Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 23, 2026.

Discogenic Back Pain: Literature Review of Definition, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Kengo Fujii, Masashi Yamazaki, James D Kang and 5 more

JBMR Plus · 2019 · CC BY

doi:10.1002/jbm4.10180

Abstract

Discogenic back pain is multifactorial; hence, physicians often struggle to identify the underlying source of the pain. As a result, discogenic back pain is often hard to treat—even more so when clinical treatment strategies are of questionable efficacy. Based on a broad literature review, our aim was to define discogenic back pain into a series of more specific and interacting pathologies, and to highlight the need to develop novel approaches and treatment strategies for this challenging and unmet clinical need. Discogenic pain involves degenerative changes of the intervertebral disc, including structural defects that result in biomechanical instability and inflammation. These degenerative changes in intervertebral discs closely intersect with the peripheral and central nervous systems to cause nerve sensitization and ingrowth; eventually central sensitization results in a chronic pain condition. Existing imaging modalities are nonspecific to pain symptoms, whereas discography methods that are more specific have known comorbidities based on intervertebral disc puncture and injection. As a result, alternative noninvasive and specific diagnostic methods are needed to better diagnose and identify specific conditions and sources of pain that can be more directly treated. Currently, there are many treatments/interventions for discogenic back pain. Nevertheless, many surgical approaches for discogenic pain have limited efficacy, thus accentuating the need for the development of novel treatments. Regenerative therapies, such as biologics, cell‐based therapy, intervertebral disc repair, and gene‐based therapy, offer the most promise and have many advantages over current therapies. © 2019 The Authors. JBMR Plus Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 23, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the major clinical and socioeconomic global health burdens. The prevalence of LBP is reported to be 31%,1, 2 and lifetime prevalence is reported to be 60% to 80%.1 LBP is a multifactorial condition that includes physiological and psychological factors, as well as brain changes.3 Intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration is a significant cause of pain in LBP patients.4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Discogenic back pain and axial back pain are terms commonly used to describe back pain associated with IVD degeneration without herniation, anatomical deformity, or other alternate clear causes of pain and disability. Spinal surgery is very effective in addressing spinal deformity, radicular pain from herniation, spinal stenosis, and spondylolisthesis among other conditions. In contrast, axial back pain is multifactorial without a clear source of pain, which can arise from the IVDs and associated structures of the motion segment, such as facet joints, ligaments, and spinal muscles.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 Axial LBP that is thought to originate from disc degeneration (discogenic pain) therefore remains hard to define, diagnose, and treat. It commonly requires prolonged treatment, has mixed‐to‐poor surgical outcomes, and opioids are often prescribed.15 Many studies have demonstrated high sensitivity of pain to IVD pathologies on MRI including high‐intensity zones and Modic changes,16, 17 although this sensitivity is often not specific to pain presentation. The absence of IVD degeneration on MRI is associated with significantly reduced pain, making it a more specific measure.16 The presentation of pain also varies widely among patients, making disability a more important indication for spinal surgery. Currently, there is no widely accepted standard for discogenic pain.18 This lack of a uniform definition lies in part because IVD degeneration is hard to isolate and is commonly implicated in pathologies in adjacent spinal structures, making improved nomenclature and consensus on spine pathology definitions and diagnosis an important ongoing area for research.19, 20 Our aims here are (1) to review the available definitions of discogenic back pain, (2) to describe the diagnostic criteria for discogenic back pain, (3) to examine current treatments for discogenic back pain, and (4) to identify sources of discogenic back pain to provide potential research targets for future treatments.

Categorization of back pain

LBP has been categorized in many ways (Fig. 1). First, LBP can be divided into specific LBP and nonspecific LBP.1 Nonspecific LBP has been reported to account for 80% to 90% of overall LBP despite the recent progress in diagnostic tools such as radiography. In addition, treatment choices for chronic nonspecific LBP lack clarity; outcomes are often mixed because of the difficulty identifying the pain generator and multifactorial characteristics.21, 22 Specific pain includes nociceptive and neuropathic pain associated with muscle and fascia injury, spinal osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, and radicular back pain.21

Back pain can also be categorized by the origin of the pain: discogenic LBP, radicular back pain, facet joint osteoarthritis back pain, muscle and fascia‐induced back pain, and spontaneous occurring LBP.20 Discogenic pain can be categorized as a distinct category of back pain, mainly consisting of nociceptive and neuropathic pain (Fig. 1), although the specific causes of discogenic back pain are commonly multifactorial and can be challenging to diagnose and treat.

Muscle‐ and fascia‐induced back pain (myofascial back pain) is a type of pain that refers to a myofascial structure such as muscle and fascia. Its associated conditions include sprains, spasms, and contusions.11, 23, 24

Joint osteoarthritis back pain includes the facet joint and also the sacroiliac joint as one of the origins of LBP.11

Radicular back pain is a type of pain that radiates along the course of a spinal nerve root into the lower extremity. Radicular pain is caused by both nerve root compression and inflammation. Nerve root compression can occur in conditions including herniated disc, foraminal stenosis, peridural fibrosis, spondylolisthesis, and spondylolysis. Inflammatory cytokines are induced by herniated IVD and are considered to affect dorsal root ganglia to cause radiculopathy.25

Regardless of the cause of pain, LBP refers to a pain process of the central nervous system (CNS). Chronic LBP can result in permanent dysfunction of the CNS, with central sensitization considered to play an important role in chronic pain including hyperalgesia. Chronic pain conditions can be very difficult to address clinically because treatment of the spinal condition may not resolve the central sensitization.

Definition of discogenic pain

Adams and Roughley proposed definitions for disc degeneration and degenerative disc disease as follows26:

“The process of disc degeneration is an aberrant, cell‐mediated response to progressive structural failure. A degenerate disc is one with structural failure combined with accelerated or advanced signs of aging. Early degenerative changes should refer to accelerated age‐related changes in a structurally intact disc. Degenerative disc disease should be applied to a degenerate disc that is also painful.” As with many other complex disease states, degenerative disc disease is helpful as an organizing principle for multiple complex pathologies, but is also confusing in its lack of specificity. Further clarification and definition of the terms “early degenerative changes” and “age‐related changes” will help in our understanding of the broader term “degenerative disc disease.”

Early degenerative changes usually occur and progress without symptoms; there are usually subtle changes to the matrix of the nucleus pulposus (NP) and inner annulus fibrosus (AF).14 As a result of these nonpainful conditions, it is hard or impossible to separate such early degenerative changes from aging in the human. However, basic science studies can discern early degenerative changes to involve a shift in the balance of anabolic and catabolic activities that can predispose to accelerated degeneration, as well as increased proinflammatory cytokine production from IVD cells that are considered to be nociceptive and noxious triggers that can progress to painful conditions.27, 28 For example, nitric oxide, leukotrienes, prostaglandin E, and lactic acid are known to increase in early IVD degeneration; all are considered to be powerful direct nociceptive stimuli.14 Disc degeneration is perhaps most easily distinguished by a loss of tissue and by structural derangement. Although disc degeneration is age‐associated, disc degeneration is not equal to disc aging, but rather involves pathological structural defects, which are distinct from age‐associated changes.29, 30 Such localized defects can result in strain concentrations, apoptosis, and increase proinflammatory conditions and deformities, which can result in painful conditions.30

Disc aging and age‐related changes occur in all spinal discs of all individuals, and though it correlates with IVD degeneration, it can be separated from the IVD degeneration processes (Table 1).29, 31, 32, 33 IVD aging is most commonly described as a loss of proteoglycans and water content in the NP. Vo and colleagues described three distinct phases of the biochemical cascade process of disc aging.31 The first phase is biomolecular damage, which includes free‐radical production, the accumulation of advanced glycation endproducts, epigenetic damage that results in oxidative stress, the loss of homeostasis, and extracellular matrix degradation with a loss of proteoglycans and hypo‐osmolality. The second phase is aberrant responses to damage. This phase includes cellular senescence and apoptosis, as well as dysregulated signaling (NF‐κB, mitogen‐activated protein kinases, and hypoxia‐inducible factor).34, 35, 36, 37 Functional and phenotypic changes in AF and NP cells occur as a consequence of accumulated biomolecular damage, and additionally lead to proteoglycan loss and dehydration of NP. The third phase is a loss of biologic structure and function, which includes a loss of disc matrix integrity, the loss of disc functional cells or stem cells, and a loss of disc biomechanics. Therefore, although aging is distinct from degeneration, it involves many conditions that can predispose to injury, inflammation, and frustrated healing conditions that are essential characteristics of degeneration.

