Diagnostic evaluation of low back pain with emphasis on imaging

Jeffrey G. Jarvik, Richard (Rick) Deyo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

416 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To review evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of clinical information and imaging for patients with low back pain in primary care settings. Data Source: MEDLINE search (January 1966 to September 2001) for articles and reviews relevant to the accuracy of the clinical and radiographic examination of patients with low back pain. Study Selection: The authors reviewed abstracts and selected articles for review on the basis of a combined judgment. Data on the clinical examination were based primarily on recent systematic reviews; data on imaging tests were based primarily on original articles. Data Extraction: Diagnostic results were extracted by one or the other author. Quality of methods was evaluated informally. Major potential biases were identified, but neither quantitative data extraction nor scoring was done. Data Synthesis: Formal meta-analysis was not used because the diagnostic hardware and software, gold standards, and patient selection methods were heterogeneous and the number of studies was small. Sensitivity for cancer was highest for magnetic resonance imaging (0.83 to 0.93) and radionuclide scanning (0.74 to 0.98); specificity was highest for magnetic resonance imaging (0.9 to 0.97) and radiography (0.95 to 0.99). Magnetic resonance imaging was the most sensitive (0.96) and specific (0.92) test for infection. The sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging for herniated discs were slightly higher than those for computed tomography but very similar for the diagnosis of spinal stenosis. Conclusions: The data suggest a diagnostic strategy similar to the 1994 Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines. For adults younger than 50 years of age with no signs or symptoms of systemic disease, symptomatic therapy without imaging is appropriate. For patients 50 years of age and older or those whose findings suggest systemic disease, plain radiography and simple laboratory tests can almost completely rule out underlying systemic diseases. Advanced imaging should be reserved for patients who are considering surgery or those in whom systemic disease is strongly suspected.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)586-597
Number of pages12
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume137
Issue number7
StatePublished - Oct 1 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Low Back Pain
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Radiography
United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Spinal Stenosis
Intervertebral Disc Displacement
Information Storage and Retrieval
MEDLINE
Radioisotopes
Patient Selection
Signs and Symptoms
Meta-Analysis
Young Adult
Primary Health Care
Software
Tomography
Guidelines
Sensitivity and Specificity
Infection
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Diagnostic evaluation of low back pain with emphasis on imaging. / Jarvik, Jeffrey G.; Deyo, Richard (Rick).

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 137, No. 7, 01.10.2002, p. 586-597.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9a63dc81c64d4ec69bcda8ee4b456040,
title = "Diagnostic evaluation of low back pain with emphasis on imaging",
abstract = "Purpose: To review evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of clinical information and imaging for patients with low back pain in primary care settings. Data Source: MEDLINE search (January 1966 to September 2001) for articles and reviews relevant to the accuracy of the clinical and radiographic examination of patients with low back pain. Study Selection: The authors reviewed abstracts and selected articles for review on the basis of a combined judgment. Data on the clinical examination were based primarily on recent systematic reviews; data on imaging tests were based primarily on original articles. Data Extraction: Diagnostic results were extracted by one or the other author. Quality of methods was evaluated informally. Major potential biases were identified, but neither quantitative data extraction nor scoring was done. Data Synthesis: Formal meta-analysis was not used because the diagnostic hardware and software, gold standards, and patient selection methods were heterogeneous and the number of studies was small. Sensitivity for cancer was highest for magnetic resonance imaging (0.83 to 0.93) and radionuclide scanning (0.74 to 0.98); specificity was highest for magnetic resonance imaging (0.9 to 0.97) and radiography (0.95 to 0.99). Magnetic resonance imaging was the most sensitive (0.96) and specific (0.92) test for infection. The sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging for herniated discs were slightly higher than those for computed tomography but very similar for the diagnosis of spinal stenosis. Conclusions: The data suggest a diagnostic strategy similar to the 1994 Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines. For adults younger than 50 years of age with no signs or symptoms of systemic disease, symptomatic therapy without imaging is appropriate. For patients 50 years of age and older or those whose findings suggest systemic disease, plain radiography and simple laboratory tests can almost completely rule out underlying systemic diseases. Advanced imaging should be reserved for patients who are considering surgery or those in whom systemic disease is strongly suspected.",
author = "Jarvik, {Jeffrey G.} and Deyo, {Richard (Rick)}",
year = "2002",
month = "10",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "137",
pages = "586--597",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diagnostic evaluation of low back pain with emphasis on imaging

AU - Jarvik, Jeffrey G.

