Radiographic examination of the lumbar spine in a community hospital: an audit of current practice

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

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.

Justification and active guideline implementation for spine radiography referrals in primary care

Background Spinal disorders are a major public health problem. Appropriate diagnostic imaging is an essential part in the management of back complaints. Nevertheless, inappropriate imaging increases population collective dose and health costs without improving outcome. Purpose To determine the effects of active implementation of referral guidelines on the number and justification of spine radiography in primary care in one city. Material and Methods Specified guidelines for spine radiography were distributed to referring practitioners altogether three times during the study period. Educational lectures were provided before the guidelines were taken into use. The guidelines were also made available via the intranet. The number of spine radiography referrals during similar 6-month periods in the year preceding the interventions and the following 2 years was analyzed. Justification of 448 spine radiographs was assessed similarly. Results After interventions, the total number of spine radiography examinations decreased by 48% (P < 0.001) and that of cervical spine radiography by 46% ( P < 0.001), thoracic spine by 53% ( P < 0.001), and lumbar spine by 47% ( P < 0.001). The results persisted after 1-year follow-up. Before interventions, 24% of the cervical, 46% of the thoracic, and 32% of the lumbar spine radiography referrals were justified. After interventions, only justification of lumbar spine radiography improved significantly, 64% being justified ( P = 0.005). Conclusion Spine radiography in primary care can be reduced significantly by active referral guideline implementation. The proportion of inappropriate radiography was unexpectedly high. Thus, further education and studies concerning the appropriate use of spinal radiography seems to be needed.

Appropriate use of lumbar imaging for evaluation of low back pain

Use of lumbar spine imaging, particularly advanced imaging, continues to grow rapidly in the United States. Many lumbar spine imaging tests are obtained in patients who have no clinical symptoms or risk factors suggesting a serious underlying condition, yet evidence shows that this routine imaging is not associated with benefits, exposes patients to unnecessary harms, and increases costs. This article reviews current trends and practice patterns in lumbar spine imaging, direct and downstream costs, benefits and harms, current recommendations, and potential strategies for reducing imaging overuse.

Computed tomography-evaluated features of spinal degeneration: prevalence, intercorrelation, and association with self-reported low back pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Although the role of radiographic abnormalities in the etiology of nonspecific low back pain (LBP) is unclear, the frequent identification of these features on radiologic studies continues to influence medical decision making.

PURPOSE

The primary purposes of the study were to evaluate the prevalence of lumbar spine degeneration features, evaluated on computed tomography (CT), in a community-based sample and to evaluate the association between lumbar spine degeneration features. The secondary purpose was to evaluate the association between spinal degeneration features and LBP.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional community-based study that was an ancillary project to the Framingham Heart Study.

SAMPLE

A subset of 187 participants were chosen from the 3,529 participants enrolled in the Framingham Heart Study who underwent multidetector CT scan to assess aortic calcification.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-report measures: LBP in the preceding 12 months was evaluated using a Nordic self-report questionnaire. Physiologic measures: Dichotomous variables indicating the presence of intervertebral disc narrowing, facet joint osteoarthritis (OA), spondylolysis, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis and the density (in Hounsfield units) of multifidus and erector spinae muscles were evaluated on CT.

METHODS

We calculated the prevalence of spinal degeneration features and mean density of multifidus and erector spinae muscles in groups of individuals with and without LBP. Using the chi(2) test for dichotomous and t test for continuous variables, we estimated the differences in spinal degeneration parameters between the aforementioned groups. To evaluate the association of spinal degeneration features with age, the prevalence of degeneration features was calculated in four age groups (less than 40, 40-50, 50-60, and 60+ years). We used multiple logistic regression models to examine the association between spinal degeneration features (before and after adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index [BMI]) and LBP, and between all degeneration features and LBP.