Late IVD degeneration has features that can create painful responses; it is identifiable in clinical radiographic evaluation in humans and in animal models of degeneration. Late IVD degeneration includes disc height loss (disc space narrowing), osteophyte formation, internuclear calcification, endplate sclerosis as seen in plain radiographs and via signal decrease in T2‐weighted (T2W) MRI, a loss of AF/NP boundary, an irregular cartilage layer, and a selective loss of horizontal trabeculae in MRI.32, 37, 38, 39

Discogenic pain therefore involves multifactorial changes occurring with late IVD degeneration that interact with the peripheral nervous system and the CNS to induce pain (Fig. 2). Pain can be the result of biomechanical instability, endplate damage, nerve ingrowth and sensitization, and inflammation. The causes of discogenic pain and late IVD degenerative changes are also multifactorial and can vary from mechanical overloading, oxidative stress, metabolic disorders, and genetics.40, 41, 42, 43, 44

Currently known source of pain/cause of pain from degenerated IVD

Not all degenerated IVDs exhibit discogenic pain; however, IVD degeneration is no doubt among the most important key factors. IVD aging and age‐related changes, as well as IVD injury result in morphological changes including disc prolapse, disc herniation, spondylosis, spondylolisthesis, Modic changes, and Schmorl nodes (Fig. 1). Mechanical overload, oxidative stress, hyperosmolarity, dysregulated signaling, systemic metabolic disorder, and genetic polymorphisms contribute to the progression of structural change and biomechanical instability. Also, inflammation plays an important role in degenerative cascade. Nerve ingrowth, sensitization, and CNS changes are considered direct causes of discogenic pain. Numerous preclinical in vivo and in vitro studies are focused on these sources and causes of discogenic pain. To stop an irreversible cascade at some point and to regenerate to a healthy condition would be an ideal future treatment strategy.

Diagnostic criteria for discogenic pain

Malik and colleagues performed a systematic review of the existing diagnostic criteria and treatments of discogenic pain, and developed a table listing the various consensus statements for the diagnosis of presumed discogenic pain.12 Consensus statements on the discogenic criteria for the diagnosis of discogenic pain have been made by the International Spine Intervention Society, the International Association for the Study of Pain, the North American Spine Society, and the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians.13, 45, 46, 47 The modality to diagnose discogenic pain in all these criteria includes provocative discography or CT discography. The advantage of provocative discography is its relatively high specificity and sensitivity. However, clinical evidence indicates a high risk of accelerated disc degeneration and disc herniation in patients after discography; therefore, discography may be too invasive to use as a diagnostic procedure.48 Provocative discography also has a high false‐positive rate. As a result, the clinical use of discography should be limited to select patients who are planning a surgical procedure in the near future as a confirmatory step rather than as an early diagnostic procedure. Therefore, diagnostic methods other than discography are needed; currently there are no standard diagnostic methods.16, 18

Noninvasive diagnostic tools for discogenic pain

Noninvasive diagnostic tools for discogenic pain include a clinical examination, pain diagrams/questionnaires, serum biomarkers, and MRI.

A clinical examination and history are important to properly diagnose back pain. Red flags that indicate the possibility of cancer, infection, or trauma must be identified or ruled out.49 Nonorganic signs or “Waddell signs” should be kept in mind to detect psychological distress.49 The localization of back pain is an important factor and can be derived from patient inquiry and simple clinical examination. Specifically, centralized pain has high sensitivity, but a poor specificity with regard to discogenic pain in the presence of a competent annulus, whereas lateralized pain patients often present without central pain and commonly have facet joint‐originated pathology.49, 50, 51

Serum biomarkers have been studied as a novel diagnostic tool for back pain. This is an emerging field and new biomarkers are being developed that can distinguish different sources of back pain. Serum biomarkers are quantitative and objective measurements, and can be used as indicators of biological processes involved in discogenic pain or as indicators for systematic disorders such as osteoporosis.52 Currently reported candidates for serum biomarkers for back pain include C‐C motif ligand 5, C‐X‐C motif ligand 6, IL‐6, high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein, TNF‐α, IL‐1β, and type 2 collagen.52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 Matrix‐assisted laser desorption ionization time‐of‐flight mass spectrometry (MALDI‐TOF‐MS) has also been shown to distinguish discogenic LBP from the other forms of chronic back pain, and complement C3 and fibrinogen are potential serum biomarkers for discogenic back pain.60 Nevertheless, serum cytokines and other biomarkers can be from a variety of sources of systemic conditions, so their specificity to discogenic back pain conditions must be validated with other methods. In terms of local biomarkers, substance P, neurofilament, and vasoactive‐intestinal peptide immunoreactive nerve fibers in the painful discs have been shown to be more extensive than in control discs.61

In general, MRI and Pfirmann scoring are widely used to diagnose disc degeneration in clinical and basic research.

High‐intensity zone (HIZ) in MRI is a hyperintense signal in the posterior AF clearly dissociated from the signal of the NP. This bright area surrounded by a low‐intensity (black) signal of the AF is appreciably brighter than the CSF signal at the same level on sagittal T2W MRI of L1 to S1.17, 62, 63 HIZ has been shown to correlate with annulus damage and increased pain; it is also consistent with findings on discography.64, 65

Type 1 Modic changes have been shown to have high specificity for positive discography.66, 67, 68, 69 Modic changes are MRI signal‐intensity changes in the vertebral bone marrow that reflect lesions not related to malignancy, pyogenesis, or seropositive rheumatic disorders. There are three types of Modic changes based on appearance in T1W and T2W MRI.68, 70 The pathology of Modic change has been revealed to be a fibrogenic and proinflammatory crosstalk between bone marrow and adjacent discs. Type 1 Modic change is an MRI finding with hypointense signal on T1W sequences and hyperintense signal on T2W sequences; these changes also highly associate with IVD degeneration and back pain.71 The roles of bacterial infection and autoimmune etiologies have been described recently.70, 72, 73, 74

Conventional T2W MRI is a qualitative or semiqualitative tool to assess morphology and water content, and is not sensitive to proteoglycan content.75

There are more novel MRI techniques to quantify the biochemical changes and to identify potential biomarkers for discogenic pain. Recent studies have shown a relationship between low pH with discogenic pain; hence, pH may be a metabolic biomarker for discogenic pain.76, 77 Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) is a technique to measure pH‐dependent signal changes that are known to be important in degeneration; quantitative chemical exchange saturation transfer MRI (qCEST MRI) also has the potential to detect pH changes in IVDs.78 In addition, the ratio of R1ρ dispersion to CEST is also reported to have the potential to detect painful IVDs.79 T2W MRI values can be used for the quantification of moisture content by T2 mapping; T2 mapping can be used as a quantitative diagnostic tool in disc degeneration and discogenic pain. MRI T2 relaxation time is a quantitative parameter that is sensitive to changes in collagen and water content in IVD. Also, MRI T1ρ is associated with a loss of macromolecules and may be sensitive to early biochemical changes in IVD degeneration.80, 81 Delayed gadolinium‐enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC) is a quantitative analysis of sulfated glycosaminoglycans with cartilaginous tissue that has been applied to IVD.82 High‐resolution magic angle spinning NMR spectroscopy (HR‐MAS spectroscopy) is a qualitative and quantitative analytic method previously used to detect collagen breakdown and the decreased concentration of NP proteoglycans.83 To assess cartilage integrity, the measurement of fixed‐charge density of cartilage by sodium MRI (23Na MRI) has been developed and may have applications in IVD.84 Ultrashort time‐to‐echo (UTE) MRI assesses the MRI signal from short‐T2 components that are not detected on conventional T2W MRI; hyper‐ or hypointensity changes located within the disc are reported to associate with LBP and disability in comparison with traditional T2W MRI.85 These methods can be used to diagnose the disease in its early stages, but still need more investigation and validation.86

In summary, the currently available noninvasive diagnostic tools for discogenic pain, including the clinical examination, will always play important roles in the diagnostic process; however, MRI findings including type 1 Modic changes and HIZ seem especially useful. Phenotypic definitions and novel imaging methods are also being developed for IVD degeneration to make MRI diagnosis precise and useful. However, at present the specificity/sensitivity on MRI findings is not sufficient and shows only a moderate effectiveness in fully identifying a source of pain.74, 87 Diagnostic methods with the specificity of discography are in need of development to detect painful lesions. MRI sequences, such as T1ρ, have the potential to be a strong clinical tool, but the evidence and proof of validity are not established yet. Serum biomarkers also have the potential to be a useful supportive diagnostic tool in LBP.

