Cargando…

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 imagin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Logan, Gabrielle S., Pike, Andrea, Copsey, Bethan, Parfrey, Patrick, Etchegary, Holly, Hall, Amanda
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6894771/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31805073
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225414
_version_ 1783476450482978816
author Logan, Gabrielle S.
Pike, Andrea
Copsey, Bethan
Parfrey, Patrick
Etchegary, Holly
Hall, Amanda
author_facet Logan, Gabrielle S.
Pike, Andrea
Copsey, Bethan
Parfrey, Patrick
Etchegary, Holly
Hall, Amanda
author_sort Logan, Gabrielle S.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6894771
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68947712019-12-14 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 Logan, Gabrielle S. Pike, Andrea Copsey, Bethan Parfrey, Patrick Etchegary, Holly Hall, Amanda PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2019-12-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6894771/ /pubmed/31805073 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225414 Text en © 2019 Logan et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Logan, Gabrielle S.
Pike, Andrea
Copsey, Bethan
Parfrey, Patrick
Etchegary, Holly
Hall, Amanda
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
title 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6894771/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31805073
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225414
work_keys_str_mv AT logangabrielles whatdowereallyknowabouttheappropriatenessofradiationemittingimagingforlowbackpaininprimaryandemergencycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmedicalrecordreviews
AT pikeandrea whatdowereallyknowabouttheappropriatenessofradiationemittingimagingforlowbackpaininprimaryandemergencycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmedicalrecordreviews
AT copseybethan whatdowereallyknowabouttheappropriatenessofradiationemittingimagingforlowbackpaininprimaryandemergencycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmedicalrecordreviews
AT parfreypatrick whatdowereallyknowabouttheappropriatenessofradiationemittingimagingforlowbackpaininprimaryandemergencycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmedicalrecordreviews
AT etchegaryholly whatdowereallyknowabouttheappropriatenessofradiationemittingimagingforlowbackpaininprimaryandemergencycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmedicalrecordreviews
AT hallamanda whatdowereallyknowabouttheappropriatenessofradiationemittingimagingforlowbackpaininprimaryandemergencycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofmedicalrecordreviews