The clinical utility of routine spinal radiographs by chiropractors: a rapid review of the literature

Reliability of the Biomechanical Assessment of the Sagittal Lumbar Spine and Pelvis on Radiographs Used in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background: Biomechanical analysis of the sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine and pelvis on radiographs is common in clinical practices including chiropractic, physical therapy, scoliosis-related thoraco-lumbo-sacral orthosis (TLSO) management, orthopedics, and neurosurgery. Of specific interest is the assessment of pelvic morphology and the relationship between angle of pelvic incidence, sacral slope, and lumbar lordosis to pain, disability, and clinical treatment of spine conditions. The current state of the literature on the reliability of common methods quantifying these parameters on radiographs is limited. Methods: The objective of this systematic review is to identify and review the available studies on the reliability of different methods of biomechanical analysis of sagittal lumbo-pelvic parameters used in clinical practice. Our review followed the recommendations of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). The design of this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023379873). Results: The search strategy yielded a total of 2387 articles. A total of 1539 articles were screened after deduplication and exclusion by automation tools, leaving 473 full-text articles that were retrieved. After exclusion, 64 articles met the inclusion criteria. The preponderance of the evidence showed good to excellent reliability for biomechanical assessment of sagittal lumbo-pelvic spine alignment. Conclusions: The results of this systematic review of the literature show that sagittal radiographic analysis of spinal biomechanics and alignment of the human lumbo-pelvic spine is a reliable tool for aiding diagnosis and management in clinical settings.

An investigation into the chiropractic practice and communication of routine, repetitive radiographic imaging for the location of postural misalignments

Many chiropractors use radiological imaging, particularly X-rays, to locate and diagnose the cause of their patients' pain. However, this approach is fundamentally flawed because X-rays provide anatomical information but not functional insights. Pain, tissue damage, and injury do not always correlate directly with X-ray appearances. Given the high incidence of abnormalities found in X-rays of asymptomatic patients, the diagnostic validity of X-rays can be questioned, especially when used in isolation of the patient's history and/or a proper clinical assessment. One may posit that their application promotes overdiagnosis, and unvalidated treatment of X-ray findings (such as changes in postural curvature), which may mislead patients into believing these changes are directly responsible for their pain. A substantial amount of research has shown that there is no association between pain and reversed cervical curves. X-ray accuracy can vary due to several factors, including patient positioning, physical and morphological changes, interreliability among doctors, and other influences such as stress, pain, and emotional state. Over the past two decades, medical boards and health associations worldwide have made significant efforts to communicate better when imaging is necessary, focusing on reducing radiographic imaging. This review describes concerns about the frequent, almost routine use of spinal X-rays in primary care for spine-related pain in the absence of red-flag clinical signs.

Chiropractors' perceptions on the use of spinal radiographs in clinical practice: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Radiography is commonly used in the assessment of spinal disorders, despite a lack of high-quality evidence demonstrating improved clinical outcomes or additional benefit to the patient. There is disagreement amongst chiropractors regarding the appropriate use of radiography for clinical management. This study aims to qualitatively explore chiropractors' perceptions on the use of spinal radiographs in clinical practice with respect to how they determine when to order radiographs; and how they use radiographs to inform clinical management.

METHODS

Online qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 Australian chiropractors who currently manage patients with spinal disorders. Convienence, snowball, and purposive sampling strategies were used to ensure an appropriate breadth and depth of participant characterisitcs and beliefs. Interview data were recorded, transcribed and analysed using framework analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes were developed to describe how chiropractors determined when to order radiographs. These themes included specific findings from the clinical encounter that may inform clinical management, their perceptions of radiation risk, and the influence of clinical experience/intuition. Three themes and four subthemes were developed for how chiropractors use radiographs to inform their management. These themes explored the use of radiography for the application of chiropractic technique, as well as the role of radiographs in predicting patient prognosis, and as an educational tool to provide reassurance.

CONCLUSION

Australian chiropractors' decision-making around spinal radiography is diverse and can be influenced by a number of clinical and external factors. Previously unexplored uses of spinal radiography in clinical practice were highlighted. Some chiropractors reported potential benefits of radiography that are currently not supported by research evidence. Future research should address how radiographic findings are reported to patients with spinal disorders and how this could be optimised to improve patient outcomes.

