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

Perceptions of medical doctors and patients about imaging for people with low back pain: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Low-value care is the use of substitutive/ineffective/harmful strategies based on available evidence, and it is considered one of the main contributors to the burden related to low back pain in health care systems. The use of routine imaging for patients with low back pain is the main example of inappropriate care. Therefore, understanding the perceptions of medical doctors and patients from Brazil about this practice may help propose strategies to reduce imaging rates.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the perceptions of medical doctors and patients about imaging for the diagnosis of nonspecific low back pain.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using the framework analysis method.

SETTINGS

Primary and secondary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifteen patients with low back pain and 15 doctors participated in this study.

DATA COLLECTION

Sociodemographic data were collected from all participants, and the interviews were performed using a set of questions created based on the literature.

MAIN RESULTS

Patients and doctors believe that the main reason for ordering imaging tests is to identify the source of pain, and imaging could be useful for tracking disease progression over time or if there is a lack of improvement after treatment. Patients' expectations and pressures play a role in the decision to order imaging tests, but clinicians believe that education is the preferred strategy to reduce imaging rates.

CONCLUSION

Identifying the source of pain, tracking the disease progression, and patients' expectations and pressures were the main drivers of imaging requests for low back pain. Educational strategies were suggested to reduce the use of routine imaging.

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.

Functional analysis of postural spinal and pelvic parameters using static and dynamic spinometry

Background

Spinometry is a radiation-free method to three-dimensional spine imaging that provides additional information about the functional gait patterns related to the pelvis and lower extremities. This radiation-free technology uses the surface topography of the trunk to analyze surface asymmetry and identify bony landmarks, thereby aiding the assessment of spinal deformity and supporting long-term treatment regimes. Especially reliable dynamic spinometric data for spine and pelvis are necessary to evaluate the management of non-specific back pain.

Research aim

This study aims to generate reliable dynamic spinometric data for spine and pelvis parameters that can serve as reference data for future studies and clinical practice.

Methods

This study assessed 366 subjects (185 females) under static and 360 subjects (181 females) under dynamic (walking on a treadmill at 3 km/h and 5 km/h) conditions. The DIERS Formetric 4Dmotion® system uses stripes of light to detect the surface topography of the spine and pelvis and identifies specific landmarks to analyze the spine during standing and walking.

Results

Relevant gender effects were calculated for lordotic angle (ηp2 = 0.22) and pelvic inclination (ηp2 = 0.26). Under static conditions, female subjects showed larger values for both parameters (lordotic angle: 41.6 ± 8.60°; pelvic inclination: 25.5 ± 7.49°). Regarding speed effects, three relevant changes were observed (sagittal imbalance: ηp2 = 0.74, kyphotic angle: ηp2 = 0.13, apical deviation: ηp2 = 0.11). The most considerable changes were observed between static condition and 3 km/h, especially for sagittal imbalance and lordotic angle. For these parameters, relevant effect sizes (d > 0.8) were calculated between static and 3 km/h for males and females. Concerning clinical vertebral parameters, only lordotic angle and pelvic inclination were correlated with each other (r = 0.722).

Conclusion

This study generated a gender-specific reference database of asymptomatic individuals for static and dynamic spinometry. It demonstrated that the DIERS Formetric 4Dmotion® system could capture natural changes in static and dynamic situations and catalogue functional adaptations of spino-pelvic statics at different speeds. The lordotic angle is an indirect marker of pelvic inclination, allowing spinometry to identify individuals at risk even under dynamic conditions.

The reliability of video fluoroscopy, ultrasound imaging, magnetic resonance imaging and radiography for measurements of lumbar spine segmental range of motion in-vivo: A review

BACKGROUND

Lower back pain (LBP) is a principal cause of disability worldwide and is associated with a variety of spinal conditions. Individuals presenting with LBP may display changes in spinal motion. Despite this, the ability to measure lumbar segmental range of motion (ROM) non-invasively remains a challenge.

OBJECTIVE

To review the reliability of four non-invasive modalities: Video Fluoroscopy (VF), Ultrasound imaging (US), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Radiography used for measuring segmental ROM in the lumbar spine in-vivo.

METHODS

The methodological quality of seventeen eligible studies, identified through a systematic literature search, were appraised.

RESULTS

The intra-rater reliability for VF is excellent in recumbent and upright positions but errors are larger for intra-rater repeated movements and inter-rater reliability shows larger variation. Excellent results for intra- and inter-rater reliability are seen in US studies and there is good reliability within- and between-day. There is a large degree of heterogeneity in MRI and radiography methodologies but reliable results are seen.

CONCLUSIONS

Excellent reliability is seen across all modalities. However, VF and radiography are limited by radiation exposure and MRI is expensive. US offers a non-invasive, risk free method but further research must determine whether it yields truly consistent measurements.

Physical Therapists Are Routinely Performing the Requisite Skills to Directly Refer for Musculoskeletal Imaging: An Observational Study

OBJECTIVES

To explore if physical therapists are practicing skills necessary to refer patients for musculoskeletal imaging.