Available clinical treatments for discogenic pain

Reviews of evidence‐based guidelines describe consistent recommendations and guidance for the evaluation of chronic LBP, but there is a lack of clarity on treatment recommendations.88

Invasive treatment: surgeries

Fusion surgeries remove the painful disc itself and prevent the recurrence of discogenic pain by eliminating the mobile parts of the spine to prevent instability from occurring again.61 The disadvantages of fusion surgery are (1) its invasiveness, (2) complications as a result of major surgery, and (3) adjacent segment disorder (ASD), which can accelerate degeneration because of excess loading on the discs adjacent to the fusion.88, 89, 90, 91, 92 Total disc replacement (TDR) has less of a risk of ASD compared with fusion surgeries; however, there are known risk factors including heterotopic ossification and the risk of reoperation. TDR is best indicated in spinal levels (eg, cervical) where maintained mobility is of greater importance.93, 94, 95, 96, 97 Percutaneous endoscopic or minimally invasive tubular decompressive surgeries are also widely performed; good clinical results have been reported in selected patients with a localized lesion and IVD herniation.98, 99, 100 However, obtaining successful clinical outcomes for treating discogenic LBP with these surgical measures have been challenging.

Semi‐invasive treatment: injection, intradiscal procedures

Thermal intradiscal/annular techniques (intradiscal electrothermal therapy) use radiofrequency probes to treat painful lesions, usually with intradiscal insertion into the posterior wall of the IVD. These methods destroy inflammatory or painful tissue/mediators and newly formed nerve fiber in the IVD; the heating also seals the AF tears by shrinking them.101, 102, 103, 104, 105 These techniques have mostly been abandoned because of relatively poor outcomes.106, 107

Electrostimulation is a therapy used for intractable chronic neuropathic pain.104 The spinal cord stimulation system consists of an electrical lead placed in the epidural space and an implanted pulse‐generating battery system. The electrical pulse transmitted from the lead is intended to produce a nonpainful paresthesia overlapping the patient's areas of pain, and overlapping paresthesias to the painful areas correlate with optimal pain relief. However, there exists a relatively high adverse‐event occurrence rate of up to 34.3%, including infection, surgical site pain, dural puncture, and equipment/system problems.104 Our limited experience also suggests that it is not long‐lasting.

Epidural injection therapy, including steroid and anesthetics, has been widely used clinically. Epidural injection can be delivered through three different anatomical routes: caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal.98, 108, 109 This therapy is used mainly for lumbar radiculopathy, but is also used for LBP.104, 110, 111 However, its long‐term efficacy is still unknown.104, 105, 112, 113, 114

Methylene blue has been tried for intradiscal injection, to chemically ablate nerve endings.115, 116 Methylene blue injection into the epidural space has been tried in animal models, but not introduced for human use because of its potential neurotoxic effects.117, 118, 119 Current spinal or intradiscal injections and procedures have no demonstrated effects on IVD regeneration, and are not able to completely stop the progression of the degeneration cascade.

Regenerative medicine

Regenerative therapies show promise with numerous basic studies concentrating on regenerative medicine of the IVD. The avascular nature of the IVD creates a hypoxic microenvironment with relatively low cellularity and slow cell metabolic rates, which present a challenge for reversing IVD degeneration and regenerating spinal tissues.120 As a result, regenerative medicine strategies are considered most promising for early IVD degeneration, where there is still the possibility to promote repair and healing of the IVD. However, it may be more realistic to target slowing the progressive degeneration process or otherwise deliver cells and/or drugs to reduce the potential for painful degeneration. At present, the clinical application of regenerative medicine strategies is limited to mesenchymal stem cell (MSC)/bone marrow aspirate, platelet‐rich plasma (PRP), and chondrocytes. The number of studies and the number of patients recruited are also limited.121, 122 With regards to MSC therapy, feasibility and safety have been suggested in pilot clinical studies among chronic back pain patients.123, 124, 125 Analgesic effect, functional improvement, and increased water content by MSC injection therapy have also been reported, although there was no effect on recovering disc height.123, 124, 125 Furthermore, improvement may be restricted to a group of responders.124, 125 Optimization of indication (to distinguish responders and nonresponders), cell‐source, cell concentration, and scaffold type are needed, as are larger‐scale clinical trials to show long‐term safety and efficacy. Intradiscal PRP injection seems safe; however, its efficacy remains unclear.126, 127, 128, 129 Chondrocyte transplantation studies showed some positive results in a small number of participants; further studies are needed to show efficacy.130, 131, 132 Experimental studies demonstrated cell leakage following injection with ectopic calcifications as a potential complication, thus motivating the need for a cell carrier to help enhance cell injections.133, 134

IVD repair techniques or implant biomaterials for annulus closures and NP replacement have the potential to repair the IVD, yet also create a risk for reherniation, which can cause nerve compression and the possibility of a recurrent painful condition or worsening of a condition. As a result, especially after discectomy, IVD repair/closure techniques have been developed to prevent reherniation and consequent progression of IVD degeneration. Some annular closure devices and NP replacement devices have been introduced clinically, including Barricaid (Intrinsic Therapeutics, Woburn, MA, USA), Xclose Tissue Repair System (Anulex Technologies, Minnetonka, MN), Inclose Surgical Mesh System (Anulex Technologies, Inc., Minnetonka, MN), NuCore® Injectable Nucleus hydrogel (Spine Wave, Inc., Shelton, CT, USA), NeuDIsc (Replication Medical, Inc., Cranberry, NJ), DiscCell (Gentis, Wayne, Pennsylvania), DASCOR Disc Arthroplasty System (Disc Dynamics, Inc., Eden Prairie, Minnesota), BioDisc (CryoLife, Atlanta, Georgia), and NucleoFix (Replication Medical, Inc., Cranberry, NJ).135 The Barricaid AF closure device showed midterm clinical feasibility, efficacy, and safety.136 Although an FDA panel confirmed its efficacy in preventing reherniations following discectomy, the presence of lytic endplate lesions and device subsidence raised safety concerns.137 AF repair and NP replacement biomaterials and devices remain an emergent area of research as described in multiple excellent recent studies and reviews.132, 134, 138, 139, 140, 141 These biomaterials must show efficacy for improved spinal healing or pain reduction, while also avoiding reherniation and/or adjacent tissue damage.

Whole IVD tissue‐engineering strategies have also been considered as an alternative to spinal fusion. Whole IVD repair strategies are more ambitious than AF repair or NP replacement, yet the possibility of designing an integrated whole IVD structure offers opportunities to reduce herniation risk and to promote integration with the vertebral endplate. Several total‐disc tissue‐engineered replacements are being developed and evaluated in small and large animal models.138, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147

In summary, some clinical studies of regenerative medicine strategies have shown positive results; additional long‐term more‐powered high‐quality studies showing their efficacy and safety are desired. Several biomaterials are being developed for cell delivery, AF repair, and NP replacement to promote IVD repair, and whole‐tissue‐engineered structures are being developed to replace for spinal fusion or total disc arthroplasty.

Nonoperative management

Nonoperative management of discogenic LBP includes oral analgesics, physiotherapy, psychotherapy, and acupuncture/dry needling.105, 147

Oral pharmaceutical management for analgesic purposes includes acetaminophen, NSAIDs, skeletal muscle relaxants, tramadol, steroids, and opioids. Opioids are frequently prescribed for back pain patients; however, because of their physical dependence and tolerance, long‐term opioid use is discouraged.148, 149, 150, 151

Animal studies have shown potential benefits of traction therapy; however, the randomized controlled human trial showed no significant differences in clinical outcomes.152, 153, 154, 155 The McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy is a famous treatment for LBP; it consists of a classification system and classification‐based physical therapy.156, 157 However, there is still limited evidence for the efficacy of the McKenzie method in chronic LBP.158, 159

Cognitive‐behavior therapy (CBT) is a form of psychotherapy and is effective for various problems, including chronic LBP. Structured CBTs have been shown to be effective; nevertheless, psychological interventions should be performed with suitable physiotherapy.147, 160, 161, 162

Acupuncture/dry needling is an option for discogenic pain, and a systematic review showed its effectiveness for pain relief and functional improvement compared with no treatment or sham in the short term (6 to 12 weeks). However, it is not more effective than any other treatments.163

Nonoperative management strategies have demonstrated good results, and some systematic reviews have shown even comparative clinical results to surgical treatment.105, 147 On the other hand, opioid use should be restrictive because of the risk of developing opioid‐induced hyperalgesia, abuse, and misuse.150

Summary and guideline recommendations of currently available clinical treatments for discogenic pain

Clinical treatment options for chronic LBP were recently reviewed by Foster and colleagues, with guidelines for the management of LBP mostly focusing on nonoperative management.164 Patients are advised against bed rest and to stay active or to engage in nonspecific back exercises for first‐line treatment.88, 164 Psychological therapies including cognitive‐behavior therapy are also consistently recommended in guidelines.164, 165, 166, 167 Other nonoperative management techniques such as manipulation, acupuncture, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation (physical therapy) are categorized as second‐line treatment for patients who have not responded to first‐line treatments.168 Oral pharmaceutical management is recommended only following an inadequate response to first‐line nonpharmaceutical treatments. Epidural injections are not recommended in recent guidelines, although epidural injections for severe radicular pain are recommended.164, 165, 166, 167 Fusion surgeries are categorized as second‐line or adjunctive treatment options, whereas TDRs do not have strong long‐term outcome data yet.