RESULTS

In total, 104 men and 83 women, with a mean age (+/-standard deviation) of 52.6+/-10.8 years, participated in the study. There was a high prevalence of intervertebral disc narrowing (63.9%), facet joint OA (64.5%), and spondylolysis (11.5%) in the studied sample. When all spinal degeneration features as well as age, sex, and BMI were factored in stepwise fashion into a multiple logistic regression model, only spinal stenosis showed statistically significant association with LBP, odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval [CI]): 3.45 [1.12-10.68]. Significant association was found between facet joint OA and low density of multifidus (OR [95% CI]: 3.68 [1.36-9.97]) and erector spinae (OR [95% CI]: 2.80 [1.10-7.16]) muscles.

CONCLUSIONS

Degenerative features of the lumbar spine were extremely prevalent in this community-based sample. The only degenerative feature associated with self-reported LBP was spinal stenosis. Other degenerative features appear to be unassociated with LBP.

Diagnostic Imaging Guidelines Implementation Study for Spinal Disorders: A Randomized Trial with Postal Follow-ups

PURPOSE

Implementation strategies of imaging guidelines can assist in reducing the number of radiographic examinations. This study aimed to compare the perceived need for diagnostic imaging before and after an educational intervention strategy.

METHODS

One hundred sixty Swiss chiropractors attending a conference were randomized to either receive a radiology workshop, reviewing appropriate indications for diagnostic imaging for adult spine disorders (n = 80), or be in a control group (CG). One group of 40 individuals dropped out from the CG due to logistic reasons. Participants in the intervention group were randomly assigned to three subgroups to evaluate the effect of an online reminder at midpoint. All participants underwent a pretest and a final test at 14-16 weeks. A posttest was administered to two subgroups at 8-10 weeks.

RESULTS

There was no difference between baseline scores, and overall scores for the pretest and the final tests for all four groups were not significantly different. However, the subgroup provided with access to a reminder performed significantly better than the subgroup with whom they were compared (F = 4.486; df = 1 and 30; p = .043). Guideline adherence was 50.5% (95% CI, 39.1-61.8) for the intervention group and 43.7% (95% CI, 23.7-63.6) for the CG at baseline. Adherence at follow-up was lower, but mean group differences remained insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

Online access to specific recommendations while making a clinical decision may favorably influence the intention to either order or not order imaging studies. However, a didactic presentation alone did not appear to change the perception for the need of diagnostic imaging studies.

Diagnostic imaging guideline for musculoskeletal complaints in adults-an evidence-based approach-part 2: upper extremity disorders

PURPOSE

To develop evidence-based diagnostic imaging practice guidelines to assist chiropractors and other primary care providers in decision making for the appropriate use of diagnostic imaging for upper extremity disorders.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the English and French language literature was conducted using a combination of subject headings and keywords. The quality of the citations was assessed using the Quality of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS), the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE), and the Stroke Prevention and Educational Awareness Diffusion (SPREAD) evaluation tools. The Referral Guidelines for Imaging (radiation protection 118) coordinated by the European Commission served as the initial template. The first draft was sent for an external review. A Delphi panel composed of international experts on the topic of musculoskeletal disorders in chiropractic radiology, clinical sciences, and research was invited to review and propose recommendations on the indications for diagnostic imaging. The guidelines were pilot tested and peer-reviewed by practicing chiropractors and by chiropractic and medical specialists. Recommendations were graded according to the strength of the evidence. Dissemination and implementation strategies are discussed.

RESULTS

Recommendations for diagnostic imaging guidelines of adult upper extremity disorders are provided, supported by over 126 primary and secondary citations. The overall quality of available literature is low, however. On average, 44 Delphi panelists completed 1 of 2 rounds, reaching over 88% agreement on all 32 recommendations. Peer review by specialists reflected high levels of agreement and perceived ease of use of guidelines and implementation feasibility.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidelines are intended to be used in conjunction with sound clinical judgment and experience and should be updated regularly. Future research is needed to validate their content.

