STUDY DESIGN: We reviewed existing methods for identifying patients with neck and back pain in administrative data. We compared these methods using data from the Department of Veterans Affairs. OBJECTIVE: To answer the following questions: (1) what diagnosis codes should be used to identify patients with neck pain and back pain in administrative data; (2) because the majority of complaints are characterized as nonspecific or mechanical, what diagnosis codes should be used to identify patients with nonspecific or mechanical problems in administrative data; and (3) what procedure and surgical codes should be used to identify patients who have undergone a surgical procedure on the neck or back. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Musculoskeletal neck and back pain are pervasive problems, associated with chronic pain, disability, and high rates of health care utilization. Administrative data have been widely used in formative research, which has largely relied on the original work of Volinn, Cherkin, Deyo, and Einstadter and the Back Pain Patient Outcomes Assessment Team first published in 1992. Significant variation in reports of incidence, prevalence, and morbidity associated with these problems may be due to nonstandard or conflicting methods to define study cohorts. METHODS: A literature review produced 7 methods for identifying neck and back pain in administrative data. These code lists were used to search Veterans Health Administration data for patients with back and neck problems, and to further categorize each case by spinal segment involved, as nonspecific/mechanical and as surgical or not. RESULTS: There is considerable overlap in most algorithms. However, gaps persist. CONCLUSION: Gaps are evident in existing methods and a new framework to identify patients with neck pain and back pain in administrative data is proposed.
STUDY DESIGN: We reviewed existing methods for identifying patients with neck and back pain in administrative data. We compared these methods using data from the Department of Veterans Affairs. OBJECTIVE: To answer the following questions: (1) what diagnosis codes should be used to identify patients with neck pain and back pain in administrative data; (2) because the majority of complaints are characterized as nonspecific or mechanical, what diagnosis codes should be used to identify patients with nonspecific or mechanical problems in administrative data; and (3) what procedure and surgical codes should be used to identify patients who have undergone a surgical procedure on the neck or back. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Musculoskeletal neck and back pain are pervasive problems, associated with chronic pain, disability, and high rates of health care utilization. Administrative data have been widely used in formative research, which has largely relied on the original work of Volinn, Cherkin, Deyo, and Einstadter and the Back PainPatient Outcomes Assessment Team first published in 1992. Significant variation in reports of incidence, prevalence, and morbidity associated with these problems may be due to nonstandard or conflicting methods to define study cohorts. METHODS: A literature review produced 7 methods for identifying neck and back pain in administrative data. These code lists were used to search Veterans Health Administration data for patients with back and neck problems, and to further categorize each case by spinal segment involved, as nonspecific/mechanical and as surgical or not. RESULTS: There is considerable overlap in most algorithms. However, gaps persist. CONCLUSION: Gaps are evident in existing methods and a new framework to identify patients with neck pain and back pain in administrative data is proposed.
Authors: John D Childs; Joshua A Cleland; James M Elliott; Deydre S Teyhen; Robert S Wainner; Julie M Whitman; Bernard J Sopky; Joseph J Godges; Timothy W Flynn Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2008-09-01 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: V M Taylor; G M Anderson; B McNeney; P Diehr; J N Lavis; R A Deyo; C Bombardier; A Malter; T Axcell Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Marjorie C Wang; Leighton Chan; Dennis J Maiman; William Kreuter; Richard A Deyo Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Brook I Martin; Richard A Deyo; Sohail K Mirza; Judith A Turner; Bryan A Comstock; William Hollingworth; Sean D Sullivan Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-02-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Samah Jamal Fodeh; Dezon Finch; Lina Bouayad; Stephen L Luther; Han Ling; Robert D Kerns; Cynthia Brandt Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2017-12-26 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: E Jennifer Edelman; Kirsha Gordon; William C Becker; Joseph L Goulet; Melissa Skanderson; Julie R Gaither; Jennifer Brennan Braden; Adam J Gordon; Robert D Kerns; Amy C Justice; David A Fiellin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Giulia Norton; Christine M McDonough; Howard J Cabral; Michael Shwartz; James F Burgess Journal: Spine J Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Giulia Norton; Christine M McDonough; Howard Cabral; Michael Shwartz; James F Burgess Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Daniel F Weisberg; Kirsha S Gordon; Declan T Barry; William C Becker; Stephen Crystal; Eva J Edelman; Julie Gaither; Adam J Gordon; Joseph Goulet; Robert D Kerns; Brent A Moore; Janet Tate; Amy C Justice; David A Fiellin Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 3.771
Authors: Bryce A Basques; Alejandro A Espinoza Orías; Grant D Shifflett; Michael P Fice; Gunnar B Andersson; Howard S An; Nozomu Inoue Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 3.241
Authors: François L Thériault; Franco Momoli; Robert A Hawes; Bryan G Garber; William Gardner; Ian Colman Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2021-08-10 Impact factor: 4.328