S Rajasekaran1, S Dilip Chand Raja2, Bhari Thippeswamy Pushpa3, Kumar Behera Ananda2, Shetty Ajoy Prasad2, Mugesh Kanna Rishi2. 1. Department of Orthopaedics and Spine Surgery, Ganga Hospital, 313, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore, India. rajasekaran.orth@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedics and Spine Surgery, Ganga Hospital, 313, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore, India. 3. Department of Radiology, Ganga Hospital, 313, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore, India.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Inappropriate use of MRI leads to increasing interventions and surgeries for low back pain (LBP). We probed the potential effects of a routine MRI report on the patient's perception of his spine and functional outcome of treatment. An alternate 'clinical reporting' was developed and tested for benefits on LBP perception. METHODS: In Phase-I, 44 LBP patients were randomized to Group A who had a factual explanation of their MRI report or Group B, who were reassured that the MRI findings showed normal changes. The outcome was compared at 6 weeks by VAS, PSEQ-2, and SF-12. In Phase-II, clinical reporting was developed, avoiding potential catastrophizing terminologies. In Phase-III, 20 MRIs were reported by both routine and clinical methods. The effects of the two methods were tested on four categories of health care professionals (HCP) who read them blinded on their assessment of severity of disease, possible treatment required, and the probability of surgery. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable initial by demographics and pain. After 6 weeks of treatment, Group A had a more negative perception of their spinal condition, increased catastrophization, decreased pain improvement, and poorer functional status(p = significant for all). The alternate method of clinical reporting had significant benefits in assessment of lesser severity of the disease, shift to lesser severity of intervention and surgery in three groups of HCPs. CONCLUSION:Routine MRI reports produce a negative perception and poor functional outcomes in LBP. Focussed clinical reporting had significant benefits, which calls for the need for 'clinical reporting' rather than 'Image reporting'.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Inappropriate use of MRI leads to increasing interventions and surgeries for low back pain (LBP). We probed the potential effects of a routine MRI report on the patient's perception of his spine and functional outcome of treatment. An alternate 'clinical reporting' was developed and tested for benefits on LBP perception. METHODS: In Phase-I, 44 LBP patients were randomized to Group A who had a factual explanation of their MRI report or Group B, who were reassured that the MRI findings showed normal changes. The outcome was compared at 6 weeks by VAS, PSEQ-2, and SF-12. In Phase-II, clinical reporting was developed, avoiding potential catastrophizing terminologies. In Phase-III, 20 MRIs were reported by both routine and clinical methods. The effects of the two methods were tested on four categories of health care professionals (HCP) who read them blinded on their assessment of severity of disease, possible treatment required, and the probability of surgery. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable initial by demographics and pain. After 6 weeks of treatment, Group A had a more negative perception of their spinal condition, increased catastrophization, decreased pain improvement, and poorer functional status(p = significant for all). The alternate method of clinical reporting had significant benefits in assessment of lesser severity of the disease, shift to lesser severity of intervention and surgery in three groups of HCPs. CONCLUSION: Routine MRI reports produce a negative perception and poor functional outcomes in LBP. Focussed clinical reporting had significant benefits, which calls for the need for 'clinical reporting' rather than 'Image reporting'.
Authors: Brook I Martin; Sohail K Mirza; Bryan A Comstock; Darryl T Gray; William Kreuter; Richard A Deyo Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: James N Weinstein; Jon D Lurie; Patrick R Olson; Kristen K Bronner; Elliott S Fisher Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Derek J Emery; Kaveh G Shojania; Alan J Forster; Naghmeh Mojaverian; Thomas E Feasby Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-05-13 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jan Hartvigsen; Mark J Hancock; Alice Kongsted; Quinette Louw; Manuela L Ferreira; Stéphane Genevay; Damian Hoy; Jaro Karppinen; Glenn Pransky; Joachim Sieper; Rob J Smeets; Martin Underwood Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Roger Chou; Amir Qaseem; Vincenza Snow; Donald Casey; J Thomas Cross; Paul Shekelle; Douglas K Owens Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-10-02 Impact factor: 25.391
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