Application of "Less is more" to low back pain

Shubha V. Srinivas, Richard (Rick) Deyo, Zackary D. Berger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

60 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

An initiative of the National Physicians Alliance, the project titled "Promoting Good Stewardship in Clinical Practice," developed a list of the top 5 activities in primary care for which changes in practice could lead to higher-quality care and better use of finite clinical resources. One of the top 5 recommendations was "Don't do imaging for low back pain within the first 6 weeks unless red flags are present." This article presents data that support this recommendation. We selectively reviewed the literature, including recent reviews, guidelines, and commentaries, on the benefits and risks of routine imaging in low back pain. In particular, we searched PubMed for systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in the past 5 years. We also assessed the cost of spine imaging using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. One high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis focused on clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain and found no clinically significant difference in pain or function between those who received immediate lumbar spine imaging vs usual care. Published data also document harms associated with early imaging for low back pain, including patient "labeling," unneeded follow-up tests for incidental findings, irradiation exposure, unnecessary surgery, and significant cost. Routine imaging should not be pursued in acute low back pain. Not imaging patients with acute low back pain will reduce harms and costs, without affecting clinical outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1016-1020
Number of pages5
JournalArchives of Internal Medicine
Volume172
Issue number13
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 9 2012

Fingerprint

Low Back Pain
Costs and Cost Analysis
Meta-Analysis
Spine
Health Care Surveys
Unnecessary Procedures
Incidental Findings
Quality of Health Care
PubMed
Primary Health Care
Guidelines
Physicians
Pain

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Application of "Less is more" to low back pain. / Srinivas, Shubha V.; Deyo, Richard (Rick); Berger, Zackary D.

In: Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 172, No. 13, 09.07.2012, p. 1016-1020.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Srinivas, Shubha V. ; Deyo, Richard (Rick) ; Berger, Zackary D. / Application of "Less is more" to low back pain. In: Archives of Internal Medicine. 2012 ; Vol. 172, No. 13. pp. 1016-1020.
@article{0002ff2542354cdd90277cb00b4321ac,
title = "Application of {"}Less is more{"} to low back pain",
abstract = "An initiative of the National Physicians Alliance, the project titled {"}Promoting Good Stewardship in Clinical Practice,{"} developed a list of the top 5 activities in primary care for which changes in practice could lead to higher-quality care and better use of finite clinical resources. One of the top 5 recommendations was {"}Don't do imaging for low back pain within the first 6 weeks unless red flags are present.{"} This article presents data that support this recommendation. We selectively reviewed the literature, including recent reviews, guidelines, and commentaries, on the benefits and risks of routine imaging in low back pain. In particular, we searched PubMed for systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in the past 5 years. We also assessed the cost of spine imaging using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. One high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis focused on clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain and found no clinically significant difference in pain or function between those who received immediate lumbar spine imaging vs usual care. Published data also document harms associated with early imaging for low back pain, including patient {"}labeling,{"} unneeded follow-up tests for incidental findings, irradiation exposure, unnecessary surgery, and significant cost. Routine imaging should not be pursued in acute low back pain. Not imaging patients with acute low back pain will reduce harms and costs, without affecting clinical outcomes.",
author = "Srinivas, {Shubha V.} and Deyo, {Richard (Rick)} and Berger, {Zackary D.}",
year = "2012",
month = "7",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1838",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "172",
pages = "1016--1020",
journal = "JAMA Internal Medicine",
issn = "2168-6106",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "13",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Application of "Less is more" to low back pain

AU - Srinivas, Shubha V.

AU - Deyo, Richard (Rick)

AU - Berger, Zackary D.

PY - 2012/7/9

Y1 - 2012/7/9

N2 - An initiative of the National Physicians Alliance, the project titled "Promoting Good Stewardship in Clinical Practice," developed a list of the top 5 activities in primary care for which changes in practice could lead to higher-quality care and better use of finite clinical resources. One of the top 5 recommendations was "Don't do imaging for low back pain within the first 6 weeks unless red flags are present." This article presents data that support this recommendation. We selectively reviewed the literature, including recent reviews, guidelines, and commentaries, on the benefits and risks of routine imaging in low back pain. In particular, we searched PubMed for systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in the past 5 years. We also assessed the cost of spine imaging using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. One high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis focused on clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain and found no clinically significant difference in pain or function between those who received immediate lumbar spine imaging vs usual care. Published data also document harms associated with early imaging for low back pain, including patient "labeling," unneeded follow-up tests for incidental findings, irradiation exposure, unnecessary surgery, and significant cost. Routine imaging should not be pursued in acute low back pain. Not imaging patients with acute low back pain will reduce harms and costs, without affecting clinical outcomes.

AB - An initiative of the National Physicians Alliance, the project titled "Promoting Good Stewardship in Clinical Practice," developed a list of the top 5 activities in primary care for which changes in practice could lead to higher-quality care and better use of finite clinical resources. One of the top 5 recommendations was "Don't do imaging for low back pain within the first 6 weeks unless red flags are present." This article presents data that support this recommendation. We selectively reviewed the literature, including recent reviews, guidelines, and commentaries, on the benefits and risks of routine imaging in low back pain. In particular, we searched PubMed for systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in the past 5 years. We also assessed the cost of spine imaging using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. One high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis focused on clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain and found no clinically significant difference in pain or function between those who received immediate lumbar spine imaging vs usual care. Published data also document harms associated with early imaging for low back pain, including patient "labeling," unneeded follow-up tests for incidental findings, irradiation exposure, unnecessary surgery, and significant cost. Routine imaging should not be pursued in acute low back pain. Not imaging patients with acute low back pain will reduce harms and costs, without affecting clinical outcomes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864520506&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864520506&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1838

DO - 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1838

M3 - Article

VL - 172

SP - 1016

EP - 1020

JO - JAMA Internal Medicine

JF - JAMA Internal Medicine

SN - 2168-6106

IS - 13

ER -