70% within 4 years and 84% within 6 years. Patients who underwent reoperation were less likely to have presented with any neurological deficit (43% reop vs. 57% no reop, p = 0.04). Patients improved less at follow-up in the re-operation group (p < 0.001). Conclusion: In patients undergoing surgical treatment for SpS, the reoperation rate at eight year follow-up was 18%. Patients with a reoperation were less likely to have a baseline neurological deficit. Patients who did not undergo reoperation had better patient reported outcomes at eight year follow up compared to those who had repeat surgery. Level of evidence: 2.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · Spine
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) relieves pain and improves physical function in patients with hip osteoarthritis, but requires a year or more for full postoperative recovery. Proponents of intermuscular surgical approaches believe that the direct-anterior approach may restore physical function more quickly than transgluteal approaches, perhaps because of diminished muscle trauma. To evaluate this, we compared patient-reported physical function and other outcome metrics during the first year after surgery between groups of patients who underwent primary THA either through the direct-anterior approach or posterior approach. Questions/purposes: We asked: (1) Is a primary THA using a direct-anterior approach associated with better patient-reported physical function at early postoperative times (1 and 3 months) compared with a THA performed through the posterior approach? (2) Is the direct-anterior approach THA associated with shorter operative times and higher rates of noninstitutional discharge than a posterior approach THA? Methods: Between October 2008 and February 2010, an arthroplasty fellowship-trained surgeon performed 135 THAs. All 135 were performed using the posterior approach. During that period, we used this approach when patients had any moderate to severe degenerative joint disease of the hip attributable to any type of arthritis refractory to nonoperative treatment measures. Of the patients who were treated with this approach, 21 (17%; 23 hips) were lost to followup, whereas 109 (83%; 112 hips) were available for followup at 1 year. Between February and September 2011, the same surgeon performed 86 THAs. All 86 were performed using the direct-anterior approach. During that period, we used this approach when patients with all types of moderate to severe degenerative joint disease had nonoperative treatment measures fail. Of the patients who were treated with this approach, 35 (41%; 35 hips) were lost to followup, whereas 51 (59%; 51 hips) were available for followup at 1 year. THAs during the surgeon's direct-anterior approach learning period (February 2010 through January 2011) were excluded because both approaches were being used selectively depending on patient characteristics. Clinical outcomes included operative blood loss; allogeneic transfusion; adverse events; patient-reported Veterans RAND-12 Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores, and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scores at 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year after surgery. Resource utilization outcomes included operative time, length of stay, and discharge disposition (home versus institution). Outcomes were compared using logistic and linear regression techniques. Results: After controlling for relevant confounding variables including age, sex, and BMI, the direct-anterior approach was associated with worse adjusted MCS changes 1 and 3 months after surgery (1-month score change, -9; 95% CI, -13 to -5; standard error, 2), compared with the posterior approach (3-month score change, -9; 95% CI, -14 to -3; standard error, 3) (both p < 0.001), while the direct-anterior approach was associated with greater PCS improvement at 3 months compared with the posterior approach (score change, 6; 95% CI, 2-10; standard error, 2; p = 0.008). There were no differences in adjusted PCS at either 1 month or 12 months, and no clinically important differences in UCLA scores. Although the PCS score differences are greater than the minimum clinically important difference of 5 points for this endpoint, the clinical importance of such a small effect is questionable. At 1 year after THA, there were no intergroup differences in self-reported physical function, although both groups had significant loss-to-followup at that time. Operative time (skin incision to skin closure) between the two groups did not differ (81 versus 79 minutes; p = 0.411). Mean surgical blood loss (403 versus 293 mL; p < 0.001; adjusted, 119 more mL; 95% CI, 79-160; p < 0.001) and in-hospital transfusion rates (direct-anterior approach, 20% [17/86] versus posterior approach, 10% [14/135], p = 0.050; adjusted odds ratio, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.3-10.1; p = 0.016) were higher in the direct-anterior approach group. With the numbers available, there was no difference in the frequency of adverse events between groups when comparing intraoperative complications, perioperative Technical Expert Panel complications, and other non-Technical Expert Panel complications within 1 year of surgery, although this study was not adequately powered to detect differences in rare adverse events. Conclusions: With suitable experience, the direct-anterior approach can be performed with expected results similar to those of the posterior approach. There may be transient and small benefits to the direct-anterior approach, including improved physical function at 3 months after surgery. However, the greater operative blood loss and greater likelihood of blood transfusions, even when the surgeon is experienced, may be a disadvantage. Given some of the kinds of bias present that we found, including loss to followup, the conclusions we present should be considered preliminary, but it appears that any benefits that accrue to the patients who had the direct-anterior approach would be transient and modest. Prospective randomized studies on the topic are needed to address the differences between surgical approaches more definitively. Level of evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.
