Rapid MR imaging versus plain radiography in patients with low back pain: Initial results of a randomized study

J. G. Jarvik, K. R. Maravilla, D. R. Haynor, M. Levitz, Richard (Rick) Deyo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the feasibility of a randomized trial to compare rapid magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with plain radiography as the initial imaging study in patients with low back pain, to test measures of the decision-making process and patient outcomes, and to offer a model for using randomized clinical trials to evaluate diagnostic tests. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors randomly selected 62 patients with low back pain to undergo either rapid MR imaging or plain radiography. The authors measured functional status, satisfaction, and general health status at baseline and at 3 months. The modified Roland scale was the primary outcome measure. In addition, the authors examined diagnostic and therapeutic decision making and resources used by each group. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two patient groups with respect to outcome (Roland score: MR imaging = 12.5, radiography = 12.1). MR imaging provided more useful information to clinicians and resulted in greater patient reassurance. CONCLUSION: Randomly selecting patients to undergo imaging examinations and measuring outcomes is feasible; however, a larger, multicenter study is necessary to determine whether rapid MR imaging is a cost-effective replacement for plain radiography in patients with low back pain.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)447-454
Number of pages8
JournalRadiology
Volume204
Issue number2
StatePublished - 1997
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Low Back Pain
Radiography
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Decision Making
Routine Diagnostic Tests
Health Status
Multicenter Studies
Randomized Controlled Trials
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Cost-effectiveness
  • Magnetic resonance(MR), comparative studies
  • Radiography, comparative studies
  • Spine, MR
  • Spine, radiography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Rapid MR imaging versus plain radiography in patients with low back pain : Initial results of a randomized study. / Jarvik, J. G.; Maravilla, K. R.; Haynor, D. R.; Levitz, M.; Deyo, Richard (Rick).

In: Radiology, Vol. 204, No. 2, 1997, p. 447-454.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jarvik, JG, Maravilla, KR, Haynor, DR, Levitz, M & Deyo, RR 1997, 'Rapid MR imaging versus plain radiography in patients with low back pain: Initial results of a randomized study', Radiology, vol. 204, no. 2, pp. 447-454.
Jarvik, J. G. ; Maravilla, K. R. ; Haynor, D. R. ; Levitz, M. ; Deyo, Richard (Rick). / Rapid MR imaging versus plain radiography in patients with low back pain : Initial results of a randomized study. In: Radiology. 1997 ; Vol. 204, No. 2. pp. 447-454.
@article{4ce4b692d6124e06af59dedc94786a97,
title = "Rapid MR imaging versus plain radiography in patients with low back pain: Initial results of a randomized study",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To demonstrate the feasibility of a randomized trial to compare rapid magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with plain radiography as the initial imaging study in patients with low back pain, to test measures of the decision-making process and patient outcomes, and to offer a model for using randomized clinical trials to evaluate diagnostic tests. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors randomly selected 62 patients with low back pain to undergo either rapid MR imaging or plain radiography. The authors measured functional status, satisfaction, and general health status at baseline and at 3 months. The modified Roland scale was the primary outcome measure. In addition, the authors examined diagnostic and therapeutic decision making and resources used by each group. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two patient groups with respect to outcome (Roland score: MR imaging = 12.5, radiography = 12.1). MR imaging provided more useful information to clinicians and resulted in greater patient reassurance. CONCLUSION: Randomly selecting patients to undergo imaging examinations and measuring outcomes is feasible; however, a larger, multicenter study is necessary to determine whether rapid MR imaging is a cost-effective replacement for plain radiography in patients with low back pain.",
keywords = "Cost-effectiveness, Magnetic resonance(MR), comparative studies, Radiography, comparative studies, Spine, MR, Spine, radiography",
author = "Jarvik, {J. G.} and Maravilla, {K. R.} and Haynor, {D. R.} and M. Levitz and Deyo, {Richard (Rick)}",
year = "1997",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "204",
pages = "447--454",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rapid MR imaging versus plain radiography in patients with low back pain

T2 - Initial results of a randomized study

AU - Jarvik, J. G.

AU - Maravilla, K. R.

AU - Haynor, D. R.

AU - Levitz, M.

AU - Deyo, Richard (Rick)

PY - 1997

Y1 - 1997

N2 - PURPOSE: To demonstrate the feasibility of a randomized trial to compare rapid magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with plain radiography as the initial imaging study in patients with low back pain, to test measures of the decision-making process and patient outcomes, and to offer a model for using randomized clinical trials to evaluate diagnostic tests. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors randomly selected 62 patients with low back pain to undergo either rapid MR imaging or plain radiography. The authors measured functional status, satisfaction, and general health status at baseline and at 3 months. The modified Roland scale was the primary outcome measure. In addition, the authors examined diagnostic and therapeutic decision making and resources used by each group. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two patient groups with respect to outcome (Roland score: MR imaging = 12.5, radiography = 12.1). MR imaging provided more useful information to clinicians and resulted in greater patient reassurance. CONCLUSION: Randomly selecting patients to undergo imaging examinations and measuring outcomes is feasible; however, a larger, multicenter study is necessary to determine whether rapid MR imaging is a cost-effective replacement for plain radiography in patients with low back pain.

AB - PURPOSE: To demonstrate the feasibility of a randomized trial to compare rapid magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with plain radiography as the initial imaging study in patients with low back pain, to test measures of the decision-making process and patient outcomes, and to offer a model for using randomized clinical trials to evaluate diagnostic tests. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors randomly selected 62 patients with low back pain to undergo either rapid MR imaging or plain radiography. The authors measured functional status, satisfaction, and general health status at baseline and at 3 months. The modified Roland scale was the primary outcome measure. In addition, the authors examined diagnostic and therapeutic decision making and resources used by each group. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two patient groups with respect to outcome (Roland score: MR imaging = 12.5, radiography = 12.1). MR imaging provided more useful information to clinicians and resulted in greater patient reassurance. CONCLUSION: Randomly selecting patients to undergo imaging examinations and measuring outcomes is feasible; however, a larger, multicenter study is necessary to determine whether rapid MR imaging is a cost-effective replacement for plain radiography in patients with low back pain.

KW - Cost-effectiveness

KW - Magnetic resonance(MR), comparative studies

KW - Radiography, comparative studies

KW - Spine, MR

KW - Spine, radiography

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030797014&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030797014&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 9240534

AN - SCOPUS:0030797014

VL - 204

SP - 447

EP - 454

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 2

ER -