Diagnostic imaging practice guidelines for musculoskeletal complaints in adults--an evidence-based approach: introduction

PURPOSE

Imaging technology can improve patient outcomes by allowing greater precision in diagnosing and treating patients. However, there is evidence that overuse, underuse, and misuse of imaging services occur. The purpose of this project was to develop evidence-based diagnostic imaging practice guidelines for musculoskeletal complaints for use by doctors of chiropractic and other primary health care professionals.

METHODS

An electronic search of the English and French language literature (phase 1) was conducted on several databases. Cross references, and references provided by clinicians, were also used. Independent assessment of the quality of the citations used to support recommendations in the guidelines was performed using the QUADAS, the AGREE,and the SPREAD evaluation tools. A first draft of a diagnostic imaging practice guideline was produced, using the European Commission's Referral Guidelines for Imaging document as a template. Results were sent to 12 chiropractic specialists for a first external review. A modified Delphi process, including 149 international experts, was used to generate consensus on recommendations for diagnostic imaging studies. The reliability of proposed recommendations was further tested on field chiropractors and on a group of specialists both in chiropractic and in medicine in both Canada and the United States. All recommendations were graded according to the strength of the evidence.

RESULTS

The research procedure resulted in the recommendations for diagnostic imaging guidelines of adult extremity and spine disorders supported by more than 685 primary and secondary citations. High levels of agreement among Delphi panelists were reached for all proposed recommendations. Comments received by specialists were generally very favorable and reflected high levels of agreement with the proposed recommendations, perceived ease of use of guidelines, and implementation feasibility.

CONCLUSIONS

These evidence-based diagnostic imaging practice guidelines are intended to assist chiropractors and other primary care providers in decision making on the appropriate use of diagnostic imaging for specific clinical presentations. In all cases, the guidelines are intended to be used in conjunction with sound clinical judgment and experience. Application of these guidelines should help avoid unnecessary radiographs, increase examination precision,and decrease health care costs without compromising the quality of care. All guidelines are documents to be refined and modified regularly with new information and experience.

Should Plain Films of the Lumbar Spine be Taken in the Posterior-to-Anterior or Anterior-to-Posterior Position? A Study Using Decision Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to mathematically propose the best position for frontally oriented lumbar spine radiographs.

METHODS

Decision analysis with a decision tree was used in this study. Factors used in the analysis were radiation dose, ease of implementation, image quality, cost, and patient comfort. Data on these factors were gathered by reviewing the literature.

RESULTS

Radiation dose was found to be the only factor with significant differences between the posterior-to-anterior (PA) position and the anterior-to-posterior (AP) position, and PA films gave lower doses to sensitive organs as compared with AP films. There is also some evidence that PA films show better overall image quality as compared with AP films.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the information used in this study, lumbar spine plain film radiographs should be obtained in the PA position.

Reasons for ordering spinal x-ray investigations: how they influence general practitioners' management

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether general practitioners who request spinal x-ray investigations are less likely to refer, prescribe medication, or order additional tests when they intend only to reassure patients rather than to exclude or confirm disease.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey. Physicians recorded reasons for requesting x-ray examinations and differential diagnoses on the request form. When they received a radiologist's report on a spinal x-ray test, GPs also received a questionnaire on their subsequent management.

SETTING

Maastricht region of the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

All 90 GPs in the Maastricht region who referred patients for spinal x-ray examinations during 19 consecutive weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Reason for requesting spinal x-ray investigations, results, and subsequent management.

RESULTS

We received completed questionnaires on 386 patient contacts. Physicians were significantly less likely to refer, prescribe medication, or order additional tests when they intended only to reassure patients rather than to exclude or confirm disease (odds ratio 0.3, 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 0.6). This effect was independent of the results of the x-ray examinations.

CONCLUSION

Physicians seem to be aware that they have requested spinal x-ray examinations only to reassure patients, and they account for this in their management. These findings support debate on the negative consequences of requesting tests for other than purely medical reasons. Concerns about unjustified actions based on the results of x-ray examinations that were requested primarily to reassure patients should probably have only a minor role in the debate about unnecessary testing.