    No preview · Article · Nov 2015 · Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To determine risks and predictors of recurrent leg and low back pain (LBP) following unstructured, usual non-operative care for subacute/chronic symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Design: Secondary analysis of data from a concurrent randomized trial and observational cohort study. Setting: 13outpatientspinepractices. Participants- 199 participants with leg pain resolution and 142 participants with LBP resolution, from among 478 participants receiving usual non-operative care for symptomatic LDH. Assessment of risk factors: Potential predictors of recurrence included time to initial symptom resolution, sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, work-related factors, imaging-detected herniation characteristics, and baseline pain bothersomeness. Main outcome measurements: Leg pain and LBP bothersomeness were assessed using a 0 to 6 numerical scale at up to 4 years of follow-up. For individuals with initial resolution of leg pain, we defined recurrent leg pain as having leg pain, receiving lumbar epidural steroid injections, or undergoing lumbar surgery subsequent to initial leg pain resolution. We calculated cumulative risks of recurrence using Kaplan-Meier survival plots, and examined predictors of recurrence using Cox proportional hazards models. We used similar definitions for LBP recurrence. Results: 1- and 3-year cumulative recurrence risks were 23% and 51% for leg pain, and 28% and 70% for LBP, respectively. Early leg pain resolution did not predict future leg pain recurrence. Complete leg pain resolution (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.72]) and posterolateral herniation location (aHR 0.61 [95% CI 0.39-0.97]) predicted a lower risk of leg pain recurrence, and joint problems (aHR 1.89 [95% CI 1.16-3.05]) and smoking (aHR 1.81 [95% CI 1.07-3.05]) predicted a greater risk of leg pain recurrence. For participants with complete initial resolution of pain, recurrence risks at 1- and 3-years were 16% and 41% for leg pain, and 24% and 59% for LBP, respectively. Conclusions: Recurrence of pain is common after unstructured, usual nonsurgical care for LDH. These risk estimates depend on the specific definitions applied, and the predictors identified require replication in future studies.
    No preview · Article · Nov 2015 · PM&R
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Patients who use complementary and integrative health services like chiropractic manipulative treatment (CMT) often have different characteristics than do patients who do not, and these differences can confound attempts to compare outcomes across treatment groups, particularly in observational studies when selection bias may occur. The purposes of this study were to provide an overview on how propensity scoring methods can be used to address selection bias by balancing treatment groups on key variables and to use Medicare data to compare different methods for doing so. Methods: We described 2 propensity score methods (matching and weighting). Then we used Medicare data from 2006 to 2012 on older, multiply comorbid patients who had a chronic low back pain episode to demonstrate the impact of applying methods on the balance of demographics of patients between 2 treatment groups (those who received only CMT and those who received no CMT during their episodes). Results: Before application of propensity score methods, patients who used only CMT had different characteristics from those who did not. Propensity score matching diminished observed differences across the treatment groups at the expense of reduced sample size. However, propensity score weighting achieved balance in patient characteristics between the groups and allowed us to keep the entire sample. Conclusions: Although propensity score matching and weighting have similar effects in terms of balancing covariates, weighting has the advantage of maintaining sample size, preserving external validity, and generalizing more naturally to comparisons of 3 or more treatment groups. Researchers should carefully consider which propensity score method to use, as using different methods can generate different results.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2015 · Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Lumbar discectomy and laminectomy in patients with intervertebral disc herniation (IDH) is common, with variable reported reoperation rates. Our study examined which baseline characteristics might be risk factors for reoperation and compared outcomes between patients who underwent reoperation and those who did not. Methods: We performed a retrospective subgroup analysis of patients from the IDH arm of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. We analyzed baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients who underwent reoperation and those who did not with use of data collected from enrollment through eight-years of follow-up after surgery. Follow-up times were measured from the time of surgery, and baseline covariates were updated to the follow-up immediately preceding the time of surgery for outcomes analyses. Results: At eight years, the reoperation rate was 15% (691 no reoperation; 119 reoperation). Sixty-two percent of these patients underwent reoperation because of a recurrent disc herniation; 25%, because of a complication or other factor; and 11%, because of a new condition. The proportion of reoperations that were performed for a recurrent disc herniation ranged from 58% to 62% in the individual years. Older patients were less likely to have reoperation (p = 0.015), as were patients presenting with asymmetric motor weakness at baseline (p = 0.0003). Smoking, diabetes, obesity, Workers' Compensation, and clinical depression were not associated with a greater risk of reoperation. Scores on the Short Form (SF)-36 for bodily pain and physical functioning, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index as well as satisfaction with symptoms had improved less at the time of follow-up in the reoperation group (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In patients who underwent surgery for IDH, the overall reoperation rate was 15% at the eight-year follow-up. Patients of older age and patients presenting with asymmetric motor weakness were less likely to undergo a reoperation. Less improvement in patient-reported outcomes was noted in the reoperation group. Level of evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2015 · The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

