What do we really know about the appropriateness of radiation emitting imaging for low back pain in primary and emergency care? A systematic review and meta-analysis of medical record reviews.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
11
06
2019
accepted:
03
11
2019
entrez:
6
12
2019
pubmed:
6
12
2019
medline:
26
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Since 2000, guidelines have been consistent in recommending when diagnostic imaging for low back pain should be obtained to ensure patient safety and reduce unnecessary tests. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the pooled proportion of CT and x-ray imaging of the lumbar spine that were considered appropriate in primary and emergency care. Pubmed, CINAHL, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Embase were searched for synonyms of "low back pain", "guidelines", and "adherence" that were published after 2000. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed for inclusion with forward and backward tracking on included studies. Included studies had data extracted and synthesized. Risk of bias was performed on all studies, and GRADE was performed on included studies that provided data on CT and x-ray separately. A random effect, single proportion meta-analysis model was used. Six studies were included in the descriptive synthesis, and 5 studies included in the meta-analysis. Five of the 6 studies assessed appropriateness of x-rays; two of the six studies assessed appropriateness of CTs. The pooled estimate for appropriateness of x-rays was 43% (95% CI: 30%, 56%) and the pooled estimate for appropriateness of CTs was 54% (95% CI: 51%, 58%). Studies did not report adequate information to fulfill the RECORD checklist (reporting guidelines for research using observational data). Risk of bias was high in 4 studies, moderate in one, and low in one. GRADE for x-ray appropriateness was low-quality and for CT appropriateness was very-low-quality. While this study determined a pooled proportion of appropriateness for both x-ray and CT imaging for low back pain, there is limited confidence in these numbers due to the downgrading of the evidence using GRADE. Further research on this topic is needed to inform our understanding of x-ray and CT appropriateness in order to improve healthcare systems and decrease patient harms.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Since 2000, guidelines have been consistent in recommending when diagnostic imaging for low back pain should be obtained to ensure patient safety and reduce unnecessary tests. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the pooled proportion of CT and x-ray imaging of the lumbar spine that were considered appropriate in primary and emergency care.
METHODS
Pubmed, CINAHL, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Embase were searched for synonyms of "low back pain", "guidelines", and "adherence" that were published after 2000. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed for inclusion with forward and backward tracking on included studies. Included studies had data extracted and synthesized. Risk of bias was performed on all studies, and GRADE was performed on included studies that provided data on CT and x-ray separately. A random effect, single proportion meta-analysis model was used.
RESULTS
Six studies were included in the descriptive synthesis, and 5 studies included in the meta-analysis. Five of the 6 studies assessed appropriateness of x-rays; two of the six studies assessed appropriateness of CTs. The pooled estimate for appropriateness of x-rays was 43% (95% CI: 30%, 56%) and the pooled estimate for appropriateness of CTs was 54% (95% CI: 51%, 58%). Studies did not report adequate information to fulfill the RECORD checklist (reporting guidelines for research using observational data). Risk of bias was high in 4 studies, moderate in one, and low in one. GRADE for x-ray appropriateness was low-quality and for CT appropriateness was very-low-quality.
CONCLUSION
While this study determined a pooled proportion of appropriateness for both x-ray and CT imaging for low back pain, there is limited confidence in these numbers due to the downgrading of the evidence using GRADE. Further research on this topic is needed to inform our understanding of x-ray and CT appropriateness in order to improve healthcare systems and decrease patient harms.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31805073
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225414
pii: PONE-D-19-16551
pmc: PMC6894771
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0225414Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Gen Intern Med. 1992 Sep-Oct;7(5):486-91
pubmed: 1403203
Eur J Pain. 2007 Aug;11(6):614-23
pubmed: 17126046
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64
pubmed: 19622511
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Nov 15;26(22):2504-13; discussion 2513-4
pubmed: 11707719
Health Phys. 2015 Feb;108(2):115-23
pubmed: 25551490
Radiol Clin North Am. 2012 Jul;50(4):569-85
pubmed: 22643385
J Gen Intern Med. 1986 Sep-Oct;1(5):328-38
pubmed: 2945917
J Gen Intern Med. 1986 Jan-Feb;1(1):20-5
pubmed: 2945915
Intern Med J. 2016 Dec;46(12):1437-1439
pubmed: 27981773
Spine J. 2018 Dec;18(12):2266-2277
pubmed: 29730460
Eur Spine J. 2003 Dec;12(6):589-94
pubmed: 14605973
Int J Epidemiol. 2007 Jun;36(3):666-76
pubmed: 17470488
JAMA. 1997 Jun 11;277(22):1782-6
pubmed: 9178791
PLoS Med. 2015 Oct 06;12(10):e1001885
pubmed: 26440803
Mayo Clin Proc. 2015 Oct;90(10):1380-92
pubmed: 26434964
Am J Emerg Med. 2019 Mar;37(3):545-546
pubmed: 30037562
J Am Coll Radiol. 2015 Apr;12(4):364-9
pubmed: 25703700
J Am Coll Radiol. 2009 Jun;6(6):401-7
pubmed: 19467485
PLoS One. 2015 May 12;10(5):e0125620
pubmed: 25965407
J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Oct;18(10):773-80
pubmed: 14521638
Arch Public Health. 2014 Nov 10;72(1):39
pubmed: 25810908
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Jun 15;26(12):1356-63
pubmed: 11426152
Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1995;:576-80
pubmed: 8563351
Clin Radiol. 2002 Aug;57(8):753
pubmed: 12169288
Joint Bone Spine. 2002 Dec;69(6):589-96
pubmed: 12537267
J Occup Environ Med. 1999 May;41(5):397-404
pubmed: 10337610
J Am Board Fam Med. 2015 Jul-Aug;28(4):471-4
pubmed: 26152437
JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008-12
pubmed: 10789670
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Feb 1;154(3):181-9
pubmed: 21282698
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Jul 1;176(7):998-1004
pubmed: 27244044
BMC Fam Pract. 2016 Apr 12;17:44
pubmed: 27068773
J Am Coll Radiol. 2010 Mar;7(3):192-7
pubmed: 20193924
BMJ. 1991 Oct 5;303(6806):813-5
pubmed: 1932970
Epidemiol Infect. 2008 Jul;136(7):865
pubmed: 18482461
Spine J. 2003 Nov-Dec;3(6):442-50
pubmed: 14609688
Ann Emerg Med. 2003 May;41(5):644-52
pubmed: 12712031
Acta Radiol. 2017 May;58(5):586-592
pubmed: 27609905
Arch Intern Med. 2002 Jul 8;162(13):1444-7; discussion 1447-8
pubmed: 12090877
Am J Emerg Med. 2015 Mar;33(3):414-8
pubmed: 25624075
Eur Radiol. 2009 May;19(5):1161-5
pubmed: 19156425
Int J Surg. 2014 Dec;12(12):1495-9
pubmed: 25046131
Lancet. 2009 Feb 7;373(9662):463-72
pubmed: 19200918
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Apr;36(4):811-6
pubmed: 25430861
Acta Radiol. 1999 Jan;40(1):52-9
pubmed: 9973903
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):383-94
pubmed: 21195583
Lancet. 2001 May 5;357(9266):1406-9
pubmed: 11356439