Summary

In this review, we defined the clinical entity of discogenic pain as multifactorial changes occurring with late IVD degeneration that interact with the peripheral nervous system and the CNS to induce painful conditions. We also described diagnostic criteria and current treatments of discogenic pain based on a broad clinical literature review, and identified sources of discogenic pain from the literature to highlight potential research targets. Discogenic pain encompasses multiple conditions associated with IVD degeneration, which makes a single definition limiting. Improved diagnostic methods are helping to more precisely define specific pathologies associated with this broad condition. The most specific existing diagnostic criteria, such as discography, are invasive with evidence suggesting it can lead to accelerated IVD degeneration. Clinicians therefore need alternative noninvasive diagnostic methods that more precisely characterize IVD degenerative conditions and their specific relationships with the progression of painful conditions to better inform treatment options. There are a number of treatments/interventions for discogenic back pain currently. The lack of a specific diagnosis makes nonoperative management the most important first‐line treatment. Regenerative therapies, such as biologics, cell‐based therapy, IVD repair, and gene‐based therapy, are minimally invasive interventions that will likely have advantages over more‐invasive current surgical approaches once safety, reliability, and efficacy are shown in human studies.

Disclosures

All authors state that they have no conflicts of interest.

References 168

  1. 1.

    Ohtori S, Inoue G, Miyagi M, Takahashi K. Pathomechanisms of discogenic low back pain in humans and animal models. Spine J. 2015;15(6):1347–55.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.490

  2. 2.

    Hoy D, Bain C, Williams G, et al. A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis Rheum. 2012; 64 (6): 2028–37.

    Not in our library10.1002/art.34347

  3. 3.

    Nijs J, Clark J, Malfliet A, et al. In the spine or in the brain? Recent advances in pain neuroscience applied in the intervention for low back pain. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2017; 35 Suppl 107 (5): 108–15.

    Not in our library

  4. 4.

    Schwarzer AC, Aprill CN, Derby R, Fortin J, Kine G, Bogduk N. The prevalence and clinical features of internal disc disruption in patients with chronic low back pain. Spine. 1995; 20 (17): 1878–83.

    Not in our library10.1097/00007632-199509000-00007

  5. 5.

    Luoma K, Riihimäki H, Luukkonen R, Raininko R, Viikari‐Juntura E, Lamminen A. Low back pain in relation to lumbar disc degeneration. Spine. 2000; 25 (4): 487–92.

    Not in our library10.1097/00007632-200002150-00016

  6. 6.

    Cheung KM, Karppinen J, Chan D, et al. Prevalence and pattern of lumbar magnetic resonance imaging changes in a population study of one thousand forty‐three individuals. Spine. 2009; 34 (9): 934–40.

    Not in our library10.1097/brs.0b013e3181a01b3f

  7. 7.

    de Schepper EI, Damen J, van Meurs JB, et al. The association between lumbar disc degeneration and low back pain: the influence of age, gender, and individual radiographic features. Spine. 2010; 35 (5): 531–6.

    Not in our library10.1097/brs.0b013e3181aa5b33

  8. 8.

    Raastad J, Reiman M, Coeytaux R, Ledbetter L, Goode AP. The association between lumbar spine radiographic features and low back pain: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2015; 44 (5): 571–85.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.semarthrit.2014.10.006

  9. 9.

    Vekaria R, Bhatt R, Ellard DR, Henschke N, Underwood M, Sandhu H. Intra‐articular facet joint injections for low back pain: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(4):1266–81.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00586-016-4455-y

  10. 10.

    Manchikanti L, Singh V. Review of chronic low back pain of facet joint origin. Pain Physician. 2002; 5 (1): 83–101.

    Not in our library

  11. 11.

    DePalma MJ, Ketchum JM, Saullo T. What is the source of chronic low back pain and does age play a role? Pain Med. 2011; 12 (2): 224–33.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1526-4637.2010.01045.x

  12. 12.

    Malik KM, Cohen SP, Walega DR, Benzon HT. Diagnostic criteria and treatment of discogenic pain: a systematic review of recent clinical literature. Spine J. 2013;13(11):1675–89.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.063

  13. 13.

    Bogduk N. Lumbar disc stimulation (provocation discography). In: Bogduk N, editor. Practice guidelines for spinal diagnostic and treatment procedures. 1st ed. Hinsdale, IL: International Spine Intervention Society; 2004. p. 20–46.

    Not in our library

  14. 14.

    Ito K, Creemers L. Mechanisms of intervertebral disk degeneration/injury and pain: a review. Global Spine J. 2013;3(3):145–51.

    Not in our library10.1055/s-0033-1347300

  15. 15.

    Amirdelfan K, Webster L, Poree L, Sukul V, McRoberts P. Treatment options for failed back surgery syndrome patients with refractory chronic pain: an evidence based approach. Spine. 2017; 42 Suppl 14: S41–S52.

    Not in our library10.1097/brs.0000000000002217

  16. 16.

    Hancock MJ, Maher CG, Latimer J, et al. Systematic review of tests to identify the disc, SIJ or facet joint as the source of low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2007; 16 (10): 1539–50.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00586-007-0391-1

  17. 17.

    Teraguchi M, Samartzis D, Hashizume H, et al. Classification of high intensity zones of the lumbar spine and their association with other spinal MRI phenotypes: the Wakayama Spine Study. PLoS ONE. 2016; 11 (9): e0160111–6.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0160111

  18. 18.

    Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, et al. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet. 2018;391(10137):2356–67.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30480-x

  19. 19.

    Tomkins‐Lane C, Melloh M, Lurie J, et al. ISSLS prize winner: consensus on the clinical diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: results of an International Delphi Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41 (15): 1239–46.

    Not in our library10.1097/brs.0000000000001476

  20. 20.

    Zehra U, Bow C, Lotz JC, et al. Structural vertebral endplate nomenclature and etiology: a study by the ISSLS Spinal Phenotype Focus Group. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(1):2–12.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00586-017-5292-3

  21. 21.

    Nijs J, Apeldoorn A, Hallegraeff H, et al. Low back pain: guidelines for the clinical classification of predominant neuropathic, nociceptive, or central sensitization pain. Pain Physician. 2015; 18 (3): E333–46.

    Not in our library

  22. 22.

    Maher C, Underwood M, Buchbinder R. Non‐specific low back pain. Lancet. 2017; 389 (10070): 736–47.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30970-9

  23. 23.

    Arguisuelas MD, Lisón JF, Sánchez‐Zuriaga D, Martínez‐Hurtado I, Doménech‐Fernández J. Effects of myofascial release in nonspecific chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017; 42 (9): 627–34.

    Not in our library10.1097/brs.0000000000001897

  24. 24.
    Reduced thoracolumbar fascia shear strain in human chronic low back pain · 2011
    No notice
  25. 25.

    Cuéllar JM, Borges PM, Cuéllar VG, Yoo A, Scuderi GJ, Yeomans DC. Cytokine expression in the epidural space: a model of noncompressive disc herniation‐induced inflammation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38 (1): 17–23.

    Not in our library10.1097/brs.0b013e3182604baa

  26. 26.

    Adams MA, Roughley PJ. What is intervertebral disc degeneration, and what causes it? Spine. 2006;31(18):2151–61.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.brs.0000231761.73859.2c

  27. 27.

    Risbud MV, Shapiro IM. Role of cytokines in intervertebral disc degeneration: pain and disc content. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2014; 10 (1): 44–56.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrrheum.2013.160

  28. 28.

    Johnson ZI, Doolittle AC, Snuggs JW, Shapiro IM, Le Maitre CL, Risbud MV. TNF‐α promotes nuclear enrichment of the transcription factor TonEBP/NFAT5 to selectively control inflammatory but not osmoregulatory responses in nucleus pulposus cells. J Biol Chem. 2017; 292 (42): 17561–75.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m117.790378

  29. 29.

    Iatridis JC, Michalek AJ, Purmessur D, Korecki CL. Localized intervertebral disc injury leads to organ level changes in structure, cellularity, and biosynthesis. Cel Mol Bioeng. 2009;2(3):437–47.

    Not in our library10.1007/s12195-009-0072-8

  30. 30.

    Choi H, Tessier S, Silagi ES, et al. A novel mouse model of intervertebral disc degeneration shows altered cell fate and matrix homeostasis. Matrix Biol. 2018; 70: 102–22.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.matbio.2018.03.019

  31. 31.

