Imaging strategies for low-back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

317 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Some clinicians do lumbar imaging routinely or in the absence of historical or clinical features suggestive of serious low-back problems. We investigated the effects of routine, immediate lumbar imaging versus usual clinical care without immediate imaging on clinical outcomes in patients with low-back pain and no indication of serious underlying conditions. Methods: We analysed randomised controlled trials that compared immediate lumbar imaging (radiography, MRI, or CT) versus usual clinical care without immediate imaging for low-back pain. These trials reported pain or function (primary outcomes), quality of life, mental health, overall patient-reported improvement (based on various scales), and patient satisfaction in care received. Six trials (n=1804) met inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed by two independent reviewers with criteria adapted from the Cochrane Back Review Group. Meta-analyses were done with a random effects model. Findings: We did not record significant differences between immediate lumbar imaging and usual care without immediate imaging for primary outcomes at either short-term (up to 3 months, standardised mean difference 0·19, 95% CI -0·01 to 0·39 for pain and 0·11, -0·29 to 0·50 for function, negative values favour routine imaging) or long-term (6-12 months, -0·04, -0·15 to 0·07 for pain and 0·01, -0·17 to 0·19 for function) follow-up. Other outcomes did not differ significantly. Trial quality, use of different imaging methods, and duration of low-back pain did not affect the results, but analyses were limited by small numbers of trials. Results are most applicable to acute or subacute low-back pain assessed in primary-care settings. Interpretation: Lumbar imaging for low-back pain without indications of serious underlying conditions does not improve clinical outcomes. Therefore, clinicians should refrain from routine, immediate lumbar imaging in patients with acute or subacute low-back pain and without features suggesting a serious underlying condition. Funding: American Pain Society.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)463-472
Number of pages10
JournalThe Lancet
Volume373
Issue number9662
DOIs
StatePublished - 2009

Fingerprint

Low Back Pain
Meta-Analysis
Pain
Patient Satisfaction
Radiography
Primary Health Care
Mental Health
Randomized Controlled Trials
Quality of Life

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Imaging strategies for low-back pain : systematic review and meta-analysis. / Chou, Roger; Fu, Rongwei (Rochelle); Carrino, John A.; Deyo, Richard (Rick).

In: The Lancet, Vol. 373, No. 9662, 2009, p. 463-472.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e67db997fda54f3c876e7a61ba7b7d46,
title = "Imaging strategies for low-back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Background: Some clinicians do lumbar imaging routinely or in the absence of historical or clinical features suggestive of serious low-back problems. We investigated the effects of routine, immediate lumbar imaging versus usual clinical care without immediate imaging on clinical outcomes in patients with low-back pain and no indication of serious underlying conditions. Methods: We analysed randomised controlled trials that compared immediate lumbar imaging (radiography, MRI, or CT) versus usual clinical care without immediate imaging for low-back pain. These trials reported pain or function (primary outcomes), quality of life, mental health, overall patient-reported improvement (based on various scales), and patient satisfaction in care received. Six trials (n=1804) met inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed by two independent reviewers with criteria adapted from the Cochrane Back Review Group. Meta-analyses were done with a random effects model. Findings: We did not record significant differences between immediate lumbar imaging and usual care without immediate imaging for primary outcomes at either short-term (up to 3 months, standardised mean difference 0·19, 95{\%} CI -0·01 to 0·39 for pain and 0·11, -0·29 to 0·50 for function, negative values favour routine imaging) or long-term (6-12 months, -0·04, -0·15 to 0·07 for pain and 0·01, -0·17 to 0·19 for function) follow-up. Other outcomes did not differ significantly. Trial quality, use of different imaging methods, and duration of low-back pain did not affect the results, but analyses were limited by small numbers of trials. Results are most applicable to acute or subacute low-back pain assessed in primary-care settings. Interpretation: Lumbar imaging for low-back pain without indications of serious underlying conditions does not improve clinical outcomes. Therefore, clinicians should refrain from routine, immediate lumbar imaging in patients with acute or subacute low-back pain and without features suggesting a serious underlying condition. Funding: American Pain Society.",
author = "Roger Chou and Fu, {Rongwei (Rochelle)} and Carrino, {John A.} and Deyo, {Richard (Rick)}",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60172-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "373",
pages = "463--472",
journal = "The Lancet",
issn = "0140-6736",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "9662",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Imaging strategies for low-back pain

T2 - systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Chou, Roger

AU - Fu, Rongwei (Rochelle)

AU - Carrino, John A.

