scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

David G. Borenstein

Bio: David G. Borenstein is an academic researcher from Washington University in St. Louis. The author has contributed to research in topics: Low back pain & Back pain. The author has an hindex of 33, co-authored 76 publications receiving 12358 citations. Previous affiliations of David G. Borenstein include Brigham and Women's Hospital & George Washington University.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Variables from the medical history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and radiographs were used to develop sets of criteria that serve different investigative purposes and these proposed criteria utilize classification trees, or algorithms.
Abstract: For the purposes of classification, it should be specified whether osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is of unknown origin (idiopathic, primary) or is related to a known medical condition or event (secondary). Clinical criteria for the classification of idiopathic OA of the knee were developed through a multicenter study group. Comparison diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis and other painful conditions of the knee, exclusive of referred or para-articular pain. Variables from the medical history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and radiographs were used to develop sets of criteria that serve different investigative purposes. In contrast to prior criteria, these proposed criteria utilize classification trees, or algorithms.

6,160 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Clinical criteria for the classification of symptomatic idiopathic (primary) osteoarthritis of the hands were developed from data collected in a multicenter study and required that at least 3 of these 4 criteria be present to classify a patient as having OA of the hand.
Abstract: Clinical criteria for the classification of patients with hip pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA) were developed through a multicenter study. Data from 201 patients who had experienced hip pain for most days of the prior month were analyzed. The comparison group of patients had other causes of hip pain, such as rheumatoid arthritis or spondylarthropathy. Variables from the medical history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and radiographs were used to develop different sets of criteria to serve different investigative purposes. Multivariate methods included the traditional "number of criteria present" format and "classification tree" techniques. Clinical criteria: A classification tree was developed, without radiographs, for clinical and laboratory criteria or for clinical criteria alone. A patient was classified as having hip OA if pain was present in combination with either 1) hip internal rotation greater than or equal to 15 degrees, pain present on internal rotation of the hip, morning stiffness of the hip for less than or equal to 60 minutes, and age greater than 50 years, or 2) hip internal rotation less than 15 degrees and an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) less than or equal to 45 mm/hour; if no ESR was obtained, hip flexion less than or equal to 115 degrees was substituted (sensitivity 86%; specificity 75%). Clinical plus radiographic criteria: The traditional format combined pain with at least 2 of the following 3 criteria: osteophytes (femoral or acetabular), joint space narrowing (superior, axial, and/or medial), and ESR less than 20 mm/hour (sensitivity 89%; specificity 91%). The radiographic presence of osteophytes best separated OA patients and controls by the classification tree method (sensitivity 89%; specificity 91%). The "number of criteria present" format yielded criteria and levels of sensitivity and specificity similar to those of the classification tree for the combined clinical and radiographic criteria set. For the clinical criteria set, the classification tree provided much greater specificity. The value of the radiographic presence of an osteophyte in separating patients with OA of the hip from those with hip pain of other causes is emphasized.

2,447 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: To provide evidence‐based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spONDyloarthritis (SpA).
Abstract: Objective To provide evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). Methods A core group led the development of the recommendations, starting with the treatment questions. A literature review group conducted systematic literature reviews of studies that addressed 57 specific treatment questions, based on searches conducted in OVID Medline (1946–2014), PubMed (1966–2014), and the Cochrane Library. We assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. A separate voting group reviewed the evidence and voted on recommendations for each question using the GRADE framework. Results In patients with active AS, the strong recommendations included use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) when activity persists despite NSAID treatment, not to use systemic glucocorticoids, use of physical therapy, and use of hip arthroplasty for patients with advanced hip arthritis. Among the conditional recommendations was that no particular TNFi was preferred except in patients with concomitant inflammatory bowel disease or recurrent iritis, in whom TNFi monoclonal antibodies should be used. In patients with active nonradiographic axial SpA despite treatment with NSAIDs, we conditionally recommend treatment with TNFi. Other recommendations for patients with nonradiographic axial SpA were based on indirect evidence and were the same as for patients with AS. Conclusion These recommendations provide guidance for the management of common clinical questions in AS and nonradiographic axial SpA. Additional research on optimal medication management over time, disease monitoring, and preventive care is needed to help establish best practices in these areas.