The appropriate use of radiography in clinical practice: a report of two cases of biomechanical versus malignant spine pain

BACKGROUND

To describe the evaluation, treatment, management and referral of two patients with back pain with an eventual malignant etiology, who were first thought to have a non-organic biomechanical disorder.

CLINICAL FEATURES

The study was a retrospective review of the clinical course of two patients seen by a chiropractor in a multi-disciplinary outpatient facility, who presented with what was thought to be non-organic biomechanical spine pain. Clinical examination by both medical and chiropractic physicians did not indicate the need for radiography in the early course of management of either patient. Upon subsequent re-evaluation, it was decided that certain clinical factors required investigation with advanced imaging. In one instance, the patient responded to conservative care of low back pain for nine weeks, after which she developed severe pain in the pelvis. In the second case, the patient presented with signs and symptoms consistent with uncomplicated musculoskeletal pain that failed to respond to a course of conservative care. He was referred for medical therapy which also failed to relieve his pain. In both patients, malignancy was eventually discovered with magnetic resonance imaging and both patients are now deceased, resulting in an inability to obtain informed consent for the publication of this manuscript.

CONCLUSION

In these two cases, the prudent use of diagnostic plain film radiography did not significantly alter the appropriate long-term management of patients with neuromusculoskeletal signs and symptoms. The judicious use of magnetic resonance imaging was an effective procedure when investigating recalcitrant neuromusculoskeletal pain in these two patients.

The use and diagnostic yield of radiology in subjects with longstanding musculoskeletal pain--an eight year follow up

BACKGROUND

Longstanding musculoskeletal pain is common in the general population and associated with frequent use of health care. Plain radiography is a common diagnostic approach in these patients despite knowledge that the use in the investigation of musculoskeletal pain is associated with low diagnostic yield, substantial costs and high radiation exposure. The aim of this study was to assess the use of diagnostic imaging and the proportion of pathological findings with regard to duration and distribution of pain in a cohort from the general population.

METHODS

An eight-year longitudinal study based on questionnaires at three occasions and medical records on radiological examinations done in medical care. Thirty subjects were selected from an established population based cohort of 2425 subjects that in 1995 answered a postal survey on pain experience. At baseline there were ten subjects from each of three pain groups; No chronic pain, Chronic regional pain, and Chronic widespread pain (CWP). Those who presented with CWP at two or all three occasions were considered to have a longstanding or re-occurring CWP. In total the thirty subjects underwent 102 radiological examinations during the eight year follow up.

RESULTS

There was a non-significant (p = 0.10) finding indicating that subjects with chronic pain at baseline (regional or widespread) were examined three times more often than those with no chronic pain. When the indication for the examination was pain, there was a low proportion of positive findings in subjects with longstanding CWP, compared to all others (5.3% vs 28.9%; p = 0.045). On the other hand, in examinations on other indications than pain the proportion of positive findings was high in the CWP group (62.5% vs 14.8%; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Radiological examinations had a low diagnostic yield in evaluation of pain in subjects with longstanding/reoccurring CWP. These subjects had on the other hand more often positive findings when examined on other indications than pain. This may indicate that subjects with longstanding/reoccurring CWP are more prone to other diseases. It is a challenge for caregivers, often primary care physicians, to use radiological examinations to the best for their patients.

The use of radiological guidelines to achieve a sustained reduction in the number of radiographic examinations of the cervical spine, lumbar spine and knees performed for GPs

AIM

To determine if the use of request guidelines can achieve a sustained reduction in the number of radiographic examinations of the cervical spine, lumbar spine and knee joints performed for general practitioners (GPs).

METHODS

GPs referring to three community hospitals and a district general hospital were circulated with referral guidelines for radiography of the cervical spine, lumbar spine and knee, and all requests for these three examinations were checked. Requests that did not fit the guidelines were returned to the GP with an explanatory letter and a further copy of the guidelines. Where applicable, a large-joint replacement algorithm was also enclosed. If the GP maintained the opinion that the examination was indicated, she or he had the option of supplying further justifying information in writing or speaking to a consultant radiologist.