An investigation into the chiropractic practice and communication of routine repetitive radiographic imaging for the location of postural misalignments

Many clinicians use radiological imaging in efforts to locate and diagnose the cause of their patient's pain, relying on X-rays as a leading tool in clinical evaluation. This is fundamentally flawed because an X-ray represents a "snapshot" of the structural appearance of the spine and gives no indication of the current function of the spine. The health and well-being of any system, including the spinal motion segments, depend on the inter-relationship between structure and function. Pain, tissue damage, and injury are not always directly correlated. Due to such a high incidence of abnormalities found in asymptomatic patients, the diagnostic validity of X-rays can be questioned, especially when used in isolation of history and/or proper clinical assessment. The utility of routine X-rays is, therefore, questionable. One may posit that their application promotes overdiagnosis, and unvalidated treatment of X-ray findings (such as changes in postural curvature), which may mislead patients into believing these changes are directly responsible for their pain. A substantial amount of research has shown that there is no association between pain and reversed cervical curves. Accuracy can also be questioned, as X-ray measurements can vary based on the patient's standing position, which research shows is influenced by an overwhelming number of factors, such as patient positioning, patient physical and morphological changes over time, doctor interreliability, stress, pain, the patient's previous night's sleep or physical activity, hydration, and/or emotional state. Furthermore, research has concluded that strong evidence links various potential harms with routine, repeated X-rays, such as altered treatment procedures, overdiagnosis, radiation exposure, and unnecessary costs. Over the past two decades, medical boards and health associations worldwide have made a substantial effort to communicate better "when" imaging is required, with most education around reducing radiographic imaging. In this review, we describe concerns relating to the high-frequency, routine use of spinal X-rays in the primary care setting for spine-related pain in the absence of red-flag clinical signs.

Clinical Practice Guideline for Best Practice Management of Pediatric Patients by Chiropractors: Results of a Delphi Consensus Process

Objective: To build upon existing recommendations on best practices for chiropractic management of children by conducting a formal consensus process and best evidence synthesis. Design: Best practice guide based on recommendations from current best available evidence and formal consensus of a panel of experienced practitioners, consumers, and experts for chiropractic management of pediatric patients. Methods: Synthesis of results of a literature search to inform the development of recommendations from a multidisciplinary steering committee, including experts in pediatrics, followed by a formal Delphi panel consensus process. Results: The consensus process was conducted June to August 2022. All 60 panelists completed the process and reached at least 80% consensus on all recommendations after three Delphi rounds. Recommendations for best practices for chiropractic care for children addressed these aspects of the clinical encounter: patient communication, including informed consent; appropriate clinical history, including health habits; appropriate physical examination procedures; red flags/contraindications to chiropractic care and/or spinal manipulation; aspects of chiropractic management of pediatric patients, including infants; modifications of spinal manipulation and other manual procedures for pediatric patients; appropriate referral and comanagement; and appropriate health promotion and disease prevention practices. Conclusion: This set of recommendations represents a general framework for an evidence-informed and reasonable approach to the management of pediatric patients by chiropractors.

Don't Throw the 'Bio' out of the Bio-Psycho-Social Model: Editorial for Spine Rehabilitation in 2022 and Beyond

Spinal injuries, disorders and disabilities are among the leading causes for work loss, suffering, and health care expenditures throughout the industrialized world [...].

Examining Clinical Opinion and Experience Regarding Utilization of Plain Radiography of the Spine: Evidence from Surveying the Chiropractic Profession

Plain Radiography of the spine (PROTS) is utilized in many forms of healthcare including the chiropractic profession; however, the literature reflects conflicting opinions regarding utilization and value. Despite being an essential part of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP), few studies assess Doctors of Chiropractic (DCs) clinical opinions and experience regarding the utilization of (PROTS) in practice. In this study, DCs were surveyed regarding utilization of PROTS in practice. The survey was administered to an estimated 50,000 licensed DCs by email. A total of 4301 surveys were completed, of which 3641 were United States (US) DCs. The Clinician Opinion and Experience on Chiropractic Radiography (COECR) scale was designed to analyze survey responses. This valid and reliable scale demonstrated good internal consistency using confirmatory factor analysis and the Rasch model. Survey responses show that 73.3% of respondents utilize PROTS in practice and 26.7% refer patients out for PROTS. Survey responses show that, among US DCs, 91.9% indicate PROTS has value beyond identification of pathology, 86.7% indicate that PROTS is important regarding biomechanical analysis of the spine, 82.9% indicate that PROTS is vital to practice, 67.4% indicate that PROTS aids in measuring outcomes, 98.6% indicate the opinion that PROTS presents very low to no risk to patients, and 93.0% indicate that sharing clinical findings from PROTS studies with patients is beneficial to clinical outcomes. The results of the study indicated that based on clinical experience, the majority of DCs find PROTS to be vital to practice and valuable beyond the identification of red flags.