    Vo NV, Hartman RA, Patil PR, et al. Molecular mechanisms of biological aging in intervertebral discs. J Orthop Res. 2016; 34 (8): 1289–306.

    Not in our library10.1002/jor.23195

  32. 32.

    Dowdell J, Erwin M, Choma T, Vaccaro A, Iatridis J, Cho SK. Intervertebral disk degeneration and repair. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(3S):S46–S54.

    Not in our library10.1093/neuros/nyw078

  33. 33.

    Antoniou J, Steffen T, Nelson F, et al. The human lumbar intervertebral disc: evidence for changes in the biosynthesis and denaturation of the extracellular matrix with growth, maturation, ageing, and degeneration. J Clin Invest. 1996; 98 (4): 996–1003.

    Not in our library10.1172/jci118884

  34. 34.

    Schoepflin ZR, Silagi ES, Shapiro IM, Risbud MV. PHD3 is a transcriptional coactivator of HIF‐1α in nucleus pulposus cells independent of the PKM2‐JMJD5 axis. FASEB J. 2017;31(9):3831–47.

    Not in our library10.1096/fj.201601291r

  35. 35.

    Tian Y, Yuan W, Li J, et al. TGFβ regulates Galectin‐3 expression through canonical Smad3 signaling pathway in nucleus pulposus cells: implications in intervertebral disc degeneration. Matrix Biol. 2016;50:39–52.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.matbio.2015.11.008

  36. 36.

    Li J, Yuan W, Jiang S, et al. Prolyl‐4‐hydroxylase domain protein 2 controls NF‐κB/p65 transactivation and enhances the catabolic effects of inflammatory cytokines on cells of the nucleus pulposus. J Biol Chem. 2015;290(11):7195–207.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m114.611483

  37. 37.

    Mosley GE, Evashwick‐Rogler TW, Lai A, Iatridis JC. Looking beyond the intervertebral disc: the need for behavioral assays in models of discogenic pain. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2017; 1409 (1): 51–66.

    Not in our library10.1111/nyas.13429

  38. 38.

    Luk KD, Samartzis D. Intervertebral disc “dysgeneration“. Spine J. 2015;15(9):1915–8.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.spinee.2014.07.020

  39. 39.

    Silagi ES, Shapiro IM, Risbud MV. Glycosaminoglycan synthesis in the nucleus pulposus: dysregulation and the pathogenesis of disc degeneration. Matrix Biol. 2018;71–72:368–79.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.matbio.2018.02.025

  40. 40.

    Vergroesen PP, Kingma I, Emanuel KS, et al. Mechanics and biology in intervertebral disc degeneration: a vicious circle. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015; 23 (7): 1057–70.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2015.03.028

  41. 41.

    Stokes IA, Iatridis JC. Mechanical conditions that accelerate intervertebral disc degeneration: overload versus immobilization. Spine. 2004; 29 (23): 2724–32.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.brs.0000146049.52152.da

  42. 42.

    Huang YC, Urban JP, Luk KD. Intervertebral disc regeneration: do nutrients lead the way? Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2014; 10 (9): 561–6.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrrheum.2014.91

  43. 43.

    Näkki A, Battié MC, Kaprio J. Genetics of disc‐related disorders: current findings and lessons from other complex diseases. Eur Spine J. 2013;23(S3):354–63.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00586-013-2878-2

  44. 44.

    Eskola PJ, Lemmelä S, Kjaer P, et al. Genetic association studies in lumbar disc degeneration: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2012; 7 (11):e49995.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0049995

  45. 45.

    Merskey H, Bogduk N. Lumbar discogenic pain. In: Merskey H, Bogduk N, editors. Classification of chronic pain. Descriptions of chronic pain syndromes and definition of pain terms. 2nd ed. Seattle, WA: IASP Press; 1994. p. 180–1.

    Not in our library

  46. 46.

    Guyer RD, Ohnmeiss DD, NASS. Lumbar discography. The Spine Journal. 2003; 3(3 Suppl): 11S–27S.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1529-9430(02)00563-6

  47. 47.

    Manchikanti L, Singh V, Datta S, Cohen SP, Hirsch JA, American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians. Comprehensive review of epidemiology, scope, and impact of spinal pain. Pain Physician. 2009; 12 (4): E35–70.

    Not in our library

  48. 48.

    Carragee EJ, Don AS, Hurwitz EL, et al. 2009 ISSLS prize winner: does discography cause accelerated progression of degeneration changes in the lumbar disc: a ten‐year matched cohort study. Spine. 2009; 34 (21): 2338–45.

    Not in our library10.1097/brs.0b013e3181ab5432

  49. 49.

    Tessitore E, Molliqaj G, Schatlo B, Schaller K. Clinical evaluation and surgical decision making for patients with lumbar discogenic pain and facet syndrome. Eur J Radiol. 2015; 84 (5): 765–70.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.03.016

  50. 50.

    Laslett M, Öberg B, Aprill CN, McDonald B. Centralization as a predictor of provocation discography results in chronic low back pain, and the influence of disability and distress on diagnostic power. Spine J. 2005;5(4):370–80.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.spinee.2004.11.007

  51. 51.

    Young S, Aprill C, Laslett M. Correlation of clinical examination characteristics with three sources of chronic low back pain. Spine J. 2003;3(6):460–5.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1529-9430(03)00151-7

  52. 52.

    Khan AN, Jacobsen HE, Khan J, et al. Inflammatory biomarkers of low back pain and disc degeneration: a review. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2017; 1410 (1): 68–84.

    Not in our library10.1111/nyas.13551

  53. 53.

    Grad S, Bow C, Karppinen J, et al. Systemic blood plasma CCL5 and CXCL6: potential biomarkers for human lumbar disc degeneration. Eur Cell Mater. 2016;31:1–10.

    Not in our library10.22203/ecm.v031a01

  54. 54.

    de Queiroz BZ, Pereira DS, Lopes RA, et al. Association between the plasma levels of mediators of inflammation with pain and disability in the elderly with acute low back pain: data from the Back Complaints in the Elders (BACE)‐Brazil Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41 (3): 197–203.

    Not in our library10.1097/brs.0000000000001214

  55. 55.

    Stürmer T, Raum E, Buchner M, et al. Pain and high sensitivity C reactive protein in patients with chronic low back pain and acute sciatic pain. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005; 64 (6): 921–5.

    Not in our library10.1136/ard.2004.027045

  56. 56.

    Gebhardt K, Brenner H, Stürmer T, et al. The course of high‐sensitive C‐reactive protein in correlation with pain and clinical function in patients with acute lumbosciatic pain and chronic low back pain—a 6 months prospective longitudinal study. Eur J Pain. 2006; 10 (8): 711–9.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.11.005

  57. 57.

    Wang H, Ahrens C, Rief W, Gantz S, Schiltenwolf M, Richter W. Influence of depression symptoms on serum tumor necrosis factor‐α of patients with chronic low back pain. Arthritis Res Ther. 2010; 12 (5): R186.

    Not in our library10.1186/ar3156

  58. 58.

    Licciardone JC, Kearns CM, Hodge LM, Bergamini MV. Associations of cytokine concentrations with key osteopathic lesions and clinical outcomes in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: results from the OSTEOPATHIC Trial. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2012; 112 (9): 596–605.

    Not in our library10.7556/jaoa.2012.112.9.596

  59. 59.

    Goode AP, Marshall SW, Kraus VB, et al. Association between serum and urine biomarkers and lumbar spine individual radiographic features: the Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012; 20 (11): 1286–93.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2012.08.003

  60. 60.

    Zhang YG, Jiang RQ, Guo T‐M, Wu SX, Ma WJ. MALDI‐TOF‐MS serum protein profiling for developing diagnostic models and identifying serum markers for discogenic low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014; 15: 193.

    Not in our library10.1186/1471-2474-15-193

  61. 61.

    Peng B, Wu W, Hou S, Li P, Zhang C, Yang Y. The pathogenesis of discogenic low back pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005; 87 (1): 62–7.

    Not in our library

  62. 62.

    Aprill C, Bogduk N. High‐intensity zone: a diagnostic sign of painful lumbar disc on magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Radiol. 1992; 65 (773): 361–9.

    Not in our library10.1259/0007-1285-65-773-361

  63. 63.

    Carragee EJ, Paragioudakis SJ, Khurana S. 2000 Volvo award winner in clinical studies: lumbar high‐intensity zone and discography in subjects without low back problems. Spine. 2000; 25 (23): 2987–92.

    Not in our library10.1097/00007632-200012010-00005

  64. 64.

    Dongfeng R, Hou S, Wu W, et al. The expression of tumor necrosis factor‐α and CD68 in high‐intensity zone of lumbar intervertebral disc on magnetic resonance image in the patients with low back pain. Spine. 2011;36(6):E429–33.

