ArticleChiropractic & manual therapies2026
Use of prescribed analgesics before and after a standardised chiropractic care programme among patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a nationwide cohort study.
Article in Chiropractic & manual therapies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) commonly use analgesics despite not being recommended by clinical guidelines. However, detailed knowledge of utilisation patterns is limited. This study aimed to describe prescribed analgesic use before, during, and after enrolment in a standardised chiropractic care programme, and to examine associations between patient characteristics and continued analgesic use after the programme.
methodsThis cohort study included patients with LSS enrolled in the chiropractic care programme between 1 April 2017 and 31 December 2022, identified via the Danish National Health Service Register. The programme provides guideline-based non-pharmacological care, structured follow-up, and coordination with the patient's general practitioner. Data on dispensed analgesics were retrieved from the Danish National Prescription Registry. Quarterly prevalence of analgesic use (≥ 1 dispensed prescriptions) and defined daily doses per 1000 individuals were calculated for the year before enrolment, 3 months during, and the year after the programme. The distribution of use was assessed using Lorenz curves and Gini coefficients. Associations between patient characteristics and continued analgesic use (≥ 1 dispensed prescriptions in ≥ 2 of 4 consecutive quarters) after the programme among existing users were examined using robust Poisson regression.
resultsOf the 7294 included patients, 45% used analgesics in the year before enrolment. Use of paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), opioids, and gabapentinoids increased in the year before enrolment, peaked during the programme, and generally declined after. Ten percent of analgesic users accounted for approximately 43%, 49%, 68%, and 57% of the total use of paracetamol, NSAIDs, opioids, and gabapentinoids, respectively. Female sex, having one comorbidity, and pre-existing use of paracetamol, opioid, or gabapentinoid were associated with a 5-16% higher risk of continued use, whereas long-cycle higher education was associated with a 13% lower risk.
conclusionsAnalgesic use increased before enrolment, peaked during the programme, and then declined after. A small proportion of analgesic users accounted for a large share of the total use. Sociodemographic and health-related factors, and pre-existing analgesic use were associated with continued use. These findings highlight the complexity of analgesic use in this population and emphasise the need for deprescribing strategies that take this complexity into account.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.