432 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The findings on magnetic resonance scans were not predictive of the development or duration of low-back pain and revealed a greater frequency of disc herniation, bulging, degeneration, and spinal stenosis than did the original scans.
Abstract: Background: In 1989, a group of sixty-seven asymptomatic individuals with no history of back pain underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine. Twenty-one subjects (31%) had an identifiable abnormality of a disc or of the spinal canal. In the current study, we investigated whether the findings on the scans of the lumbar spine that had been made in 1989 predicted the development of low-back pain in these asymptomatic subjects. Methods: A questionnaire concerning the development and duration of low-back pain over a seven-year period was sent to the sixty-seven asymptomatic individuals from the 1989 study. A total of fifty subjects completed and returned the questionnaire. A repeat magnetic resonance scan was made for thirty-one of these subjects. Two neuroradiologists and one orthopaedic spine surgeon interpreted the original and repeat scans in a blinded fashion, independent of clinical information. At each disc level, any radiographic abnormality, including bulging or degeneration of the disc, was identified. Radiographic progression was defined as increasing severity of an abnormality at a specific disc level or the involvement of additional levels. Results: Of the fifty subjects who returned the questionnaire, twenty-nine (58%) had no back pain. Low-back pain developed in twenty-one subjects during the seven-year study period. The 1989 scans of these subjects demonstrated normal findings in twelve, a herniated disc in five, stenosis in three, and moderate disc degeneration in one. Eight individuals had radiating leg pain; four of them had had normal findings on the original scans, two had had spinal stenosis, one had had a disc protrusion, and one had had a disc extrusion. In general, repeat magnetic resonance imaging scans revealed a greater frequency of disc herniation, bulging, degeneration, and spinal stenosis than did the original scans. Conclusions: The findings on magnetic resonance scans were not predictive of the development or duration of low-back pain. Individuals with the longest duration of low-back pain did not have the greatest degree of anatomical abnormality on the original, 1989 scans. Clinical correlation is essential to determine the importance of abnormalities on magnetic resonance images.

418 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: To update evidence‐based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spONDyloarthritis (SpA).
Abstract: Objective To update evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). Methods We conducted updated systematic literature reviews for 20 clinical questions on pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2015 guidelines, and for 26 new questions on pharmacologic treatment, treat-to-target strategy, and use of imaging. New questions addressed the use of secukinumab, ixekizumab, tofacitinib, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biosimilars, and biologic tapering/discontinuation, among others. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations and required at least 70% agreement among the voting panel. Results Recommendations for AS and nonradiographic axial SpA are similar. TNFi are recommended over secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first biologic to be used. Secukinumab or ixekizumab is recommended over the use of a second TNFi in patients with primary nonresponse to the first TNFi. TNFi, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are favored over tofacitinib. Co-administration of low-dose methotrexate with TNFi is not recommended, nor is a strict treat-to-target strategy or discontinuation or tapering of biologics in patients with stable disease. Sulfasalazine is recommended only for persistent peripheral arthritis when TNFi are contraindicated. For patients with unclear disease activity, spine or pelvis magnetic resonance imaging could aid assessment. Routine monitoring of radiographic changes with serial spine radiographs is not recommended. Conclusion These recommendations provide updated guidance regarding use of new medications and imaging of the axial skeleton in the management of AS and nonradiographic axial SpA.

405 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were formulated from a computerized analysis of 262 contemporary, consecutively studied patients with RA and 262 control subjects with rheumatic diseases other than RA (non-RA).
Abstract: The revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were formulated from a computerized analysis of 262 contemporary, consecutively studied patients with RA and 262 control subjects with rheumatic diseases other than RA (non-RA). The new criteria are as follows: 1) morning stiffness in and around joints lasting at least 1 hour before maximal improvement; 2) soft tissue swelling (arthritis) of 3 or more joint areas observed by a physician; 3) swelling (arthritis) of the proximal interphalangeal, metacarpophalangeal, or wrist joints; 4) symmetric swelling (arthritis); 5) rheumatoid nodules; 6) the presence of rheumatoid factor; and 7) radiographic erosions and/or periarticular osteopenia in hand and/or wrist joints. Criteria 1 through 4 must have been present for at least 6 weeks. Rheumatoid arthritis is defined by the presence of 4 or more criteria, and no further qualifications (classic, definite, or probable) or list of exclusions are required. In addition, a "classification tree" schema is presented which performs equally as well as the traditional (4 of 7) format. The new criteria demonstrated 91-94% sensitivity and 89% specificity for RA when compared with non-RA rheumatic disease control subjects.