    Not in our library10.1097/brs.0b013e3181dfce9e

  65. 65.

    Schellhas KP, Pollei SR, Gundry CR, Heithoff KB. Lumbar disc high‐intensity zone. Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging and discography. Spine. 1996; 21 (1): 79–86.

    Not in our library10.1097/00007632-199601010-00018

  66. 66.

    Jones A, Clarke A, Freeman BJ, Lam KS, Grevitt MP. The Modic classification: inter‐ and intraobserver error in clinical practice. Spine. 2005; 30 (16): 1867–9.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.brs.0000173898.47585.7d

  67. 67.

    Modic MT, Masaryk TJ, Ross JS, Carter JR. Imaging of degenerative disk disease. Radiology. 1988; 168 (1): 177–86.

    Not in our library10.1148/radiology.168.1.3289089

  68. 68.

    Modic MT, Steinberg PM, Ross JS, Masaryk TJ, Carter JR. Degenerative disk disease: assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging. Radiology. 1988; 166(1 Pt 1): 193–9.

    Not in our library10.1148/radiology.166.1.3336678

  69. 69.

    Thompson KJ, Dagher AP, Eckel TS, Clark M, Reinig JW. Modic changes on MR images as studied with provocative diskography: clinical relevance—a retrospective study of 2457 disks. Radiology. 2009; 250 (3): 849–55.

    Not in our library10.1148/radiol.2503080474

  70. 70.

    Dudli S, Liebenberg E, Magnitsky S, Miller S, Demir‐Deviren S, Lotz JC. Propionibacterium acnesinfected intervertebral discs cause vertebral bone marrow lesions consistent with Modic changes. J Orthop Res. 2016; 34 (8): 1447–55.

    Not in our library10.1002/jor.23265

  71. 71.

    Dudli S, Fields AJ, Samartzis D, Karppinen J, Lotz JC. Pathobiology of Modic changes. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(11):3723–34.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00586-016-4459-7

  72. 72.

    Georgy M, Stern M, Murphy K. What is the role of the bacterium propionibacterium acnes in type 1 Modic changes? A review of the literature. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2017;68(4):419–24.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.carj.2017.07.004

  73. 73.

    Urquhart DM, Zheng Y, Cheng AC, et al. Could low grade bacterial infection contribute to low back pain? A systematic review. BMC Med. 2015; 13: 13.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12916-015-0267-x

  74. 74.

    Dudli S, Liebenberg E, Magnitsky S, Lu B, Lauricella M, Lotz JC. Modic type 1 change is an autoimmune response that requires a proinflammatory milieu provided by the “Modic disc“. Spine J. 2017; 2018; 18(5):831–44.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.spinee.2017.12.004

  75. 75.

    Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine. 2001; 26 (17): 1873–8.

    Not in our library10.1097/00007632-200109010-00011

  76. 76.

    Liang CZ, Li H, Tao YQ, et al. The relationship between low pH in intervertebral discs and low back pain: a systematic review. Arch Med Sci. 2012; 8: 952–56.

    Not in our library10.5114/aoms.2012.32401

  77. 77.

    Keshari KR, Lotz JC, Link TM, Hu S, Majumdar S, Kurhanewicz J. Lactic acid and proteoglycans as metabolic markers for discogenic back pain. Spine. 2008; 33: 312–17.

    Not in our library10.1097/brs.0b013e31816201c3

  78. 78.

    Zhou Z, Bez M, Tawackoli W, et al. Quantitative chemical exchange saturation transfer MRI of intervertebral disc in a porcine model. Magn Reson Med. 2016; 76 (6): 1677–83.

    Not in our library10.1002/mrm.26457

  79. 79.

    Liu Q, Tawackoli W, Pelled G, et al. Detection of low back pain using pH level‐dependent imaging of the intervertebral disc using the ratio of R1ρ dispersion and −OH chemical exchange saturation transfer (RROC). Magn Reson Med. 2015; 73 (3): 1196–205.

    Not in our library10.1002/mrm.25186

  80. 80.

    Ogon I, Takebayashi T, Takashima H, et al. Analysis of chronic low back pain with magnetic resonance imaging T2 mapping of lumbar intervertebral disc. J Orthop Sci. 2015; 20 (2): 295–301.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00776-014-0686-0

  81. 81.

    Blumenkrantz G, Zuo J, Li X, Kornak J, Link TM, Majumdar S. In vivo 3.0‐tesla magnetic resonance T1ρ and T2 relaxation mapping in subjects with intervertebral disc degeneration and clinical symptoms. Magn Reson Med. 2010; 63 (5): 1193–200.

    Not in our library10.1002/mrm.22362

  82. 82.

    Vaga S, Raimondi MT, Caiani EG, et al. Quantitative assessment of intervertebral disc glycosaminoglycan distribution by gadolinium‐enhanced MRI in orthopedic patients. Magn Reson Med. 2008; 59 (1): 85–95.

    Not in our library10.1002/mrm.21433

  83. 83.

    Keshari KR, Lotz JC, Kurhanewicz J, Majumdar S. Correlation of HR‐MAS spectroscopy derived metabolite concentrations with collagen and proteoglycan levels and Thompson grade in the degenerative disc. Spine. 2005; 30 (23): 2683–8.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.brs.0000188256.88859.9c

  84. 84.

    Shapiro EM, Borthakur A, Gougoutas A, Reddy R. 23Na MRI accurately measures fixed charge density in articular cartilage. Magn Reson Med. 2002; 47 (2): 284–91.

    Not in our library10.1002/mrm.10054

  85. 85.

    Pang H, Bow C, Cheung JPY, et al. The UTE Disc Sign on MRI: a novel imaging biomarker associated with degenerative spine changes, low back pain, and disability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018; 43 (7): 503–11.

    Not in our library10.1097/brs.0000000000002369

  86. 86.

    Brayda‐Bruno M, Tibiletti M, Ito K, et al. Advances in the diagnosis of degenerated lumbar discs and their possible clinical application. Eur Spine J. 2013; 23(S3): 315–23.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00586-013-2960-9

  87. 87.

    Hancock MJ, Maher CG, Latimer J, et al. Systematic review of tests to identify the disc, SIJ or facet joint as the source of low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2007; 16 (10): 1539–50.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00586-007-0391-1

  88. 88.

    Cheng JS, Lee MJ, Massicotte E, et al. Clinical guidelines and payer policies on fusion for the treatment of chronic low back pain. Spine. 2011; 36: S144–63.

    Not in our library10.1097/brs.0b013e31822ef5b4

  89. 89.

    Tobert DG, Antoci V, Patel SP, Saadat E, Bono CM. Adjacent segment disease in the cervical and lumbar spine. Clin Spine Surg. 2017; 30 (3): 94–101.

    Not in our library10.1097/bsd.0000000000000442

  90. 90.

    Pan A, Hai Y, Yang J, Zhou L, Chen X, Guo H. Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion compared with motion‐preservation procedures: a meta‐analysis. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(5):1522–32.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00586-016-4415-6

  91. 91.

    Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M, et al. Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty. Spine. 2008; 33 (15): 1701–7.

    Not in our library10.1097/brs.0b013e31817bb956

  92. 92.

    Bydon M, la Garza‐Ramos De R, Macki M, Baker A, Gokaslan AK, Bydon A. Lumbar fusion versus nonoperative management for treatment of discogenic low back pain: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27(5):297–304.

    Not in our library10.1097/bsd.0000000000000072

  93. 93.

    Gornet M, Buttermann G, Guyer R, Yue J, Ferko N, Hollmann S. Defining the ideal lumbar total disc replacement patient and standard of care. Spine. 2017; 42: S103–7.

    Not in our library10.1097/brs.0000000000002453

  94. 94.

    van den Eerenbeemt KD, Ostelo RW, van Royen BJ, Peul WC, van Tulder MW. Total disc replacement surgery for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(8):1262–80.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00586-010-1445-3

  95. 95.

    Punt I, Willems P, Kurtz S, van Rhijn L, van Ooij A. Clinical outcomes of two revision strategies for failed total disc replacements. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(12):2558–64.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00586-012-2354-4

  96. 96.

    Siepe CJ, Heider F, Wiechert K, Hitzl W, Ishak B, Mayer MH. Mid‐ to long‐term results of total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective analysis with 5‐ to 10‐year follow‐up. Spine J. 2014;14(8):1417–31.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.028

  97. 97.

    Park HJ, Lee CS, Chung SS, et al. Radiological and clinical long‐term results of heterotopic ossification following lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J. 2018; 18 (5): 762–68.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.spinee.2017.09.003

  98. 98.

    Nelson AM, Nagpal G. Interventional approaches to low back pain. Clin Spine Surg. 2018; 31 (5): 188–96.

