Volume 104, Issue 10

Despite 80 years of study, questions of how leg length difference relates to recurrent pain and somatic dysfunction remain controversial. The authors hypothesize that a correlation exists between leg length inequality and back pain. They further hypothesize that if common compensatory patterns described in classic osteopathic medical literature exist, these patterns should interact with the pelvic postural asymmetry patterns of Lloyd and Eimerbrink in a predictable, most probable, and congruent fashion. This article reviews the osteopathic medical, as well as the allopathic medical and chiropractic literature for studies that meet criteria for evidence-based comparison. Using lumbar radiographic studies produced with subjects standing, the authors examined the prevalence of six types of pelvic postural asymmetry in a consecutive case series of 421 patients with low back pain. Establishing the frequency of pelvic postural asymmetry patterns is a necessary first step in creating an evidence-based foundation to further clarify postural compensatory patterns. Various correlations between and within these patterns are identified.

The authors validate the Outpatient Osteopathic SOS (Single Organ System) Musculoskeletal Exam Form (SOS MSEF), a 1-page form contained within the 4-page Outpatient Osteopathic Single Organ System Musculoskeletal Exam Form Series (SOS-FS). Handwritten physician progress notes (PPNs) in the medical record (considered to be the “gold standard” for clinical records) were compared with information placed on the SOS MSEF for the same patient encounter. Data recorded by 14 trained and certified investigators on the standardized SOS MSEF—which was designed for use with the previously validated Outpatient Osteopathic SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan) Note Form (SNF)—was compared with data recorded by the same investigators in PPNs. The authors compared the accuracy and efficiency of physicians recording musculoskeletal information in these two formats for 165 patient encounters. Descriptive statistics and t tests were used to compare data recorded after patient encounters. Ninety-seven variables input from the PPNs or SOS MSEFs were significantly different at the P ≤ .05 level, whereas 38 variables were not. Insufficient data was recorded for a determination of significance in 3 variables. For 121 variables, more data were recorded using the SOS MSEFs than PPNs; for 84 variables, the amount of data recorded exceeded twice that recorded using PPNs. For 10 variables, more data were recorded in PPNs; however, these differences were not significant. The authors conclude that the SOS MSEF is superior to PPNs for recording patient-encounter data in the osteopathic care setting. Moreover, they argue that the use of the validated SOS MSEF nationwide would ensure that osteopathic physicians would be recording data in a similar manner for uniform insurance claim coding, easy tracking of physicians-in-training and patient outcomes, and data collection for future research.