Literature DB >> 18467522

Effects of diagnostic information, per se, on patient outcomes in acute radiculopathy and low back pain.

L M Ash1, M T Modic, N A Obuchowski, J S Ross, M N Brant-Zawadzki, P N Grooff.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: We conducted a prospective randomized study of patients with acute low back pain and/or radiculopathy to assess the effect of knowledge of diagnostic findings on clinical outcome. The practice of ordering spinal imaging, perhaps unintentionally, includes a large number of patients for whom the imaging test is performed for purposes of reassurance or because of patient expectations. If this rationale is valid, one would expect to see a measurable effect from diagnostic information, per se.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 246 patients with acute (<3 weeks) low back pain (LBP) and/or radiculopathy (150 LBP and 96 radiculopathy patients) were recruited. Patients were randomized using a stratified block design with equal allocation to either the unblinded group (MR imaging results provided within 48 hours) or the blinded group (both patient and physician blinded to MR imaging results.) After the initial MR imaging, patients followed 6 weeks of conservative management. Roland function, visual pain analog, absenteeism, Short Form (SF)-36 Health Status Survey, self-efficacy scores, and Fear Avoidance Questionnaire were completed at presentation; 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks; and 6, 12, and 24 months. Improvement of Roland score by 50% or more and patient satisfaction assessed by Cherkin symptom satisfaction measure were considered a positive outcome.
RESULTS: Clinical outcome at 6 weeks was similar for unblinded and blinded patients. Self-efficacy, fear avoidance beliefs, and the SF-36 subscales were similar over time for blinded and unblinded patients, except for the general health subscale on the SF-36. General health of the blinded group improved more than for the unblinded group (P = .008).
CONCLUSIONS: Patient knowledge of imaging findings do not alter outcome and are associated with a lesser sense of well-being.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18467522      PMCID: PMC8118825          DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A0999

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol        ISSN: 0195-6108            Impact factor:   3.825


  22 in total

Review 1.  Diagnostic imaging procedures for the lumbar spine.

Authors:  R A Deyo; S J Bigos; K R Maravilla
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1989-12-01       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Information and advice to patients with back pain can have a positive effect. A randomized controlled trial of a novel educational booklet in primary care.

Authors:  A K Burton; G Waddell; K M Tillotson; N Summerton
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Nonoperative treatment of herniated lumbar intervertebral disc with radiculopathy. An outcome study.

Authors:  J A Saal; J S Saal
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  The natural course of acute sciatica with nerve root symptoms in a double-blind placebo-controlled trial evaluating the effect of piroxicam.

Authors:  H Weber; I Holme; E Amlie
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  The natural history of lumbar intervertebral disc extrusions treated nonoperatively.

Authors:  J A Saal; J S Saal; R J Herzog
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain.

Authors:  M C Jensen; M N Brant-Zawadzki; N Obuchowski; M T Modic; D Malkasian; J S Ross
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-07-14       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Rapid magnetic resonance imaging vs radiographs for patients with low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jeffrey G Jarvik; William Hollingworth; Brook Martin; Scott S Emerson; Darryl T Gray; Steven Overman; David Robinson; Thomas Staiger; Frank Wessbecher; Sean D Sullivan; William Kreuter; Richard A Deyo
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-06-04       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 8.  Decision making in lumbar disc disease.

Authors:  D M Long
Journal:  Clin Neurosurg       Date:  1992

Review 9.  Identification and management of radiculopathy.

Authors:  C A Fager
Journal:  Neurosurg Clin N Am       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 2.509

10.  A study of computer-assisted tomography. I. The incidence of positive CAT scans in an asymptomatic group of patients.

Authors:  S W Wiesel; N Tsourmas; H L Feffer; C M Citrin; N Patronas
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  26 in total

1.  The catastrophization effects of an MRI report on the patient and surgeon and the benefits of 'clinical reporting': results from an RCT and blinded trials.

Authors:  S Rajasekaran; S Dilip Chand Raja; Bhari Thippeswamy Pushpa; Kumar Behera Ananda; Shetty Ajoy Prasad; Mugesh Kanna Rishi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-03-21       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  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 3.  Imaging of lumbar degenerative disk disease: history and current state.

Authors:  Todd M Emch; Michael T Modic
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 4.  Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing lumbar spinal pathology in adult patients with low back pain or sciatica: a diagnostic systematic review.

Authors:  Merel Wassenaar; Rogier M van Rijn; Maurits W van Tulder; Arianne P Verhagen; Danielle A W M van der Windt; Bart W Koes; Michiel R de Boer; Abida Z Ginai; Raymond W J G Ostelo
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-09-16       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  Effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce the use of imaging for low-back pain: a systematic review.

Authors:  Hazel J Jenkins; Mark J Hancock; Simon D French; Chris G Maher; Roger M Engel; John S Magnussen
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2015-03-02       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Barriers and progress in the treatment of low back pain.

Authors:  Nadine E Foster
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 8.775

9.  The evaluation of distal symmetric polyneuropathy: a physician survey of clinical practice.

Authors:  Brian C Callaghan; Kevin Kerber; Andrea L Smith; A Mark Fendrick; Eva L Feldman
Journal:  Arch Neurol       Date:  2011-11-14

10.  Is immediate imaging important in managing low back pain?

Authors:  J C Andersen
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2011 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.