METHODS

An expert panel established a list of nine requisite skills to refer for musculoskeletal imaging. A blinded expert panel validated the list using a 5-point Likert scale. The skills list was examined via an electronic survey distributed to United States physical therapists.

RESULTS

4,796 respondents were included. Each of the nine skills were routinely performed by a majority of the respondents (range: 54.52-94.72%). Respondents routinely performed 6.95 (± 0.06) skills, with 67.41% routinely performing seven or more skills. Doctors of physical therapy routinely performed more imaging skills (7.15 ± 0.06) compared to their masters- (6.44 ± 0.19) and bachelors-trained (5.95 ± 0.21) counterparts (p < 0.001). Residency/fellowship-trained physical therapists were more likely to routinely perform more imaging skills (7.60 ± 0.11 vs. 6.79 ± 0.07, p < 0.001). Imaging skill performance was greater among board-certified physical therapists (7.39 ± 0.09 vs. 6.71 ± 0.08, p < 0.001) and APTA members (7.06 ± 0.07 vs. 6.65 ± 0.12, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Physical therapists are routinely practicing the requisite imaging skills to directly refer to a radiologist for musculoskeletal imaging.

Barriers to following imaging guidelines for the treatment and management of patients with low-back pain in primary care: a qualitative assessment guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability and is among the top five reasons that patients visit their family doctors. Over-imaging for non-specific low back pain remains a problem in primary care. To inform a larger study to develop and evaluate a theory-based intervention to reduce inappropriate imaging, we completed an assessment of the barriers and facilitators to reducing unnecessary imaging for NSLBP among family doctors in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL).

Methods

This was an exploratory, qualitative study describing family doctors’ experiences and practices related to diagnostic imaging for non-specific LBP in NL, guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Data were collected using in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analyzed deductively (assigning text to one or more domains) and inductively (generating themes at each of the domains) before the results were examined to determine which domains should be targeted to reduce imaging.

Results

Nine family doctors (four males; five females) working in community (n = 4) and academic (n = 5) clinics in both rural (n = 6) and urban (n = 3) settings participated in this study. We found five barriers to reducing imaging for patients with NSLBP: 1) negative consequences, 2) patient demand 3) health system organization, 4) time, and 5) access to resources. These were related to the following domains: 1) beliefs about consequences, 2) beliefs about capabilities, 3) emotion, 4) reinforcement, 5) environmental context and resources, 6) social influences, and 7) behavioural regulation.

Conclusions

Family physicians a) fear that if they do not image they may miss something serious, b) face significant patient demand for imaging, c) are working in a system that encourages unnecessary imaging, d) don’t have enough time to counsel patients about why they don’t need imaging, and e) lack access to appropriate practitioners, community programs, and treatment modalities to prescribe to their patients. These barriers were related to seven TDF domains. Successfully reducing inappropriate imaging requires a comprehensive intervention that addresses these barriers using established behaviour change techniques. These techniques should be matched directly to relevant TDF domains. The results of our study represent the important first step of this process – identifying the contextual barriers and the domains to which they are related.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01751-6.

Characterizing and quantifying low-value diagnostic imaging internationally: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate and wasteful use of health care resources is a common problem, constituting 10-34% of health services spending in the western world. Even though diagnostic imaging is vital for identifying correct diagnoses and administrating the right treatment, low-value imaging-in which the diagnostic test confers little to no clinical benefit-is common and contributes to inappropriate and wasteful use of health care resources. There is a lack of knowledge on the types and extent of low-value imaging. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to identify, characterize, and quantify the extent of low-value diagnostic imaging examinations for adults and children.

METHODS

A scoping review of the published literature was performed. Medline-Ovid, Embase-Ovid, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published from 2010 to September 2020. The search strategy was built from medical subject headings (Mesh) for Diagnostic imaging/Radiology OR Health service misuse/Medical overuse OR Procedures and Techniques Utilization/Facilities and Services Utilization. Articles in English, German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian were included.

RESULTS

A total of 39,986 records were identified and, of these, 370 studies were included in the final synthesis. Eighty-four low-value imaging examinations were identified. Imaging of atraumatic pain, routine imaging in minor head injury, trauma, thrombosis, urolithiasis, after thoracic interventions, fracture follow-up and cancer staging/follow-up were the most frequently identified low-value imaging examinations. The proportion of low-value imaging varied between 2 and 100% inappropriate or unnecessary examinations.

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive list of identified low-value radiological examinations for both adults and children are presented. Future research should focus on reasons for low-value imaging utilization and interventions to reduce the use of low-value imaging internationally.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42020208072.

