Literature DB >> 15130462

Does early imaging influence management and improve outcome in patients with low back pain? A pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

F J Gilbert1, A M Grant, M G C Gillan, L Vale, N W Scott, M K Campbell, D Wardlaw, D Knight, E McIntosh, R W Porter.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To establish whether the early use of sophisticated imaging techniques influences the clinical management and outcome of patients with low back pain (LBP) and whether it is cost-effective.
DESIGN: A pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial using a standard two parallel group approach incorporating an economic evaluation. For a subgroup of trial participants, a controlled 'before and after' approach was used to assess the impact of 'early imaging' on clinicians' diagnostic and therapeutic confidence. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 782 participants who had been referred by their general practitioner to a consultant orthopaedic specialist or neurosurgeon because of symptomatic lumbar spine disorders. The study included 14 hospitals in Scotland and one in England over a 24-month period.
RESULTS: Participants in both groups reported an improvement in health status at 8 and 24 months with the 'early imaging' group having statistically significantly better outcome. Other than the proportion of participants receiving imaging (90% versus 30%), there were few differences between the groups in the management received throughout the 24-month follow-up. The total number of outpatient consultations in the two groups was similar although more people in the 'early imaging' group had return outpatient appointments during the 8-month follow-up. Clinicians' diagnostic confidence, between trial entry and follow-up, increased significantly for both groups with a greater increase in the 'early imaging' group. The cost of imaging was the main determinant of the difference in total costs between the groups and it was estimated that 'early imaging' could provide an additional 0.07 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), at an additional average cost of 61 British pounds over the 24-month follow-up. Using non-imputed costs and QALYs but adjusted for baseline differences in EQ-5D score, the mean incremental cost per QALY of 'early imaging' was 870 British pounds. The results were sensitive to the costs of imaging and the confidence intervals surrounding estimates of average costs and QALYs.
CONCLUSIONS: The early use of sophisticated imaging does not appear to affect management overall but does result in a slight improvement in clinical outcome at an estimated cost of 870 British pounds per QALY. Imaging was associated with an increase in clinicians' diagnostic confidence, particularly for non-specialists. Further research is required to determine if more rapid referral to sophisticated imaging and secondary care is important in the acute episode and whether the use of imaging would be more beneficial for particular categories of LBP.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15130462     DOI: 10.3310/hta8170

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Technol Assess        ISSN: 1366-5278            Impact factor:   4.014


  11 in total

Review 1.  Health related quality of life outcome instruments.

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

2.  The social tariff of EQ-5D is not adequate to assess quality of life in patients with low back pain.

Authors:  Javier Zamora; Francisco Kovacs; Víctor Abraira; Carmen Fernández; Pablo Lázaro
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-11-17       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Low back pain.

Authors:  W G Bradley
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.825

4.  Imaging versus no imaging for low back pain: a systematic review, measuring costs, healthcare utilization and absence from work.

Authors:  G P G Lemmers; W van Lankveld; G P Westert; P J van der Wees; J B Staal
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-02-22       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  National Clinical Guidelines for non-surgical treatment of patients with recent onset low back pain or lumbar radiculopathy.

Authors:  Mette Jensen Stochkendahl; Per Kjaer; Jan Hartvigsen; Alice Kongsted; Jens Aaboe; Margrethe Andersen; Mikkel Ø Andersen; Gilles Fournier; Betina Højgaard; Martin Bach Jensen; Lone Donbæk Jensen; Ture Karbo; Lilli Kirkeskov; Martin Melbye; Lone Morsel-Carlsen; Jan Nordsteen; Thorvaldur Skuli Palsson; Zoreh Rasti; Peter Frost Silbye; Morten Zebitz Steiness; Simon Tarp; Morten Vaagholt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Health care utilization and costs associated with adherence to clinical practice guidelines for early magnetic resonance imaging among workers with acute occupational low back pain.

Authors:  Janessa M Graves; Deborah Fulton-Kehoe; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Gary M Franklin
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Low back pain and associated imaging findings among HIV-infected patients referred to an HIV/palliative care clinic.

Authors:  Elizabeth Molony; Andrew O Westfall; Brian A Perry; Rodney Tucker; Christine Ritchie; Michael Saag; Michael Mugavero; Joseph C Sullivan; Jessica S Merlin
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2013-09-13       Impact factor: 3.750

8.  Organizational boundaries of medical practice: the case of physician ownership of ancillary services.

Authors:  John E Schneider; Robert L Ohsfeldt; Cara M Scheibling; Sarah A Jeffers
Journal:  Health Econ Rev       Date:  2012-04-05

9.  In-office magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment ownership and MRI volume among medicare patients in orthopedic practices.

Authors:  Robert L Ohsfeldt; Pengxiang Li; John E Schneider
Journal:  Health Econ Rev       Date:  2015-10-20

Review 10.  Generic Preference-based Measures for Low Back Pain: Which of Them Should Be Used?

Authors:  Aureliano Paolo Finch; Melina Dritsaki; Claudio Jommi
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.468

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.