    Not in our library10.1097/bsd.0000000000000542

  99. 99.

    Lee JH, Lee SH. Clinical efficacy and its prognostic factor of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar annuloplasty and nucleoplasty for the treatment of patients with discogenic low back pain. World Neurosurg. 2017; 105: 832–40.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.wneu.2017.06.112

  100. 100.

    Jha SC, Higashino K, Sakai T, et al. Clinical significance of high‐intensity zone for discogenic low back pain: a review. J Med Invest. 2016; 63(1–2): 1–7.

    Not in our library10.2152/jmi.63.1

  101. 101.

    Ogbonnaya S, Kaliaperumal C, Qassim A, O Sullivan M. Outcome of nucleoplasty in patients with radicular pain due to lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. J Nat Sc Biol Med. 2013;4(1):187–7.

    Not in our library10.4103/0976-9668.107288

  102. 102.

    Erbas YC, Pusat S, Erdogan E. Percutaneous laser disc decompression: retrospective analysis of 197 cases and review of the literature. Turk Neurosurg. 2015; 25 (5): 766–70.

    Not in our library10.5137/1019-5149.jtn.14692-15.2

  103. 103.

    Bokov A, Perlmutter, Mlyavykh S, Aleynik, Rasteryaeva. The potential impact of various diagnostic strategies in cases of chronic pain syndromes associated with lumbar spine degeneration. J Pain Res. 2013;6:289–96.

    Not in our library10.2147/jpr.s42646

  104. 104.

    Veizi E, Hayek S. Interventional therapies for chronic low back pain. Neuromodulation. 2014; 17 Suppl 2: 31–45.

    Not in our library10.1111/ner.12250

  105. 105.

    Lu Y, Guzman JZ, Purmessur D, et al. Nonoperative management of discogenic back pain. Spine. 2014; 39 (16): 1314–24.

    Not in our library10.1097/brs.0000000000000401

  106. 106.

    Helm Ii S, Deer TR, Manchikanti L, et al. Effectiveness of thermal annular procedures in treating discogenic low back pain. Pain Physician. 2012;15(3):E279–304.

    Not in our library

  107. 107.

    Freeman BJ. IDET: a critical appraisal of the evidence. Eur Spine J;1; 2006; 15 Suppl 3: S448–57.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00586-006-0156-2

  108. 108.

    Stout A. Epidural steroid injections for low back pain. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2010; 21 (4): 825–34.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.pmr.2010.08.001

  109. 109.

    Cohen SP. Epidural steroid injections for low back pain. BMJ. 2011;343:d5310.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.d5310

  110. 110.

    Choi HJ, Hahn S, Kim CH, et al. Epidural steroid injection therapy for low back pain: a meta‐analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013; 29 (3): 244–53.

    Not in our library10.1017/s0266462313000342

  111. 111.

    Rabinovitch DL, Peliowski A, Furlan AD. Influence of lumbar epidural injection volume on pain relief for radicular leg pain and/or low back pain. Spine J. 2009;9(6):509–17.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.spinee.2009.03.003

  112. 112.

    Manchikanti L, Cash KA, McManus CD, Pampati V. Fluoroscopic caudal epidural injections in managing chronic axial low back pain without disc herniation, radiculitis, or facet joint pain. J Pain Res. 2012; 5: 381–90.

    Not in our library10.2147/jpr.s35924

  113. 113.

    Khot A, Bowditch M, Powell J, Sharp D. The use of intradiscal steroid therapy for lumbar spinal discogenic pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2004; 29 (8): 833–6; discussion837.

    Not in our library10.1097/00007632-200404150-00002

  114. 114.

    Chou R, Hashimoto R, Friedly J, et al. Pain management injection therapies for low back pain. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2015.

    Not in our library

  115. 115.

    Zhang X, Hao J, Hu Z, Yang H. Clinical evaluation and magnetic resonance imaging assessment of intradiscal methylene blue injection for the treatment of discogenic low back pain. Pain Physician. 2016; 19 (8): E1189–95.

    Not in our library

  116. 116.

    Peng B, Pang X, Wu Y, Zhao C, Song X. A randomized placebo‐controlled trial of intradiscal methylene blue injection for the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain. Pain. 2010; 149 (1): 124–9.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.pain.2010.01.021

  117. 117.

    Moll X, García F, Ferrer RI, Santos L, Aguilar A, Andaluz A. Distribution of methylene blue after injection into the epidural space of anaesthetized pregnant and non‐pregnant sheep. PLoS One. 2014; 9 (4):e92860.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0092860

  118. 118.

    Farrokhi MR, Vasei M, Fareghbal S, Farrokhi N. The effect of methylene blue on peridural fibrosis formation after laminectomy in rats: an experimental novel study. Spine J. 2011;11(2):147–52.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.spinee.2011.01.014

  119. 119.

    Sharr MM, Weller RO, Brice JG. Spinal cord necrosis after intrathecal injection of methylene blue. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1978; 41 (4): 384–6.

    Not in our library10.1136/jnnp.41.4.384

  120. 120.

    Kandel R, Roberts S, Urban JP. Tissue engineering and the intervertebral disc: the challenges. Eur Spine J. 2008;17 Suppl 4:480–91.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00586-008-0746-2

  121. 121.

    Basso M, Cavagnaro L, Zanirato A, et al. What is the clinical evidence on regenerative medicine in intervertebral disc degeneration? Musculoskelet Surg. 2017; 101 (2): 93–104.

    Not in our library10.1007/s12306-017-0462-3

  122. 122.

    Wu T, Song HX, Dong Y, Li JH. Cell‐based therapies for lumbar discogenic low back pain. Spine. 2018; 43 (1): 49–57.

    Not in our library10.1097/brs.0000000000001549

  123. 123.

    Orozco L, Soler R, Morera C, Alberca M, Sánchez A, García‐Sancho J. Intervertebral disc repair by autologous mesenchymal bone marrow cells: a pilot study. Transplantation. 2011; 92 (7): 822–8.

    Not in our library10.1097/tp.0b013e3182298a15

  124. 124.
    Safety and tolerability of intradiscal implantation of combined autologous adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells and hyaluronic acid in patients with chronic discogenic low back pain: 1-year follow-up of a phase I study · 2017
    No notice
  125. 125.

    Noriega DC, Ardura F, Hernández‐Ramajo R, et al. Intervertebral disc repair by allogeneic mesenchymal bone marrow cells: a randomized controlled trial. Transplantation. 2017; 101 (8): 1945–51.

    Not in our library10.1097/tp.0000000000001484

  126. 126.

    Monfett M, Harrison J, Boachie‐Adjei K, Lutz G. Intradiscal platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) injections for discogenic low back pain: an update. Int Orthop. 2016; 40 (6): 1321–8.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00264-016-3178-3

  127. 127.

    Levi D, Horn S, Tyszko S, Levin J, Hecht‐Leavitt C, Walko E. Intradiscal platelet‐rich plasma injection for chronic discogenic low back pain: preliminary results from a prospective trial. Pain Med. 2016; 17 (6): 1010–22.

    Not in our library10.1093/pm/pnv053

  128. 128.

    Tuakli‐Wosornu YA, Terry A, Boachie‐Adjei K, et al. Lumbar intradiskal platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) injections: a prospective, double‐blind, randomized controlled study. PM.R. 2016; 8 (1): 1‐10‐quiz 10.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.pmrj.2015.08.010

  129. 129.

    Formica M, Cavagnaro L, Formica C, Mastrogiacomo M, Basso M, Di Martino A. What is the preclinical evidence on platelet rich plasma and intervertebral disc degeneration? Eur Spine J. 2015;24(11):2377–86.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00586-015-4189-2

  130. 130.

    Tschugg A, Diepers M, Simone S, et al. A prospective randomized multicenter phase I/II clinical trial to evaluate safety and efficacy of NOVOCART disk plus autologous disk chondrocyte transplantation in the treatment of nucleotomized and degenerative lumbar disks to avoid secondary disease: safety results of Phase I—a short report. Neurosurg Rev. 2017; 40 (1): 155–62.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10143-016-0781-0

  131. 131.

    Tschugg A, Michnacs F, Strowitzki M, Meisel HJ, Thome C. A prospective multicenter phase I/II clinical trial to evaluate safety and efficacy of NOVOCART disc plus autologous disc chondrocyte transplantation in the treatment of nucleotomized and degenerative lumbar disc to avoid secondary disease: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials; 2016; 17 (1): 108.

    Not in our library10.1186/s13063-016-1239-y

  132. 132.

    Meisel HJ, Ganey T, Hutton WC, Libera J, Minkus Y, Alasevic O. Clinical experience in cell‐based therapeutics: intervention and outcome. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(S3):397–405.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00586-006-0169-x

  133. 133.

