ASIPP is a great organization for what they do - lobby to get us paid fairly for the work we do. When they start venturing into the realm of guidelines, textbooks, certification, etc, they are poaching the domain of organizations dedicated to the science of what we do.
This book looks a lot like the pain physician journal - you know the one - Dr. M writes an article, Dr. S reviews it, then Dr. S writes an article, Dr. M reviews it. Now mind you, I haven't read of page of it, but that is my inclination.
I will leave it to Algos for his requisite anti-ASIPP rant, but suffice it to say, ASIPP ought to be the lobbying arm of the pain world. Duplicating the efforts of other groups just make them look like they are overstepping their legitimate mandate.
Can you clarify what articles trouble you and can you clarify why you are attacking the integrity of the Pain Physician peer review process?
And furthermore what is exactly scientific about ISIS?
A closed anatomic model of spine pain defined by so and so nerve going to so and so structure causing so and so pain is obsolete and dated.
At a minimum, ISIS should start incorporating peer reviewed articles on the neurobiology of pain, pharmacology of local anesthetics, regional anesthesia, and of course the vast Japanese literature, e.g. Aoki, Nakamura...before they take the high road on science.
A lot has happened to pain medicine since Bogduk dissected out spinal nerves in monkeys, 33 years ago....I think spine pain is a little more complicated than dripping 0.5 cc of LA on a tiny 5mm nerve and that demonstrating a 50% improvement in the SF-36 and return to work is a bit much to ask of a 3.5 in 25 guage needle.
Dr. Manchikanti has published the largest body of peer reviewed literature on facet injections and Dr. Singh has pioneered a number of intradiscal treatments. At a minimum, whatever you believe, they were courageous enough to publish their patient data from a private practice environment and demonstrate that it could be safely done outside the hands of Donlin M. Long.
Arguably, if it weren't for some of their publications, we would only be doing blocks and RF in the context of an IRB approved, independently funded clinical trial on properly selected patients with whiplash in an academic medical center.
Now you have literature that you can show the med exec committee of a hospital, your local med mal insurance carrier-as to why RFTC is not a neurosurgical procedure, and your managed care companies.
Some recent reviews on RFTC have criticized that RFTC is not effective. At least the ASIPP Guidelines still enable patients access to these treatments and act as a countermeasure to systematic reviews that have a microscopic approach to interpreting efficacy.
And for those pmr folks out there, Dr. Manchikanti changed the name to ASIPP from the American Society of Pain Management Anesthesiologists in the 1998-1999, because he recognized the importance of physiatrists.
With new information, ASIPP has evolved. All societies can learn from their mistakes, some change and some cling to the past. ASIPP has changed.
ASIPP recognizes the problems facing pain management and patient access to care and have been true to their mission statement. It is now trying its best to preserve the credibility of interventional pain physicians...by administering various certifications and review courses.
Quite simply, ASIPP conducted a SWOT (Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis and understands better than any society out there...what it takes to ensure interventional pain survives.
Imagine a day wherein the managed care companies demand that you be board certified in interventional pain medicine, before you are allowed to perform an interventional pain procedure?
If you disagree with ASIPP, fine... but conduct your own SWOT analysis from a practice and scientific standpoint.
e.g. Conduct a SWOT analysis from a scientific standpoint about whether ISIS's views about spine pain can survive another 20 years.
