I agree that people need to do their own research and start getting more involved in making their own medical decisions, rather than just doing whatever the doctor says. Unfortunately, most people don't seem to do that.

However, since I did not read the article, I can't make a judgment about whether "doing nothing" is always better in the case of low back pain. Low back pain can have many causes. I doubt it is always better to do nothing than to do something, regardless of the underlying condition.

How large were these studies? Were the patients randomized into treatment vs. non-treatment groups or were these the courses of action those individuals chose to take? Have the studies been replicated?

I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm just saying that these are pretty big claims to make. Also, may I ask why you are making all these postings? Did you have an ineffective surgery? I'm just wondering.

Excellent questions Lydia32.

Where is a link to the mentioned article.

Have you properly understood what was said in the article?

Citing articles that are 6 years old or more, may or may not provide valid information.

Awaq, you seem to have some kind of chip on your shoulder about spine specialists, surgery and various treatments for spine problems.

You are posting all kinds of article information without providing any of us the ability to read what you are talking about.

Fran

"Advertising is not allowed on E-Health Forum". So I am not allowed to post any links.
There are many such articles in Spine magazine and available to anyone who can get a copy.

Fran, I was told by this forum:
"We are interested in the most accurate medical information in terms of references. "

I am merely citing clinical studies which, by definition, are the most accurate medical information in terms of references.

If the clinical studies that you are speaking about where valid and accepted studies by reputable journals and peer reviewed by spine specialists, I doubt there would be a problem with posting a link to them.

I have posted many a link, over my years as a member on this forum without any problems.

Those links where for reputable studies, reputable information and important info for members.

I have never heard of "spine magazine" and google search gave me various junk but not a reputable spine journal.

Fran

Spine is a medical journal mainly written for doctors. Funny how I was told:
""We are interested in the most accurate medical information in terms of references. "

yet this forum considers this journal disreputable? Apparently Lee deleted my posts on Discograms (as published in Spine) and my posts on a clinical study of ADR (as published in "Journal of Spine Disorders & Techniques" as I can't find them on this forum.
For what reason? Are clinical studies disreputable? How can that be when cited in medical journals written for the very M.D.'s that are on this site?
What do you think about that?

"I have posted many a link, over my years as a member on this forum without any problems. '
Yet I post a link to an article written by a doctor and Lee deletes my post because:
"the second link contains text that could have been written by anyone."
Yet the author name was clearly written across the top of the page. And No advertising on the page either so she couldn't use that for an excuse.

Try searching for "Spine Journal." Spine Magazine is something different. I agree that it looks reputable, I think it's just the name that sounds a bit off. Most medical journals use more official sounding names, like "The New England Journal of Medicine" or "The Journal of Clinical Oncology".

I'm not saying it is a legitimate medical journal, but I have no evidence that it isn't. I'm just saying that "The Journal of Functional Neurophysiology" sounds much more reputable (a real journal, btw). Maybe they have something about this subject there?

Spine and The Spine Journal are two well respected journals & good studies stand the test of time. There has not been any subsequent studies to displace this trend in research and in fact there are new studies that support the ineffectiveness of surgery for back pain. Surgery may be useful for neurological deficit, or refractory pain.