Reducing Low-Value Imaging for Low Back Pain: Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effectiveness of implementing interventions to improve guideline-recommended imaging referrals in low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

LITERATURE SEARCH

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to June 14, 2021, as well as Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews published in the last 10 years. We conducted forward and backward citation tracking.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled or clinical trials in adults with low back pain to improve imaging referrals.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data were synthesized using narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis (Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Of the 2719 identified records, 8 trials were included, with 6 studies eligible for meta-analysis (participants: N = 170 460). All trials incorporated clinician education; 4 included audit and/or feedback components. Comparators were no-intervention control and passive dissemination of guidelines. Five trials were rated as low risk of bias, and 2 trials were rated as having some concerns. There was low-certainty evidence that implementing interventions to improve guideline-recommended imaging referrals had no effect (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.87 [0.72, 1.05]; I² = 0%; studies: n = 6). The main finding was robust to sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

We found low-certainty evidence that interventions to reduce imaging referrals or use in low back pain had no effect. Education interventions are unlikely to be effective. Organizational- and policy-level interventions are more likely to be effective. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(4):175-191. Epub 05 Feb 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10731.

Appropriateness of imaging decisions for low back pain presenting to the emergency department: a retrospective chart review study

BACKGROUND

Imaging for low back pain is widely regarded as a target for efforts to reduce low-value care.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to estimate the prevalence of the overuse and underuse of lumbar imaging in patients presenting with low back pain to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review study of five public hospital EDs in Sydney, Australia, in 2019-20. We reviewed the clinical charts of consecutive adult patients who presented with a complaint of low back pain and extracted clinical features relevant to a decision to request lumbar imaging. We estimated the proportion of encounters where a decision to request lumbar imaging was inappropriate (overuse) or where a clinician did not request an appropriate and informative lumbar imaging test when indicated (underuse).

RESULTS

Six hundred and forty-nine patients presented with a complaint of low back pain, of which 158 (24.3%) were referred for imaging. Seventy-nine (12.2%) had a combination of features suggesting that lumbar imaging was indicated according to clinical guidelines. The prevalence of overuse and underuse of lumbar imaging was 8.8% (57 of 649 cases, 95% CI 6.8-11.2%) and 4.3% (28 of 649 cases, 95% CI 3.0-6.1%), respectively. Thirteen cases were classified as underuse because the patients were referred for uninformative imaging modalities (e.g. referred for radiography for suspected cauda equina syndrome).

CONCLUSION

In this study of emergency care, there was evidence of not only overuse of lumbar imaging but also underuse through failure to request lumbar imaging when indicated or referral for an uninformative imaging modality. These three issues seem more important targets for quality improvement than solely focusing on overuse.

Changing Health-Related Behaviours 5: On Interventions to Change Physician Behaviours

In many countries, there is a large amount of public money spent on health care. Some patient tests and treatments are not only unnecessary but also may be harmful, leading health researchers to look for the most effective interventions to change physician behaviour. The purpose of this chapter is to describe some of the interventions used to modify physician behaviour and highlight their challenges observed in a Canadian provincial context. We begin with a brief description of the increasing interest in behaviour change interventions in recent years and their theoretical basis. We then describe several interventions used to change physician behaviour ranging from nudges to choice restriction and the available evidence on their effectiveness. We provide examples of interventions and their challenges as we've experienced them in our research program, Quality of Care NL. We conclude with a summary of what the evidence tells us about interventions to change physicians' behaviours.

Are general practitioners referring patients with low back pain for CTs appropriately according to the guidelines: a retrospective review of 3609 medical records in Newfoundland using routinely collected data

Background

CT Imaging is often requested for patients with low back pain (LBP) by their general practitioners. It is currently unknown what reasons are common for these referrals and if CT images are ordered according to guidelines in one province in Canada, which has high rates of CT imaging. The objective of this study is to categorise lumbar spine CT referrals into serious spinal pathology, radicular syndrome, and non-specific LBP and evaluate the appropriateness of CT imaging referrals from general practitioners for patients with LBP.

Methods

A retrospective medical record review of electronic health records was performed in one health region in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Inclusion criteria were lumbar spine CT referrals ordered by general practitioners for adults ≥18 years, and performed between January 1st-December 31st, 2016. Each CT referral was identified from linked databases (Meditech and PACS). To the study authors’ knowledge, guidelines regarding when to refer patients with low back pain for CT imaging had not been actively disseminated to general practitioners or implemented at clinics/hospitals during this time period. Data were manually extracted and categorised into three groups: red flag conditions (judged to be an appropriate referral), radicular syndrome (judged be unclear appropriateness), or nonspecific LBP (determined to be inappropriate).

Results

Three thousand six hundred nine lumbar spine CTs were included from 2016. The mean age of participants was 54.7 (SD 14 years), with females comprising 54.6% of referrals. 1.9% of lumbar CT referrals were missing/unclear, 6.5% of CTs were ordered on a red-flag suspicion, 75.6% for radicular syndromes, and 16.0% for non-specific LBP; only 6.5% of referrals were clearly appropriate. Key information including patient history and clinical exams performed at appointment were often missing from referrals.

Conclusion

This audit found high proportions of inappropriate or questionable referrals for lumbar spine CT and many were missing information needed to categorise. Further research to understand the drivers of inappropriate imaging and cost to the healthcare system would be beneficial.