An investigation into chiropractic intern adherence to radiographic guidelines in clinical decisions with a descriptive comparison to clinical practitioners

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess chiropractic interns' knowledge and adherence to radiographic clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and compare their clinical decisions to previous surveys of established practitioners in Canada and Australia.

METHODS

A clinical decision-making survey was administered to 88 interns. The survey contained clinical scenarios and vignettes with inquiries regarding indications for radiographic referral, the likelihood of referral, and the application of CPGs.

RESULTS

Forty-four percent (43.75%) of the interns were aware of CPGs, 38.75% were unsure, and 17.5% were not aware. When asked specific questions about the appropriateness of diagnostic imaging, the interns' responses were similar to those of practitioners in Canada and Australia. When interns evaluated a clinical vignette, there was lower compliance with CPGs.

CONCLUSION

The interns' clinical decisions regarding the use of diagnostic radiography did not significantly differ from those of practitioners who were surveyed in other related studies. Interns were inconsistent in applying their decision making in clinical cases. Notwithstanding the similarities with practitioners, some deviation from the guidelines indicates the need for further intern education to improve the implementation of CPGs for optimal cost-effective and clinically appropriate care.

Does Improvement towards a Normal Cervical Sagittal Configuration Aid in the Management of Lumbosacral Radiculopathy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

A randomized controlled study with a six-month follow-up was conducted to investigate the effects of sagittal head posture correction on 3D spinal posture parameters, back and leg pain, disability, and S1 nerve root function in patients with chronic discogenic lumbosacral radiculopathy (CDLR). Participants included 80 (35 female) patients between 40 and 55 years experiencing CDLR with a definite hypolordotic cervical spine and forward head posture (FHP) and were randomly assigned a comparative treatment control group and a study group. Both groups received TENS therapy and hot packs, additionally, the study group received the Denneroll cervical traction orthotic. Interventions were applied at a frequency of 3 x per week for 10 weeks and groups were followed for an additional 6-months. Radiographic measures included cervical lordosis (CL) from C2–C7 and FHP; postural measurements included: lumbar lordosis, thoracic kyphosis, trunk inclination, lateral deviation, trunk imbalance, surface rotation, and pelvic inclination. Leg and back pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and H-reflex latency and amplitude were measured. Statistically significant differences between the groups at 10 weeks were found: for all postural measures, CL (p = 0.001), AHT (p = 0.002), H-reflex amplitude (p = 0.007) and latency (p = 0.001). No significant difference for back pain (p = 0.2), leg pain (p = 0.1) and ODI (p = 0.6) at 10 weeks were identified. Only the study group’s improvements were maintained at the 6-month follow up while the control groups values regressed back to baseline. At the 6-month follow-up, it was identified in the study group that improved cervical lordosis and reduction of FHP were found to have a positive impact on 3D posture parameters, leg and back pain scores, ODI, and H-reflex latency and amplitude.

Adherence to spinal imaging guidelines and utilization of lumbar spine diagnostic imaging for low back pain at a Canadian Chiropractic College: a historical clinical cohort study

Background

Diagnostic imaging is useful for assessing low back pain (LBP) when a clinician suspects a specific underlying pathology. Evidence-based imaging guidelines assist clinicians in appropriately determining the need for imaging when assessing LBP. A previous study reported high adherence to three clinical guidelines, with utilization rate of 12.3% in imaging of LBP patients attending a chiropractic teaching clinic. A new imaging guideline for spinal disorders has been published and used in teaching. Thus, the aims of our study were to assess the adherence to the new guideline and X-ray utilization in new episodes of LBP.

Methods

We conducted a historical clinical cohort study using patient electronic health record audits at seven teaching clinics over a period of 20 months. Records of patients who were at least 18 years of age, presented with a new onset of LBP, and consented to data collection were included. Abstracted data included patient demographics, the number and type of red flags, and the decision to image. Rate of guideline adherence (proportion of those not recommended for imaging, given no red flags) and rate of image utilization were descriptively analyzed.