  • No preview · Conference Paper · Aug 2015
  • Source
    Brook I Martin · Jon D Lurie

    Full-text · Article · Apr 2015 · Spine
  • Article: SPORT

    No preview · Article · Mar 2015 · Neurosurgery
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine whether surgery is an effective option for the treatment of stenosis of the lumbar spine and degenerative spondylolisthesis in the octogenarian population. An as-treated analysis of patients with lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis enrolled in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) was performed. Patients who were at least eighty years of age (n = 105) were compared with those younger than eighty years (n = 1130). Baseline patient and clinical characteristics were noted, and the difference in improvement from baseline between operative and nonoperative treatment was determined for each group at each follow-up time period up to four years. There were no significant baseline differences in the primary or secondary patient-reported clinical outcome measures between the two patient age groups. Patients at least eighty years of age had higher prevalences of multilevel stenosis, severe stenosis, and asymmetric motor weakness. Patients at least eighty years of age also had higher prevalences of hypertension, heart disease, osteoporosis, and joint problems at baseline, but they had a lower body mass index and lower prevalences of depression and smoking. Fifty-eight of the 105 patients at least eighty years of age and 749 of the 1130 younger patients underwent operative management. There were no differences in the rates of intraoperative or postoperative complications, reoperation, or postoperative mortality between the older and younger groups. Averaged over a four-year follow-up period, operatively treated patients at least eighty years of age had significantly greater improvement in all primary and secondary outcome measures compared with nonoperatively treated patients. The treatment effects in patients at least eighty years of age were similar to those in younger patients for all primary and secondary measures except the SF-36 (Short Form-36) bodily pain domain and the percentage who self-rated their progress as a major improvement, in both of which the treatment effect was significantly smaller. Operative treatment of lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis offered a significant benefit over nonoperative treatment in patients at least eighty years of age (p < 0.05). There were no significant increases in the complication and mortality rates following surgery in this patient population compared with younger patients (p > 0.05). Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. Copyright © 2015 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.
    Full-text · Article · Feb 2015 · The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Subgroup analysis of the lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) without degenerative spondylolisthesis diagnostic cohort of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial multicenter randomized clinical trial with a concurrent observational cohort. To determine if sedimentation sign on magnetic resonance image can help with LSS treatment decisions. LSS is one of the most common reasons for surgery in the US elderly, but there is a dearth of reliable diagnostic tools that give a clear indication for surgery. Recent studies have suggested that positive sedimentation sign on magnetic resonance image may be a possible prognostic indicator. All patients with LSS in both the randomized and observational cohorts had imaging-confirmed stenosis, were surgical candidates, and had neurogenic claudication for at least 12 weeks prior to enrollment. Patients were categorized as "mild," "moderate," or "severe" according to stenosis severity. Of the 654 patients with LSS enrolled in Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial, complete T2-weighted axial and sagittal digitized images of 115 patients were available for retrospective review. An independent orthopedic spine surgeon evaluated these deidentified Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine files for the sedimentation sign. Sixty-six percent (76/115) of patients were found to have a positive sedimentation sign. Those with a positive sedimentation sign were more likely to have stenosis at L2-L3 (33% vs. 10% P = 0.016) or L3-L4 76% vs. 51%, P = 0.012), and to have severe (72% vs. 33%, P < 0.0001) central stenosis (93% vs. 67% P < 0.001) at 2 or more concurrent levels (57% vs. 18%, P = 0.01). In multivariate models, the surgical treatment effect was significantly larger in the positive sedimentation sign group for Oswestry Disability Index (-16 vs. -7; P = 0.02). A positive sedimentation sign was associated with a small but significantly greater surgical treatment effect for Oswestry Disability Index in patients with symptomatic LSS, after adjusting for other demographic and imaging features. These findings suggest that positive sedimentation sign may potentially be a useful adjunct to help guide an informed treatment choice regarding surgery for LSS. 2.
    Full-text · Article · Feb 2015 · Spine
  • Jon D Lurie