RESULTS

Overall the number of radiographic examinations fell by 68% in the first year, achieving a 79% reduction in the second year. For knees, lumbar spine and cervical spine radiographs the total reductions were 77%, 78% and 86%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The use of referral guidelines, reinforced by request checking and clinical management algorithms, can produce a dramatic and sustained reduction in the number of radiographs of the cervical spine, lumbar spine and knees performed for GPs.

Evidence against the use of lumbar spine radiography for low back pain

AIM

To review abnormalities reported on plain radiographic examination of the lumbar spine in patients referred with low back pain by general practitioners. Additionally, we evaluated and stratified the prevalence of these abnormalities by age. Finally, the diagnostic impact of lumbar spine radiography for the diagnosis of degenerative change, fracture, infection and possible tumour, was modelled.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of 2007 radiographic reports of patients referred with low back pain for lumbar spine radiography to a large radiology department was performed. The reports were classified into different diagnostic groups and subsequently stratified according to age. The potential diagnostic impact of lumbar spine radiography was modelled by using the prevalence of conditions studied as pre-test probabilities of disease.

RESULTS

The prevalence of reported lumbar spine degeneration increased with age to 71% in patients aged 65-74 years. The overall prevalence of fracture, possible infection, possible tumour was low in our study population: 4, 0.8 and 0.7%, respectively. Fracture and possible infection showed no association with age. Possible tumour was only reported in patients older than 55 years of age.

CONCLUSION

Although the prevalence of degenerative changes was high in older patients, the therapeutic consequences of diagnosing this abnormality are minor. The prevalence of possible serious conditions was very low in all age categories, which implies radiation exposure in many patients with no significant lesions.

The diagnostic contribution of the frontal lumbar spine radiograph in community referred low back pain--a prospective study of 1030 patients

AIM

The diagnostic contribution of the anteroposterior (AP) view was studied to assess whether this view could be omitted safely, thus reducing the radiation burden received by patients undergoing lumbar spine radiography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective analysis of 1030 consecutive referrals for lumbar spine radiography from general practice.

RESULTS

In the majority of cases (90.5%) the AP view was non-contributory. In 4.2% the diagnosis was strengthened and it was altered in 4.6%. However, in the latter group only 1.3% of the total were considered significant alterations. These were cases of possible, but not definite, pars defects and sacroiliitis. Specific important conditions such as infection, malignancy and benign tumours were not missed on the lateral view alone, in our study population. The radiation burden is reduced by 75% by omitting the AP view.

CONCLUSION

A single lateral view is an adequate examination, with the proviso that sacroiliac joint disease is not assessed on this view and some pars defects and facet joint degenerative changes may be overlooked. The radiation protection gains are considerable. A single lateral lumbar view is now our routine practice unless sacroiliitis is a specific clinical concern.

Factors affecting general practitioners' decisions about plain radiography for back pain: implications for classification of guideline barriers--a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

General practitioners often diverge from clinical guidelines regarding spine radiography. This study aimed to identify and describe A) factors general practitioners consider may affect their decisions about ordering plain radiography for back pain and B) barriers to guideline adherence suggested by such factors.

METHODS

Focus group interviews regarding factors affecting ordering decisions were carried out on a diverse sample of Norwegian general practitioners and were analysed qualitatively. Results of this study and two qualitative studies from the Netherlands and USA on use of spine radiography were interpreted for barriers to guideline adherence. These were compared with an existing barrier classification system described by Dr Cabana's group.

RESULTS

The factors which Norwegian general practitioners considered might affect their decisions about ordering plain radiography for back pain concerned the following broader issues: clinical ordering criteria, patients' wishes for radiography and the general practitioner's response, uncertainty, professional dignity, access to radiology services, perception of whether the patient really was ill, sense of pressure from other health care providers/social security, and expectations about the consequences of ordering radiography. The three studies suggested several attitude-related and external barriers as classified in a previously reported system described by Dr Cabana in another study. Identified barriers not listed in this system were: lack of expectancy that guideline adherence will lead to desired health care process, emotional difficulty with adherence, improper access to actual/alternative health care services, and pressure from health care providers/organisations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings may help implement spine radiography guidelines. They also indicate that Cabana et al.'s barrier classification system needs extending. A revised system is proposed.

