The Appropriateness of Spinal Manipulation for Low-Back Pain
Indications and Ratings by a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel
ResearchPublished 1991
Indications and Ratings by a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel
ResearchPublished 1991
This report contains the indications and ratings for appropriateness for spinal manipulation that reflect the findings of a nine-member panel of back-pain experts. The panel members rated the appropriateness of indications twice, using a nine-point scale. The initial ratings of appropriateness were done individually and without group discussion. The second-round ratings used a structured method based on consensus procedures. The results showed that these physicians were able to formulate detailed lists of indications for spinal manipulation for low-back pain and rate their appropriateness. There was an increase in agreement and a decrease in disagreement between the initial round and the final round. The final round rated 1,550 indications, and there was agreement on 36 percent and disagreement on 12 percent of the indications. The level of disagreement was somewhat less than in previous ratings of medical procedures by all-medical panels.
This publication is part of the RAND report series. The report series, a product of RAND from 1948 to 1993, represented the principal publication documenting and transmitting RAND's major research findings and final research.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.