Results

We included 498 patients in this study. At least 81% of included patients had one or more red flags reported. The most commonly reported individual red flag was age ≥ 50 (43.8%) followed by pain at rest (15.7%). In those referred for imaging, age ≥ 50 (93.3%) was the most frequently reported red flag. No red flag(s) were identified in 93 patient records, and none were referred for imaging of their LBP, yielding an adherence rate of 100% (95% CI 96, 100%). A total of 17 of 498 patients were recommended for imaging for their low back pain, resulting in an imaging utilization rate of 3.4% (95% CI 1.8, 5.0%).

Conclusion

The imaging utilization rate was 3.4%, lower than 12.3% previously reported at a chiropractic teaching clinic. None without red flags were referred for imaging, yielding a 100%, adherence rate to current LBP imaging guidelines. Future research should consider currency of guideline, accuracy of red flags and factors influencing clinicians’ decision, when assessing imaging adherence rates.

Factors affecting chiropractor requests for full-length spinal radiography: A scoping review

Chiropractors often refer their patients for full-length (three- to four-region) radiographs of the spine as part of their clinical assessment, which are frequently completed by radiographers in medical imaging practices. Overuse of spinal radiography by chiropractors has previously been reported and remains a contentious issue. The purpose of this scoping review was to explore the issues surrounding the utilisation of full-length spinal radiography by chiropractors and examine the alignment of this practice with current evidence. A search of four databases (AMED, EMBASE, MedLine and Scopus) and a hand search of Google was conducted using keywords. Articles were screened against an inclusion/exclusion criterion for relevance. Themes and findings were extracted from eligible articles, and evidence was synthesised using a narrative approach. In total, 25 articles were identified, five major themes were extracted, and subsequent conclusions drawn by authors were charted to identify confluent findings. This review identified a paucity of literature addressing this issue and an underrepresentation of relevant perspectives from radiographers. Several issues surrounding the use of full-length spinal radiography by chiropractors were identified and examined, including barriers to the adherence of published guidelines for spinal imaging, an absence of a reporting mechanism for the utilisation of spinal radiography in chiropractic and the existence of a spectrum of beliefs amongst chiropractors about the clinical utility and limitations of full-length spinal radiography. Further investigation is required to further understand the scope of this issue and its impacts for radiation protection and patient safety.

Exploring factors influencing chiropractors' adherence to radiographic guidelines for low back pain using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Background

The inappropriate use of lumbar spine imaging remains common in primary care despite recommendations from evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to avoid imaging in the absence of red flags. This study aimed to explore factors influencing ordering behaviours and adherence to radiographic guidelines for low back pain (LBP) in chiropractors in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada.

Methods

We conducted two focus groups in December 2018 with chiropractors in different regions of NL (eastern, n = 8; western, n = 4). An interview guide based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) served to identify perceived barriers to, and enablers of, target behaviours of guideline adherence and managing LBP without X-rays. We conducted thematic analysis of chiropractors’ statements into relevant theoretical domains, followed by grouping of similar statements into specific beliefs. Domains key to changing radiographic guideline adherence, LBP imaging behaviours, and/or informing intervention design were identified by noting conflicting beliefs and their reported influence on the target behaviours.

Results

Six of the 14 TDF domains were perceived to be important for adherence to radiographic guidelines and managing non-specific LBP without imaging. Participating chiropractors reported varying levels of knowledge and awareness of guidelines for LBP imaging (Knowledge). Many chiropractors based their decision for imaging on clinical presentation, but some relied on “gut feeling” (Memory, attention, and decision processes). While chiropractors thought it was their role to manage LBP without imaging, others believed ordering imaging was the responsibility of other healthcare providers (Social/professional role and identity). Contrasting views were found regarding the negative consequences of imaging or not imaging LBP patients (Beliefs about consequences). Communication was identified as a skill required to manage LBP without imaging (Skills) and a strategy to enable appropriate imaging ordering behaviours (Behavioural regulation). Chiropractors suggested that access to patients’ previous imaging and a system that facilitated better interprofessional communication would likely improve their LBP imaging behaviours (Behavioural regulation).

Conclusion

We identified potential influences, in six theoretical domains, on participating chiropractors’ LBP imaging behaviours and adherence to radiographic guidelines. These beliefs may be targets for theory-informed behaviour change interventions aimed at improving these target behaviours for chiropractors in NL.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-022-00433-5.

