Literature DB >> 30760458

How common is imaging for low back pain in primary and emergency care? Systematic review and meta-analysis of over 4 million imaging requests across 21 years.

Aron Downie1,2, Mark Hancock3, Hazel Jenkins2, Rachelle Buchbinder4,5, Ian Harris6, Martin Underwood7, Stacy Goergen8, Chris G Maher1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To (1) estimate the proportion of patients seeking care for low back pain (LBP) who are imaged and (2) explore trends in the proportion of patients who received diagnostic imaging over time. We also examined the effect of study-level factors on estimates of imaging proportion. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases from January 1995 to December 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Observational designs and controlled trials that reported imaging for patients presenting to primary care or emergency care for LBP. We assessed study quality and calculated pooled proportions by care setting and imaging type, with strength of evidence assessed using the GRADE system.
RESULTS: 45 studies were included. They represented 19 451 749 consultations for LBP that had resulted in 4 343 919 imaging requests/events over 21 years. Primary care: moderate quality evidence that simple imaging proportion was 16.3% (95% CI 12.6% to 21.1%) and complex imaging was 9.2% (95% CI 6.2% to 13.5%). For any imaging, the pooled proportion was 24.8% (95% CI 19.3%to 31.1%). Emergency care: moderate quality evidence that simple imaging proportion was 26.1% (95% CI 18.2% to 35.8%) and high-quality evidence that complex imaging proportion was 8.2% (95% CI 4.4% to 15.6%). For any imaging, the pooled proportion was 35.6% (95% CI 29.8% to 41.8%). Complex imaging increased from 7.4% (95% CI 5.7% to 9.6%) for imaging requested in 1995 to 11.4% (95% CI 9.6% to 13.5%) in 2015 (relative increase of 53.5%). Between-study variability in imaging proportions was only partially explained by study-level characteristics; there were insufficient data to comment on some prespecified study-level factors. SUMMARY/
CONCLUSION: One in four patients who presented to primary care with LBP received imaging as did one in three who presented to the emergency department. The rate of complex imaging appears to have increased over 21 years despite guideline advice and education campaigns. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016041987. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MRI; diagnosis; lower back; primary care; radiography

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30760458     DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100087

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Sports Med        ISSN: 0306-3674            Impact factor:   13.800


  33 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.  Characteristics and Effectiveness of Interventions That Target the Reporting, Communication, or Clinical Interpretation of Lumbar Imaging Findings: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  J L Witherow; H J Jenkins; J M Elliott; G H Ip; C G Maher; J S Magnussen; M J Hancock
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 3.825

3.  Effect of an Individualized Audit and Feedback Intervention on Rates of Musculoskeletal Diagnostic Imaging Requests by Australian General Practitioners: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Denise A O'Connor; Paul Glasziou; Christopher G Maher; Kirsten J McCaffery; Dina Schram; Brigit Maguire; Robert Ma; Laurent Billot; Alexandra Gorelik; Adrian C Traeger; Loai Albarqouni; Juliet Checketts; Parima Vyas; Brett Clark; Rachelle Buchbinder
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2022-09-06       Impact factor: 157.335

Review 4.  Back pain treatment: a new perspective.

Authors:  Anke Steinmetz
Journal:  Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 3.625

5.  Insights into low back pain management in Argentina.

Authors:  Andrés Pierobon; Federico Villalba; Giovanni Ferreira; Chris G Maher
Journal:  Braz J Phys Ther       Date:  2021-03-08       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  The association between guideline adherent radiographic imaging by chiropractic students and the diagnostic yield of clinically significant findings.

Authors:  Shangavi Parthipan; Chris Bowles; Katie de Luca; Hazel Jenkins
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2021-04

7.  Role of C-reactive protein in effective utilization of emergent MRI for spinal infections.

Authors:  Aamir Ali; Komal Manzoor; Yu-Ming Chang; Pritesh J Mehta; Alexander Brook; David B Hackney; Jonathan A Edlow; Rafeeque A Bhadelia
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2021-01-15

8.  Association of Lumbar Spine Radiographic Changes With Severity of Back Pain-Related Disability Among Middle-aged, Community-Dwelling Women.

Authors:  Lingxiao Chen; Romain S Perera; Maja R Radojcic; Paula R Beckenkamp; Paulo H Ferreira; Deborah J Hart; Tim D Spector; Nigel K Arden; Manuela L Ferreira
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-05-03

9.  Unintended consequences: quantifying the benefits, iatrogenic harms and downstream cascade costs of musculoskeletal MRI in UK primary care.

Authors:  Imran Mohammed Sajid; Anand Parkunan; Kathleen Frost
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2021-07

Review 10.  What behaviour change techniques have been used to improve adherence to evidence-based low back pain imaging?

Authors:  Amanda Hall; Helen Richmond; Andrea Pike; Rebecca Lawrence; Holly Etchegary; Michelle Swab; Jacqueline Y Thompson; Charlotte Albury; Jill Hayden; Andrea M Patey; James Matthews
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 7.327

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.