Patients' views on importance and usefulness of plain radiography for low back pain

STUDY DESIGN

Quantitative and qualitative cross-sectional interview study.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how patients who are referred for plain radiography because of low back pain perceive the importance and usefulness of the examination.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Up to 50% of plain radiography examinations for low back pain may be unnecessary based on clinical criteria. However, many patients have great confidence in these examinations. A further exploration of the patients' views may indicate how their needs can be met without unnecessary use of radiography.

METHODS

Ninety-nine patients (65 women, 34 men) 14-91 years of age who were referred from Norwegian general practitioners for plain radiography of the lumbosacral spine were asked to rate the examination as slightly/fairly or very important (93 responded). Chi-squared tests were used to evaluate differences in rating according to age, gender, clinical history, and clinical appropriateness of the examination, as determined by comparing information in the referral form with Norwegian (NR) and British (BR) recommendations for use of radiography. Each of the 99 patients also underwent a semistructured interview that was based on questions about importance, usefulness, and reasons for the radiography referral. Answers were categorized and described using a qualitative method (template analysis).

RESULTS

Seventy-two percent (68 of 93) of patients rated radiography as very important. The proportion was higher for men than women (85% vs. 65%, P = 0.04), higher for those with worsening than those with improving/unchanged symptoms (86% vs. 65%, P = 0.03), and higher for inappropriately than appropriately referred patients (NR: 76% vs. 61%, P = 0.17; BR: 81% vs. 56%, P = 0.01). The qualitative analysis showed that the patients related their views on the importance and usefulness of receiving radiography to seven different issues: symptoms and clinical history, information and advice (especially from health care providers), need for emotional support from the physician, need for certainty and reassurance, need for symptom explanation and diagnosis, reliability of radiography compared with clinical evaluation, and expected practical consequences of the radiologic examination.

CONCLUSIONS

The finding that inappropriately referred patients tended to rate their radiography referral as more important than appropriately referred patients indicates that the patient's view may be a substantial barrier to appropriate use of radiography. The study identified seven issues underlying the patients' views on importance and usefulness of receiving radiography. Strategies to prevent unnecessary use of plain radiography for low back pain that address these issues are suggested.

Radiography of the lumbar spine in primary care patients with low back pain: randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that radiography of the lumbar spine in patients with low back pain is not associated with improved clinical outcomes or satisfaction with care.

DESIGN

Randomised unblinded controlled trial.

SETTING

73 general practices in Nottingham, north Nottinghamshire, southern Derbyshire, north Lincolnshire, and north Leicestershire. 52 practices recruited participants to the trial.

SUBJECTS

421 patients with low back pain of a median duration of 10 weeks.

INTERVENTION

Radiography of the lumbar spine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Roland adaptation of the sickness impact profile, visual analogue scale for pain, health status, EuroQol, satisfaction with care, use of primary and secondary care services, and reporting of low back pain at three and nine months after randomisation.

RESULTS

The intervention group were more likely to report low back pain at three months (relative risk 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.60) and had a lower overall health status score and borderline higher Roland and pain scores. A higher proportion of participants consulted their doctor in the three months after radiography (1.62, 1.33 to 1.97). Satisfaction with care was greater in the group receiving radiography at nine but not three months after randomisation. Overall, 80% of participants in both groups at three and nine months would have radiography if the choice was available. An abnormal finding on radiography made no difference to the outcome, as measured by the Roland score.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiography of the lumbar spine in primary care patients with low back pain of at least six weeks' duration is not associated with improved patient functioning, severity of pain, or overall health status but is associated with an increase in doctor workload. Guidelines on the management of low back pain in primary care should be consistent about not recommending radiography of the lumbar spine in patients with low back pain in the absence of indicators for serious spinal disease, even if it has persisted for at least six weeks. Patients receiving radiography are more satisfied with the care they received. The challenge for primary care is to increase satisfaction without recourse to radiography.

