Literature DB >> 11179160

Radiography of the lumbar spine in primary care patients with low back pain: randomised controlled trial.

D Kendrick1, K Fielding, E Bentley, R Kerslake, P Miller, M Pringle.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that radiography of the lumbar spine in patients with low back pain is not associated with improved clinical outcomes or satisfaction with care.
DESIGN: Randomised unblinded controlled trial.
SETTING: 73 general practices in Nottingham, north Nottinghamshire, southern Derbyshire, north Lincolnshire, and north Leicestershire. 52 practices recruited participants to the trial.
SUBJECTS: 421 patients with low back pain of a median duration of 10 weeks. INTERVENTION: Radiography of the lumbar spine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Roland adaptation of the sickness impact profile, visual analogue scale for pain, health status, EuroQol, satisfaction with care, use of primary and secondary care services, and reporting of low back pain at three and nine months after randomisation.
RESULTS: The intervention group were more likely to report low back pain at three months (relative risk 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.60) and had a lower overall health status score and borderline higher Roland and pain scores. A higher proportion of participants consulted their doctor in the three months after radiography (1.62, 1.33 to 1.97). Satisfaction with care was greater in the group receiving radiography at nine but not three months after randomisation. Overall, 80% of participants in both groups at three and nine months would have radiography if the choice was available. An abnormal finding on radiography made no difference to the outcome, as measured by the Roland score.
CONCLUSIONS: Radiography of the lumbar spine in primary care patients with low back pain of at least six weeks' duration is not associated with improved patient functioning, severity of pain, or overall health status but is associated with an increase in doctor workload. Guidelines on the management of low back pain in primary care should be consistent about not recommending radiography of the lumbar spine in patients with low back pain in the absence of indicators for serious spinal disease, even if it has persisted for at least six weeks. Patients receiving radiography are more satisfied with the care they received. The challenge for primary care is to increase satisfaction without recourse to radiography.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11179160      PMCID: PMC26570          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.322.7283.400

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  11 in total

1.  Routine referral for radiography of patients presenting with low back pain: is patients' outcome influenced by GPs' referral for plain radiography?

Authors:  S Kerry; S Hilton; S Patel; D Dundas; E Rink; J Lord
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.014

2.  EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life.

Authors: 
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 2.980

3.  Survey of general practitioners' opinions on the role of radiology in patients with low back pain.

Authors:  J P Owen; G Rutt; M J Keir; H Spencer; D Richardson; A Richardson; C Barclay
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain.

Authors:  M Roland; R Morris
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Radiographic examination of the lumbar spine in a community hospital: an audit of current practice.

Authors:  S F Halpin; L Yeoman; D D Dundas
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-10-05

6.  The usefulness of x-ray examinations in the evaluation of patients with back pain.

Authors:  P H Rockey; R K Tompkins; R W Wood; B W Wolcott
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1978-09       Impact factor: 0.493

7.  A reappraisal of the genetic consequences of diagnostic radiology in Great Britain.

Authors:  B F Wall; S Rae; S C Darby; G M Kendall
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1981-09       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Patient satisfaction with medical care for low-back pain.

Authors:  R A Deyo; A K Diehl
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1986 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Low back pain and x-ray films of the lumbar spine: a prospective study in primary care.

Authors:  D M Kaplan; M Knapp; F J Romm; R Velez
Journal:  South Med J       Date:  1986-07       Impact factor: 0.954

10.  Reducing roentgenography use. Can patient expectations be altered?

Authors:  R A Deyo; A K Diehl; M Rosenthal
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1987-01
View more
  56 in total

Review 1.  [Quality indicators for managing patients with low back pain].

Authors:  J F Chenot
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.107

2.  The new contract: renaissance or requiem for general practice?

Authors:  Martin Marshall; Martin Roland
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 3.  [Feasibilities and bounds of diagnostic radiology in case of back pain].

Authors:  W Pennekamp; G Rduch; V Nicolas
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 1.107

4.  X-ray scans for nonspecific low back pain: a nonspecific pain?

Authors:  G Michael Allan; G Richard Spooner; Noah Ivers
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 3.275

5.  Can Parsimonious Practice Please Patients and Practitioners? The Case of Spine Imaging.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 6.  Health related quality of life outcome instruments.

Authors:  Gunnar Németh
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  Low back pain investigations and prognosis: a review.

Authors:  K M Refshauge; C G Maher
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 13.800

8.  Ionizing radiation exposure--more good than harm? The preponderance of evidence does not support abandoning current standards and regulations.

Authors:  André E Bussières; Carlo Ammendolia; Cindy Peterson; John A M Taylor
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2006-06

9.  A rebuttal to chiropractic radiologists' view of the 50-year-old, linear-no-threshold radiation risk model.

Authors:  Paul A Oakley; Donald D Harrison; Deed E Harrison; Jason W Haas
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2006-09

10.  Prevalence and Correlates of Low Pain Interference Among Patients With High Pain Intensity Who Are Prescribed Long-Term Opioid Therapy.

Authors:  Melissa H Adams; Steven K Dobscha; Ning X Smith; Bobbi Jo Yarborough; Richard A Deyo; Benjamin J Morasco
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2018-04-27       Impact factor: 5.820

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.