Radiophobia Overreaction: College of Chiropractors of British Columbia Revoke Full X-Ray Rights Based on Flawed Study and Radiation Fear-Mongering

Fears over radiation have created irrational pressures to dissuade radiography use within chiropractic. Recently, the regulatory body for chiropractors practicing in British Columbia, Canada, the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia (CCBC), contracted Pierre Côté to review the clinical use of X-rays within the chiropractic profession. A "rapid review" was performed and published quickly and included only 9 papers, the most recent dating from 2005; they concluded, "Given the inherent risks of radiation, we recommend that chiropractors do not use radiographs for the routine and repeat evaluation of the structure and function of the spine." The CCBC then launched an immediate review of the use of X-rays by chiropractors in their jurisdiction. Member and public opinion were gathered but not presented to their members. On February 4, 2021, the College announced amendments to their Professional Conduct Handbook that revoked X-ray rights for routine/repeat assessment and management of patients with spine disorders. Here, we highlight current and historical evidence that substantiates that X-rays are not a public health threat. We also point out critical and insurmountable flaws in the single paper used to support irrational and unscientific policy that discriminates against chiropractors who practice certain forms of evidence-based X-ray-guided methods.

Knowledge of and adherence to radiographic guidelines for low back pain: a survey of chiropractors in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada

Background

Low back pain (LBP) rarely requires routine imaging of the lumbar spine in the primary care setting, as serious spinal pathology is rare. Despite evidence-based clinical practice guidelines recommending delaying imaging in the absence of red flags, chiropractors commonly order imaging outside of these guidelines. The purpose of this study was to survey chiropractors to determine the level of knowledge, adherence to, and beliefs about, clinical practice guidelines related to the use of lumbar radiography for LBP in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey of chiropractors in NL (n = 69) was conducted between May and June 2018, including questions on demographics, awareness of radiographic guidelines, and beliefs about radiographs for LBP. We assessed behavioural simulation using clinical vignettes to determine levels of adherence to LBP guideline recommendations.

Results

The response rate was 77% (n = 53). Half of the participants stated they were aware of current radiographic guideline recommendations, and one quarter of participants indicated they did not use guidelines to inform clinical decisions. The majority of participants agreed that x-rays of the lumbar spine are useful for patients with suspected pathology, are indicated when a patient is non-responsive to 4 weeks of conservative treatment for LBP, and when there are neurological signs associated with LBP. However, a small proportion indicated that there is a role for full spine x-rays (~ 21%), x-rays to evaluate patients with acute LBP (~ 13%), and that patient expectations play a role in decision making (4%). Adherence rate to radiographic guidelines measured using clinical vignettes was 75%.

Conclusions

While many chiropractors in this sample reported being unsure of specific radiographic guidelines, the majority of respondents adhered to guideline recommendations measured using clinical vignettes. Nonetheless, a small proportion still hold beliefs about radiographs for LBP that are discordant with current radiographic guidelines. Future research should aim to determine barriers to guideline uptake in this population in order to design and evaluate tailored knowledge translation strategies to reduce unnecessary LBP imaging.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-020-00361-2.

Radiophobic Fear-Mongering, Misappropriation of Medical References and Dismissing Relevant Data Forms the False Stance for Advocating Against the Use of Routine and Repeat Radiography in Chiropractic and Manual Therapy

There is a faction within the chiropractic profession passionately advocating against the routine use of X-rays in the diagnosis, treatment and management of patients with spinal disorders (aka subluxation). These activists reiterate common false statements such as "there is no evidence" for biomechanical spine assessment by X-ray, "there are no guidelines" supporting routine imaging, and also promulgate the reiterating narrative that "X-rays are dangerous." These arguments come in the form of recycled allopathic "red flag only" medical guidelines for spine care, opinion pieces and consensus statements. Herein, we review these common arguments and present compelling data refuting such claims. It quickly becomes evident that these statements are false. They are based on cherry-picked medical references and, most importantly, expansive evidence against this narrative continues to be ignored. Factually, there is considerable evidential support for routine use of radiological imaging in chiropractic and manual therapies for 3 main purposes: 1. To assess spinopelvic biomechanical parameters; 2. To screen for relative and absolute contraindications; 3. To reassess a patient's progress from some forms of spine altering treatments. Finally, and most importantly, we summarize why the long-held notion of carcinogenicity from X-rays is not a valid argument.