19,409 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The burden of four major musculoskeletal conditions: osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, and low back pain, which affects nearly everyone at some point in time and about 4-33% of the population at any given point is described.
Abstract: Musculoskeletal conditions are a major burden on individuals, health systems, and social care systems, with indirect costs being predominant. This burden has been recognized by the United Nations and WHO, by endorsing the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010. This paper describes the burden of four major musculoskeletal conditions: osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, and low back pain. Osteoarthritis, which is characterized by loss of joint cartilage that leads to pain and loss of function primarily in the knees and hips, affects 9.6% of men and 18% of women aged > 60 years. Increases in life expectancy and ageing populations are expected to make osteoarthritis the fourth leading cause of disability by the year 2020. Joint replacement surgery, where available, provides effective relief. Rheumatoid arthritis is an inflammatory condition that usually affects multiple joints. It affects 0.3-1.0% of the general population and is more prevalent among women and in developed countries. Persistent inflammation leads to joint destruction, but the disease can be controlled with drugs. The incidence may be on the decline, but the increase in the number of older people in some regions makes it difficult to estimate future prevalence. Osteoporosis, which is characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration, is a major risk factor for fractures of the hip, vertebrae, and distal forearm. Hip fracture is the most detrimental fracture, being associated with 20% mortality and 50% permanent loss in function. Low back pain is the most prevalent of musculoskeletal conditions; it affects nearly everyone at some point in time and about 4-33% of the population at any given point. Cultural factors greatly influence the prevalence and prognosis of low back pain.

3,361 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Given the limitations of the data on which they are based, this report provides the best available prevalence estimates for arthritis and other rheumatic conditions overall, and for selected musculoskeletal disorders, in the US population.
Abstract: Objective To provide a single source for the best available estimates of the national prevalence of arthritis in general and of selected musculoskeletal disorders (osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, the spondylarthropathies, systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, polymyalgia rheumatica/giant cell arteritis, gout, fibromyalgia, and low back pain). Methods The National Arthritis Data Workgroup reviewed data from available surveys, such as the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey series. For overall national estimates, we used surveys based on representative samples. Because data based on national population samples are unavailable for most specific musculoskeletal conditions, we derived data from various smaller survey samples from defined populations. Prevalence estimates from these surveys were linked to 1990 US Bureau of the Census population data to calculate national estimates. We also estimated the expected frequency of arthritis in the year 2020. Results Current national estimates are provided, with important caveats regarding their interpretation, for self-reported arthritis and selected conditions. An estimated 15% (40 million) of Americans had some form or arthritis in 1995. By the year 2020, an estimated 18.2% (59.4 million) will be affected. Conclusion Given the limitations of the data on which they are based, this report provides the best available prevalence estimates for arthritis and other rheumatic conditions overall, and for selected musculoskeletal disorders, in the US population.

2,667 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Clinical criteria for the classification of symptomatic idiopathic (primary) osteoarthritis of the hands were developed from data collected in a multicenter study and required that at least 3 of these 4 criteria be present to classify a patient as having OA of the hand.
Abstract: Clinical criteria for the classification of patients with hip pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA) were developed through a multicenter study. Data from 201 patients who had experienced hip pain for most days of the prior month were analyzed. The comparison group of patients had other causes of hip pain, such as rheumatoid arthritis or spondylarthropathy. Variables from the medical history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and radiographs were used to develop different sets of criteria to serve different investigative purposes. Multivariate methods included the traditional "number of criteria present" format and "classification tree" techniques. Clinical criteria: A classification tree was developed, without radiographs, for clinical and laboratory criteria or for clinical criteria alone. A patient was classified as having hip OA if pain was present in combination with either 1) hip internal rotation greater than or equal to 15 degrees, pain present on internal rotation of the hip, morning stiffness of the hip for less than or equal to 60 minutes, and age greater than 50 years, or 2) hip internal rotation less than 15 degrees and an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) less than or equal to 45 mm/hour; if no ESR was obtained, hip flexion less than or equal to 115 degrees was substituted (sensitivity 86%; specificity 75%). Clinical plus radiographic criteria: The traditional format combined pain with at least 2 of the following 3 criteria: osteophytes (femoral or acetabular), joint space narrowing (superior, axial, and/or medial), and ESR less than 20 mm/hour (sensitivity 89%; specificity 91%). The radiographic presence of osteophytes best separated OA patients and controls by the classification tree method (sensitivity 89%; specificity 91%). The "number of criteria present" format yielded criteria and levels of sensitivity and specificity similar to those of the classification tree for the combined clinical and radiographic criteria set. For the clinical criteria set, the classification tree provided much greater specificity. The value of the radiographic presence of an osteophyte in separating patients with OA of the hip from those with hip pain of other causes is emphasized.

2,447 citations