AU - Deyo, Richard (Rick)

PY - 2002/10/1

Y1 - 2002/10/1

N2 - Purpose: To review evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of clinical information and imaging for patients with low back pain in primary care settings. Data Source: MEDLINE search (January 1966 to September 2001) for articles and reviews relevant to the accuracy of the clinical and radiographic examination of patients with low back pain. Study Selection: The authors reviewed abstracts and selected articles for review on the basis of a combined judgment. Data on the clinical examination were based primarily on recent systematic reviews; data on imaging tests were based primarily on original articles. Data Extraction: Diagnostic results were extracted by one or the other author. Quality of methods was evaluated informally. Major potential biases were identified, but neither quantitative data extraction nor scoring was done. Data Synthesis: Formal meta-analysis was not used because the diagnostic hardware and software, gold standards, and patient selection methods were heterogeneous and the number of studies was small. Sensitivity for cancer was highest for magnetic resonance imaging (0.83 to 0.93) and radionuclide scanning (0.74 to 0.98); specificity was highest for magnetic resonance imaging (0.9 to 0.97) and radiography (0.95 to 0.99). Magnetic resonance imaging was the most sensitive (0.96) and specific (0.92) test for infection. The sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging for herniated discs were slightly higher than those for computed tomography but very similar for the diagnosis of spinal stenosis. Conclusions: The data suggest a diagnostic strategy similar to the 1994 Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines. For adults younger than 50 years of age with no signs or symptoms of systemic disease, symptomatic therapy without imaging is appropriate. For patients 50 years of age and older or those whose findings suggest systemic disease, plain radiography and simple laboratory tests can almost completely rule out underlying systemic diseases. Advanced imaging should be reserved for patients who are considering surgery or those in whom systemic disease is strongly suspected.

AB - Purpose: To review evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of clinical information and imaging for patients with low back pain in primary care settings. Data Source: MEDLINE search (January 1966 to September 2001) for articles and reviews relevant to the accuracy of the clinical and radiographic examination of patients with low back pain. Study Selection: The authors reviewed abstracts and selected articles for review on the basis of a combined judgment. Data on the clinical examination were based primarily on recent systematic reviews; data on imaging tests were based primarily on original articles. Data Extraction: Diagnostic results were extracted by one or the other author. Quality of methods was evaluated informally. Major potential biases were identified, but neither quantitative data extraction nor scoring was done. Data Synthesis: Formal meta-analysis was not used because the diagnostic hardware and software, gold standards, and patient selection methods were heterogeneous and the number of studies was small. Sensitivity for cancer was highest for magnetic resonance imaging (0.83 to 0.93) and radionuclide scanning (0.74 to 0.98); specificity was highest for magnetic resonance imaging (0.9 to 0.97) and radiography (0.95 to 0.99). Magnetic resonance imaging was the most sensitive (0.96) and specific (0.92) test for infection. The sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging for herniated discs were slightly higher than those for computed tomography but very similar for the diagnosis of spinal stenosis. Conclusions: The data suggest a diagnostic strategy similar to the 1994 Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines. For adults younger than 50 years of age with no signs or symptoms of systemic disease, symptomatic therapy without imaging is appropriate. For patients 50 years of age and older or those whose findings suggest systemic disease, plain radiography and simple laboratory tests can almost completely rule out underlying systemic diseases. Advanced imaging should be reserved for patients who are considering surgery or those in whom systemic disease is strongly suspected.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036787976&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036787976&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 12353946

AN - SCOPUS:0036787976

VL - 137

SP - 586

EP - 597

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 7

ER -