General practitioners' willingness to request plain lumbar spine radiographic examinations

OBJECTIVES

To examine general practitioners' attitudes to plain lumbar spine radiographic examinations.

DESIGN

A postal questionnaire consisting of questions on background data and doctors' opinions about plain lumbar spine radiographic examinations, as well as eight vignettes (imaginary patient cases) presenting indications for lumbar radiography, and five vignettes focusing on the doctors' willingness to request lumbar radiography on the basis of patients' age and duration of symptoms. The data were analysed according to the doctor's age, sex, workplace and the medical school of graduation.

SETTING

Finland.

SUBJECTS

Six hundred and fifteen randomly selected physicians working in primary health care (64% of original target group).

RESULTS

The vignettes revealed that the use of plain lumbar radiographic examination varied between 26 and 88%. Patient's age and radiation protection were the most prominent factors influencing doctors' decisions to request lumbar radiographies. Only slight differences were observed between the attitudes of male and female doctors, as well as between young and older doctors. Doctors' willingness to request lumbar radiographies increased with the patient's age in most vignettes. The duration of patients' symptoms had a dramatic effect on the doctor's decision: in all vignettes, doctors were more likely to request lumbar radiography when patient's symptoms had exceeded 4 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

General practitioners commonly use plain lumbar spine radiographic examinations, despite its limited value in the diagnosis of low back pain. Further consensus and medical education is needed to clarify the indications for plain lumbar radiographic examination.

Utilization of lumbosacral spine radiographs for the evaluation of low back pain in the emergency department

We sought to determine how often Emergency Physicians (EPs) order plain radiographs (XRs) of the lumbosacral spine in evaluating patients with low back pain (LBP). In addition, we sought to determine what history and physical examination findings were statistically associated with the use of an XR. Patients evaluated in our Emergency Department (ED) between April 1, 1995 and September 30, 1995 for LBP were identified retrospectively by their ICD-9 discharge code. The ED record was reviewed, and an odds ratio (OR) was calculated for each of several history and physical examination findings, to determine which of them increased the likelihood of having an XR. Forty of 214 patients (19%) with LBP had an XR done. Patient characteristics associated with the use of an XR were: a positive straight leg examination, age > 50 years, a history of trauma, and vertebral tenderness. In this series, only a small minority of patients with LBP had an XR done as part of their ED evaluation. The choice of which patients to image was determined by history and physical examination findings. We conclude that the EPs we studied are evaluating LBP as conservatively, if not more so, than physicians in other specialties.

Effectiveness of joint consultation sessions of general practitioners and orthopaedic surgeons for locomotor-system disorders

Joint consultation sessions between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists to examine patients for whom decisions about referral are difficult are thought to be helpful, but their effects have not been evaluated. In a randomised, controlled trial we studied the effects of joint sessions of GPs and orthopaedic surgeons on referral and intervention rates. During 1.5 years, 12 GPs (in groups of three) held monthly joint consultation sessions with four participating orthopaedic surgeons: patients were seen by one orthopaedic surgeon in the presence of three GPs. Patients were included in the trial if the GP was uncertain about the diagnostic or therapeutic management and if referral was considered; and excluded if referral was urgently necessary or if there was some other clear indication for referral. By a randomised consent design, patients were assigned to joint consultation sessions (n = 144) or a usual-care control group (n = 128). A year later the patients were examined by an independent orthopaedic surgeon. There were significantly fewer referrals (51/144 [35%] vs 87/128 [68%], p < 0.01) and diagnostic actions in the intervention group than in the control group, without negative effects on health or functional status. More patients in the intervention group were symptom-free at 1 year (35% vs 24%, p < 0.05). Joint consultation sessions of GPs and orthopaedic surgeons within the framework of general practice resulted in more efficient care, with better targeted examination, treatment, and referrals.