    No preview · Article · Jan 2015 · Spine
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Randomized trial with a concurrent observational cohort study. To compare 8-year outcomes of surgery with nonoperative care for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Surgery for spinal stenosis has been shown to be more effective than nonoperative treatment during 4 years, but longer-term data are less clear. Surgical candidates from 13 centers in 11 US states with at least 12 weeks of symptoms and confirmatory imaging were enrolled in a randomized cohort or observational cohort. Treatment was standard, decompressive laminectomy versus standard nonoperative care. Primary outcomes were SF-36 (MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey) Bodily Pain and Physical Function scales and the modified Oswestry Disability Index assessed at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and yearly up to 8 years. Data were obtained for 55% of participants in the randomized group and 52% of participants in the observational group at the 8-year follow-up. Intent-to-treat analyses showed no differences between randomized cohorts; however, 70% of those randomized to surgery and 52% of those randomized to nonoperative had undergone surgery by 8 years. As-treated analyses in the randomized group showed that the early benefit for surgery out to 4 years converged over time, with no significant treatment effect of surgery seen in years 6 to 8 for any of the primary outcomes. In contrast, the observational group showed a stable advantage for surgery in all outcomes between years 5 and 8. Patients who were lost to follow-up were older, less well-educated, sicker, and had worse outcomes during the first 2 years in both surgical and nonoperative arms. Patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis show diminishing benefits of surgery in as-treated analyses of the randomized group between 4 and 8 years, whereas outcomes in the observational group remained stable. Loss to follow-up of patients with worse early outcomes in both treatment groups could lead to overestimates of long-term outcomes but likely not bias treatment effect estimates. 1.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2015 · Spine
  • J.D. Lurie · T.D. Tosteson · A.N. Tosteson