AU - Deyo, Richard (Rick)

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - Background: Some clinicians do lumbar imaging routinely or in the absence of historical or clinical features suggestive of serious low-back problems. We investigated the effects of routine, immediate lumbar imaging versus usual clinical care without immediate imaging on clinical outcomes in patients with low-back pain and no indication of serious underlying conditions. Methods: We analysed randomised controlled trials that compared immediate lumbar imaging (radiography, MRI, or CT) versus usual clinical care without immediate imaging for low-back pain. These trials reported pain or function (primary outcomes), quality of life, mental health, overall patient-reported improvement (based on various scales), and patient satisfaction in care received. Six trials (n=1804) met inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed by two independent reviewers with criteria adapted from the Cochrane Back Review Group. Meta-analyses were done with a random effects model. Findings: We did not record significant differences between immediate lumbar imaging and usual care without immediate imaging for primary outcomes at either short-term (up to 3 months, standardised mean difference 0·19, 95% CI -0·01 to 0·39 for pain and 0·11, -0·29 to 0·50 for function, negative values favour routine imaging) or long-term (6-12 months, -0·04, -0·15 to 0·07 for pain and 0·01, -0·17 to 0·19 for function) follow-up. Other outcomes did not differ significantly. Trial quality, use of different imaging methods, and duration of low-back pain did not affect the results, but analyses were limited by small numbers of trials. Results are most applicable to acute or subacute low-back pain assessed in primary-care settings. Interpretation: Lumbar imaging for low-back pain without indications of serious underlying conditions does not improve clinical outcomes. Therefore, clinicians should refrain from routine, immediate lumbar imaging in patients with acute or subacute low-back pain and without features suggesting a serious underlying condition. Funding: American Pain Society.

AB - Background: Some clinicians do lumbar imaging routinely or in the absence of historical or clinical features suggestive of serious low-back problems. We investigated the effects of routine, immediate lumbar imaging versus usual clinical care without immediate imaging on clinical outcomes in patients with low-back pain and no indication of serious underlying conditions. Methods: We analysed randomised controlled trials that compared immediate lumbar imaging (radiography, MRI, or CT) versus usual clinical care without immediate imaging for low-back pain. These trials reported pain or function (primary outcomes), quality of life, mental health, overall patient-reported improvement (based on various scales), and patient satisfaction in care received. Six trials (n=1804) met inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed by two independent reviewers with criteria adapted from the Cochrane Back Review Group. Meta-analyses were done with a random effects model. Findings: We did not record significant differences between immediate lumbar imaging and usual care without immediate imaging for primary outcomes at either short-term (up to 3 months, standardised mean difference 0·19, 95% CI -0·01 to 0·39 for pain and 0·11, -0·29 to 0·50 for function, negative values favour routine imaging) or long-term (6-12 months, -0·04, -0·15 to 0·07 for pain and 0·01, -0·17 to 0·19 for function) follow-up. Other outcomes did not differ significantly. Trial quality, use of different imaging methods, and duration of low-back pain did not affect the results, but analyses were limited by small numbers of trials. Results are most applicable to acute or subacute low-back pain assessed in primary-care settings. Interpretation: Lumbar imaging for low-back pain without indications of serious underlying conditions does not improve clinical outcomes. Therefore, clinicians should refrain from routine, immediate lumbar imaging in patients with acute or subacute low-back pain and without features suggesting a serious underlying condition. Funding: American Pain Society.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=59249084303&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=59249084303&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60172-0

DO - 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60172-0

M3 - Article

C2 - 19200918

AN - SCOPUS:59249084303

VL - 373

SP - 463

EP - 472

JO - The Lancet

JF - The Lancet

SN - 0140-6736

IS - 9662

ER -