Management Guidelines for Improvement of Otolaryngology Referrals from Primary Care Physicians

OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN: A prospective evaluation of the effectiveness of otolaryngology evaluation, treatment, and referral guidelines developed collaboratively by otolaryngologists and primary care physicians on referrals and access to otolaryngology. Comparisons of appropriate to unnecessary referrals, the percentage of patients referred with disorders addressed to those without disorders addressed in the guidelines, access to otolaryngology, and questionnaire evaluations of primary care physician and patient satisfaction were measured before and after guideline implementation.

RESULTS: A significant decrease in appropriate to unnecessary referrals was seen, from 55% before to 12% after guidelines. The percentage of patients seen within 1 month of scheduling improved from 39% to 59%. Guideline-addressed disorders decreased from 63% to 40%. The need for patients to see another physician for the referred symptom while waiting to see an otolaryngologist decreased from 31 % to 3%. Patient satisfaction with wait times improved. Eighty-six percent of the primary care physicians used the guidelines, and 85% wanted to expand the guidelines to other specialty areas.

CONCLUSIONS: Management and referral guidelines are effective in improving patient access and the ratio of appropriate to unnecessary referrals. Such guidelines are well accepted and used by primary care practitioners in this setting.

Randomized controlled trial of the effect of the Royal College of Radiologists' guidelines on general practitioners' referrals for radiographic examination

BACKGROUND

The Royal College of Radiologists' guidelines aim to encourage more appropriate use of diagnostic radiology and so reduce the use of clinically unhelpful x-ray examinations.

AIM

The object of this study was to conduct a randomized controlled trial of the introduction of the guidelines into general practice.

METHOD

A total of 62 practices (170 general practitioners) referring patients to St George's Hospital, London for diagnostic radiology were randomly allocated into two groups. Guidelines were sent to the 30 practices in the intervention group. Radiological referral patterns were compared in both groups before and after the introduction of guidelines.

RESULTS

Practices which had received guidelines requested significantly fewer examinations of the spine, and made a significantly higher proportion of requests which conformed to the guidelines compared with practices which had not received the guidelines. There were no significant differences in the proportion of forms giving physical findings or in the proportion of positive findings at radiology.

CONCLUSION

Introduction of guidelines can influence general practitioners' radiological referrals in the short term. Wider use of guidelines might help to reduce unnecessary irradiation of patients.

Guidelines for lumbar spine radiography in acute low back pain: effect of implementation in an accident and emergency department

Guidelines for lumbar spine radiography were agreed by consultation between staff in the radiology, accident and emergency and neurosurgical departments of a large teaching hospital. Study of 322 consecutive patients over an eight month period showed that the proportion of patients referred for radiography was reduced from 48.4% to 27.2% following introduction of the guidelines (p = 0.0002). Successful use of such guidelines requires cooperation between clinical and radiological staff and frequent review of performance.

Detection of significant abnormalities on lumbar spine radiographs

The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of significant abnormalities detected on anteroposterior (AP) and lateral radiographs of the lumbar spine when viewed separately, in a series of cases where the prevalence of abnormalities had been artificially increased. Five radiologists of varying experience were required to report separately on the AP and lateral films of 300 cases in which randomly included were 30 cases with metastatic disease, a disc infection or an inflammatory spondylitis. At a later date, unaware of their initial observations, the radiologists repeated the exercise reviewing all the films together. As might be expected the false positive rate was relatively high, particularly in the least experienced radiologists' responses. Nevertheless the overall results indicate that the majority of early inflammatory spondylitis cases will be missed on a solitary lateral film as will many of the metastases. Conversely, fractionally more of the disc infections were observed on the lateral film than on the AP. Further analyses in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values are presented. The authors conclude that it is preferable to reduce the overall number of lumbar spine examinations performed, by adherence to accepted guidelines, than to prejudice the detection of significant, albeit rare, abnormalities by restricting the routine series of radiographs.