In Support of Manchikanti et al ACOEM guideline criticisms.

Comment on Manchikanti et al's ACOEM guideline criticism.

As practicing interventional pain physicians, we were pleased to see the point-by-point evaluation of the recent ACOEM guidelines (1,2). Although the 400page ACOEM chapters at first glance appear impressive, through this analysis it becomes clear that the ACOEM chapters are fatally flawed. Unfortunately, insurance companies have been quick to accept any information that allows them to deny paym...

In reference to Manchikanti et al's criticism of ACOEM guidelines.

Regarding Manchikanti et al’s recent articles A Critical Appraisal of Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines for Interventional Pain Management and Review of Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines for Interventional Pain Management and Potential Implications (1,2), it is ironic that the authors purport to evaluate methods for the collection of evidence, but rely on flawed methodology (e.g...

Reassessment of evidence synthesis of occupational medicine practice guidelines for interventional pain management.

BACKGROUND Appropriately developed practice guidelines present statements of best practice based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence from published studies on the outcomes of treatments, which include the application of multiple methods for collecting and evaluating evidence for a wide range of clinical interventions and disciplines. However, the guidelines are neither infallible, nor a su...

Response to Knezevic et al: Reply from Manchikanti.

ACOEM guideline analysis.

The recent series of 3 articles published in Pain Physician regarding the ACOEM guidelines represented a significant new approach to evidence analysis and guideline synthesis by the addition of guideline criticism (1-3). The manner in which the articles were written attempt to objectively and strictly apply the methods of analysis and synthesis as proposed by prominent agencies and medical soci...