    Vadalà G, Sowa G, Hubert M, Gilbertson LG, Denaro V, Kang JD. Mesenchymal stem cells injection in degenerated intervertebral disc: cell leakage may induce osteophyte formation. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2011; 6 (5): 348–55.

    Not in our library10.1002/term.433

  134. 134.

    Cruz MA, Hom WW, DiStefano TJ, et al. Cell‐seeded adhesive biomaterial for repair of annulus fibrosus defects in intervertebral discs. Tissue Eng Part A. 2018; 24(3‐4): 187–98.

    Not in our library10.1089/ten.tea.2017.0334

  135. 135.

    Bowles RD, Setton LA. Biomaterials for intervertebral disc regeneration and repair. Biomaterials. 2017; 129: 54–67.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.03.013

  136. 136.

    Parker SL, Grahovac G, Vukas D, et al. Effect of an annular closure device (Barricaid) on same‐level recurrent disk herniation and disk height loss after primary lumbar discectomy: two‐year results of a multicenter prospective cohort study. Clin Spine Surg. 2016; 29 (10): 454–60.

    Not in our library10.1097/bsd.0b013e3182956ec5

  137. 137.

    Abram AK. Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee Meeting announcement. [cited December 12, 2017 ]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/ucm580520.htm.

    Not in our library

  138. 138.

    Iatridis JC, Nicoll SB, Michalek AJ, Walter BA, Gupta MS. Role of biomechanics in intervertebral disc degeneration and regenerative therapies: what needs repairing in the disc and what are promising biomaterials for its repair? Spine J. 2013;13(3):243–62.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.spinee.2012.12.002

  139. 139.

    Torre OM, Cruz MA, Hecht AC, Iatridis JC. Annulus fibrosus repair. In: Hartl R, Bonassar L, editors. Biological approaches to spinal disc repair and regeneration for clinicians. New York: Thieme; 2017.

    Not in our library

  140. 140.

    Sloan SR Jr, Lintz M, Hussain I, Hartl R, Bonassar LJ. Biologic annulus fibrosus repair: a review of preclinical in vivo investigations. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2018; 24 (3): 179–90.

    Not in our library10.1089/ten.teb.2017.0351

  141. 141.

    Sharifi S, Bulstra SK, Grijpma DW, Kuijer R. Treatment of the degenerated intervertebral disc; closure, repair and regeneration of the annulus fibrosus. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2015; 9 (10): 1120–32.

    Not in our library10.1002/term.1866

  142. 142.

    Gullbrand SE, Kim DH, Bonnevie E, et al. Towards the scale up of tissue engineered intervertebral discs for clinical application. Acta Biomaterialia. 2018; 70: 154–64.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.actbio.2018.01.050

  143. 143.

    Martin JT, Gullbrand SE, Kim DH, et al. In vitro maturation and in vivo integration and function of an engineered cell‐seeded disc‐like angle ply structure (DAPS) for total disc arthroplasty. Sci Rep. 2017; 7(1): 15765.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-017-15887-4

  144. 144.

    Moriguchi Y, Mojica‐Santiago J, Grunert P, et al. Total disc replacement using tissue‐engineered intervertebral discs in the canine cervical spine. PLoS One. 2017; 12 (10):e0185716.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0185716

  145. 145.

    Iu J, Massicotte E, Li SQ, et al. In vitro generated intervertebral discs: toward engineering tissue integration. Tissue Eng Part A. 2017; 23(17–18): 1001–10.

    Not in our library10.1089/ten.tea.2016.0433

  146. 146.

    Hamilton DJ, Séguin CA, Wang J, Pilliar RM, Kandel RA. Formation of a nucleus pulposus‐cartilage endplate construct in vitro. Biomaterials. 2006; 27 (3): 397–405.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.07.007

  147. 147.

    Mirza SK, Deyo RA. Systematic review of randomized trials comparing lumbar fusion surgery to nonoperative care for treatment of chronic back pain. Spine. 2007; 32 (7): 816–23.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.brs.0000259225.37454.38

  148. 148.

    Chaparro LE, Furlan AD, Deshpande A, Mailis‐Gagnon A, Atlas S, Turk DC. Opioids compared to placebo or other treatments for chronic low‐back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; (8):CD004959.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd004959.pub4

  149. 149.

    Deshpande A, Furlan A, Mailis‐Gagnon A, Atlas S, Turk D. Opioids for chronic low‐back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; (3):CD004959.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd004959.pub3

  150. 150.

    Edwards RR, Dolman AJ, Michna E, et al. Changes in pain sensitivity and pain modulation during oral opioid treatment: the impact of negative affect. Pain Med. 2016; 17 (10): 1882–91.

    Not in our library10.1093/pm/pnw010

  151. 151.

    Anderson JT, Haas AR, Percy R, Woods ST, Ahn UM, Ahn NU. Chronic opioid therapy after lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative disc disease in a workers’ compensation setting. Spine. 2015; 40(22): 1775–84.

    Not in our library10.1097/brs.0000000000001054

  152. 152.

    Simon J, McAuliffe M, Shamim F, Vuong N, Tahaei A. Discogenic low back pain. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014; 25 (2): 305–17.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.pmr.2014.01.006

  153. 153.

    Lai A, Chow DH. Effects of traction on structural properties of degenerated disc using an in vivo rat‐tail model. Spine. 2010; 35 (14): 1339–45.

    Not in our library10.1097/brs.0b013e3181c617f6

  154. 154.

    Lotz JC, Hadi T, Bratton C, Reiser KM, Hsieh AH. Anulus fibrosus tension inhibits degenerative structural changes in lamellar collagen. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(9):1149–59.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00586-008-0721-y

  155. 155.

    Schimmel JJP, de Kleuver M, Horsting PP, Spruit M, Jacobs WCH, van Limbeek J. No effect of traction in patients with low back pain: a single centre, single blind, randomized controlled trial of Intervertebral Differential Dynamics Therapy. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(12):1843–50.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00586-009-1044-3

  156. 156.

    McKenzie R. Mechanical diagnosis and therapy of the lumbar spine, 1st ed Waikanae, New Zealand: Spinal Publications Ltd; 1981.

    Not in our library

  157. 157.

    Hefford C. McKenzie classification of mechanical spinal pain: profile of syndromes and directions of preference. Man Ther. 2008; 13: 75–81.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.math.2006.08.005

  158. 158.

    Machado LA, de Souza MV, Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML. The McKenzie method for low back pain: a systematic review of the literature with a meta‐analysis approach. Spine. 2006; 31 (9): E254–62.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.brs.0000214884.18502.93

  159. 159.

    Lam OT, Strenger DM, Chan‐Fee M, Pham PT, Preuss RA, Robbins SM. Effectiveness of the McKenzie method of mechanical diagnosis and therapy for treating low back pain: literature review with meta‐analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018; 48 (6): 476–90.

    Not in our library10.2519/jospt.2018.7562

  160. 160.

    Hanscom DA, Brox JI, Bunnage R. Defining the role of cognitive behavioral therapy in treating chronic low back pain: an overview. Global Spine J. 2015;5(6):496–504.

    Not in our library10.1055/s-0035-1567836

  161. 161.

    Linden M, Scherbe S, Cicholas B. Randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of cognitive behavior group therapy in chronic back pain patients. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2014; 27 (4): 563–8.

    Not in our library10.3233/bmr-140518

  162. 162.

    Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, Balderson BH, et al. Effect of mindfulness‐based stress reduction vs cognitive behavioral therapy or usual care on back pain and functional limitations in adults with chronic low back pain. JAMA. 2016; 315 (12): 1240–19.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.2016.2323

  163. 163.

    Furlan AD, van Tulder M, Cherkin D, et al. Acupuncture and dry‐needling for low back pain: an updated systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration. Spine. 2005; 30 (8): 944–63.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.brs.0000158941.21571.01

  164. 164.

    Foster NE, Anema JR, Cherkin D, et al. Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions. Lancet 2018; 391 (10137): 2368–83.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30489-6

  165. 165.

    Stochkendahl MJ, Kjaer P, Hartvigsen J, et al. National clinical guidelines for non‐surgical treatment of patients with recent onset low back pain or lumbar radiculopathy. Eur Spine J. 2018; 27 (1): 60–75.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00586-017-5099-2

  166. 166.

    Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, McLean RM, Forciea MA, Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017; 166:514–30.

    Not in our library10.7326/m16-2367

  167. 167.

    UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Low back pain and sciatica in over 16s: assessment and management. [cited January 2019 ]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng59

    Not in our library

  168. 168.

    Kamper SJ, Apeldoorn AT, Chiarotto A, et al. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(9):CD000963.

    Not in our library10.1002/14651858.cd000963.pub3

Cited by papers we hold 2

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.