Cargando…

Second opinions for spinal surgery: a scoping review

BACKGROUND: Second opinions have the goal of clarifying uncertainties around diagnosis or management, particularly when healthcare decisions are complex, unpleasant, and carry considerable risks. Second opinions might be particularly useful for people recommended surgery for their back pain as surge...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ferreira, Giovanni E., Zadro, Joshua, Liu, Chang, Harris, Ian A., Maher, Chris G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8932184/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35300677
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07771-3
_version_ 1784671402492690432
author Ferreira, Giovanni E.
Zadro, Joshua
Liu, Chang
Harris, Ian A.
Maher, Chris G.
author_facet Ferreira, Giovanni E.
Zadro, Joshua
Liu, Chang
Harris, Ian A.
Maher, Chris G.
author_sort Ferreira, Giovanni E.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Second opinions have the goal of clarifying uncertainties around diagnosis or management, particularly when healthcare decisions are complex, unpleasant, and carry considerable risks. Second opinions might be particularly useful for people recommended surgery for their back pain as surgery has at best a limited role in the management of back pain. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review. Two independent researchers screened PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and CINAHL from inception to May 6th, 2021. Studies of any design published in any language were eligible provided they described a second opinion intervention for people with spinal pain (low back or neck pain with or without radicular pain) either considering surgery or to whom surgery had been recommended. We assessed the methodological quality with the Downs & Black scale. Outcomes were: i) characteristics of second opinion services for people considering or who have been recommended spinal surgery, ii) agreement between first and second opinions in terms of diagnoses, need for surgery and type of surgery, iii) whether they reduce surgery and improve patient outcomes; and iv) the costs and healthcare use associated with these services. Outcomes were presented descriptively. RESULTS: We screened 6341 records, read 27 full-texts, and included 12 studies (all observational; 11 had poor methodological quality; one had fair). Studies described patient, doctor, and insurance-initiated second opinion services. Diagnostic agreement between first and second opinions varied from 53 to 96%. Agreement for need for surgery between first and second opinions ranged from 0 to 83%. Second opinion services may reduce surgery rates in the short-term, but it is unclear whether these reductions are sustained in the long-term or if patients only delay surgery. Second opinion services may reduce costs and healthcare use (e.g. imaging), but might increase others (e.g. injections). CONCLUSIONS: Second opinion services typically recommend less surgical treatments compared to first opinions and may reduce surgery rates in the short-term, but it is unclear whether these reductions are sustained in the long-term or if patients only delay surgery. There is a need for high-quality randomised trials to determine the value of second opinion services for reducing spinal surgery. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07771-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8932184
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89321842022-03-23 Second opinions for spinal surgery: a scoping review Ferreira, Giovanni E. Zadro, Joshua Liu, Chang Harris, Ian A. Maher, Chris G. BMC Health Serv Res Research BACKGROUND: Second opinions have the goal of clarifying uncertainties around diagnosis or management, particularly when healthcare decisions are complex, unpleasant, and carry considerable risks. Second opinions might be particularly useful for people recommended surgery for their back pain as surgery has at best a limited role in the management of back pain. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review. Two independent researchers screened PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and CINAHL from inception to May 6th, 2021. Studies of any design published in any language were eligible provided they described a second opinion intervention for people with spinal pain (low back or neck pain with or without radicular pain) either considering surgery or to whom surgery had been recommended. We assessed the methodological quality with the Downs & Black scale. Outcomes were: i) characteristics of second opinion services for people considering or who have been recommended spinal surgery, ii) agreement between first and second opinions in terms of diagnoses, need for surgery and type of surgery, iii) whether they reduce surgery and improve patient outcomes; and iv) the costs and healthcare use associated with these services. Outcomes were presented descriptively. RESULTS: We screened 6341 records, read 27 full-texts, and included 12 studies (all observational; 11 had poor methodological quality; one had fair). Studies described patient, doctor, and insurance-initiated second opinion services. Diagnostic agreement between first and second opinions varied from 53 to 96%. Agreement for need for surgery between first and second opinions ranged from 0 to 83%. Second opinion services may reduce surgery rates in the short-term, but it is unclear whether these reductions are sustained in the long-term or if patients only delay surgery. Second opinion services may reduce costs and healthcare use (e.g. imaging), but might increase others (e.g. injections). CONCLUSIONS: Second opinion services typically recommend less surgical treatments compared to first opinions and may reduce surgery rates in the short-term, but it is unclear whether these reductions are sustained in the long-term or if patients only delay surgery. There is a need for high-quality randomised trials to determine the value of second opinion services for reducing spinal surgery. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07771-3. BioMed Central 2022-03-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8932184/ /pubmed/35300677 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07771-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Ferreira, Giovanni E.
Zadro, Joshua
Liu, Chang
Harris, Ian A.
Maher, Chris G.
Second opinions for spinal surgery: a scoping review
title Second opinions for spinal surgery: a scoping review
title_full Second opinions for spinal surgery: a scoping review
title_fullStr Second opinions for spinal surgery: a scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Second opinions for spinal surgery: a scoping review
title_short Second opinions for spinal surgery: a scoping review
title_sort second opinions for spinal surgery: a scoping review
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8932184/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35300677
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07771-3
work_keys_str_mv AT ferreiragiovannie secondopinionsforspinalsurgeryascopingreview
AT zadrojoshua secondopinionsforspinalsurgeryascopingreview
AT liuchang secondopinionsforspinalsurgeryascopingreview
AT harrisiana secondopinionsforspinalsurgeryascopingreview
AT maherchrisg secondopinionsforspinalsurgeryascopingreview