    No preview · Article · Jan 2015 · Spine
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Use of Bone Morphogenetic Protein (BMP) as an adjunct to spinal fusion surgery proliferated following Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2002. Major safety concerns emerged in 2008. To examine whether published concerns about the safety of BMP altered clinical practice. Analysis of the National Inpatient Sample from 2002 through 2012. Adults (age >20) undergoing an elective fusion operation for common degenerative diagnoses, identified using codes from the International Classification of Diseases, 9(th)revisions, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM). Proportion of cervical and lumbar fusion operations, over time, that involved BMP. We aggregated the data into a monthly time series and reported the proportion of cervical and lumbar fusion operations, over time, that involved BMP. Auto Regressive Integrated Moving Average, a regression model for time series data, was used to test whether there was a statistically significant change in the overall rate of BMP use following a FDA Public Health Notification in 2008. The study was funded by federal research grants, and no investigator had any conflict of interests. Use of BMP in spinal fusion procedures increased rapidly until 2008, involving up to 45.2% of lumbar and 13.5% of cervical fusions. BMP use significantly decreased following the 2008 FDA Public Health Notification and revelations of financial payments to surgeons involved in the pivotal FDA approval trials. For lumbar fusion, the average annual increase was 7.9 percentage points per year from 2002 to 2008, followed by an average annual decrease of 11.7 percentage points thereafter (p = <0.001). Use of BMP in cervical fusion increased 2.0% per year until the FDA Notification, followed by a 2.8% per year decrease (p = 0.035). Use of BMP in spinal fusion surgery declined subsequent to published safety concerns and revelations of financial conflicts-of-interest for investigators involved in the pivotal clinical trials. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2014 · The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study Design. Retrospective cohort studyObjective. In older adults with a neuromusculoskeletal complaint, to evaluate risk of injury to the head, neck or trunk following an office visit for chiropractic spinal manipulation, as compared to office visit for evaluation by primary care physicianSummary of Background Data. The risk of physical injury due to spinal manipulation has not been rigorously evaluated for older adults, a population particularly vulnerable to traumatic injury in general.Methods. We analyzed Medicare administrative data on Medicare B beneficiaries aged 66-99 with an office visit in 2007 for a neuromusculoskeletal complaint. Using a Cox proportional hazards model, we evaluated for adjusted risk of injury within 7 days, comparing two cohorts: those treated by chiropractic spinal manipulation vs. those evaluated by a primary care physician. We used direct adjusted survival curves to estimate the cumulative probability of injury. In the chiropractic cohort only, we used logistic regression to evaluate the effect of specific chronic conditions on likelihood of injury.Results. The adjusted risk of injury in the chiropractic cohort was lower as compared to the primary care cohort (hazard ratio 0.24; 95% CI 0.23-0.25). The cumulative probability of injury in the chiropractic cohort was 40 injury incidents per 100,000 subjects, as compared to 153 incidents per 100,000 subjects in the primary care cohort. Among subjects who saw a chiropractic physician, the likelihood of injury was increased in those with a chronic coagulation defect, inflammatory spondylopathy, osteoporosis, aortic aneurysm and dissection, or long-term use of anticoagulant therapy.Conclusions. Among Medicare beneficiaries aged 66-99 with an office visit risk for a neuromusculoskeletal problem, risk of injury to the head, neck or trunk within 7 days was 76% lower among subjects with a chiropractic office visit as compared to those who saw a primary care physician.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2014 · Spine

  • No preview · Article · Nov 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial subgroup analysis.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2014 · Spine

  • No preview · Article · Nov 2014

Publication Stats

5k Citations
813.87 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 2002-2015
    • Dartmouth College
      Hanover, New Hampshire, United States
  • 2000-2015
    • Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth
      • • Department of Community and Family Medicine
      • • Department of Medicine
      Hanover, New Hampshire, United States
  • 1999-2015
    • Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center
      • Department of Surgery
      LEB, New Hampshire, United States
  • 2010
    • Rush University Medical Center
      • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
      Chicago, Illinois, United States
  • 2009
    • Emory University
      Atlanta, Georgia, United States
  • 2008
    • University of California, San Francisco
      San Francisco, California, United States
  • 1997-1999
    • White River Junction VA Medical Center
      White River Junction, Vermont, United States