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

Autoři: Gabrielle S. Logan aff001;  Andrea Pike aff002;  Bethan Copsey aff003;  Patrick Parfrey aff001;  Holly Etchegary aff001;  Amanda Hall aff001
Působiště autorů: Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL, Canada aff001;  Primary Healthcare Research Unit, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL, Canada aff002;  Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225414



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.


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.


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.


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.

Klíčová slova:

Computed axial tomography – Critical care and emergency medicine – Database searching – Lower back pain – Magnetic resonance imaging – Physicians – Systematic reviews – X-ray radiography


1. Koes BW, van Tulder MW, Ostelo R, et al. Clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care: an international comparison. Spine J 2001;26(22):2504–13.

2. Deyo RA. Early diagnostic evaluation of low back pain. J Gen Intern Med 1986;1(5):328–38. doi: 10.1007/bf02596214 2945917

3. Schroth WS, Schectman JM, Elinsky EG, et al. Utilization of medical services for the treatment of acute low back pain. J Gen Intern Med 1992;7(5):486–91. doi: 10.1007/bf02599449 1403203

4. Davis PC, Wippold FJ, Brunberg JA, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria on low back pain. J Am Coll Radiol 2009;6(6):401–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2009.02.008 19467485

5. Chou R, Qaseem A, Owens DK, et al. Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Diagnostic imaging for low back pain: advice for high-value health care from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2011;154(3):181–9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-3-201102010-00008 21282698

6. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII, Phase I, Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 1998.

7. Choosing Wisely Canada. Imaging Tests for Lower Back Pain: When you need them and when you don’t. Available at: https://choosingwiselycanada.org/imaging-tests-low-back-pain/. Accessed January 9, 2019.

8. Bushberg JT. Eleventh annual Warren K. Sinclair keynote address—science, radiation protection and NCRP: building on the past, looking to the future. Health Phys 2015;108(2):115–23. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000228 25551490

9. Answers to common questions about the use and safety of CT scans. Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Elsevier; 2015.

10. Chou R, Deyo RA, Jarvik JG. Appropriate use of lumbar imaging for evaluation of low back pain. Radiol Clin North Am 2012;50(4):569–85. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2012.04.005 22643385

11. Brinjikji W, Luetmer PH, Comstock B, et al. Systematic literature review of imaging features of spinal degeneration in asymptomatic populations. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36(4):811–6. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4173 25430861

12. Chou R, Fu R, Carrino JA, et al. Imaging strategies for low-back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2009;373(9662):463–72. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60172-0 19200918

13. Medicare Part B. imaging services: rapid spending growth and shift to physician offices indicate need for CMS to consider additional management practices. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office 2008.

14. Lehnert BE, Bree RL. Analysis of appropriateness of outpatient CT and MRI referred from primary care clinics at an academic medical center: how critical is the need for improved decision support? J Am Coll Radiol 2010;7(3):192–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2009.11.010 20193924

15. Canadian Institute of Health Information. Medical Imaging in Canada 2012. 2013; Available at: https://www.cihi.ca/en/mit_summary_2012_en.pdf. Accessed January 9, 2019.

16. Deyo RA. Diagnostic evaluation of LBP: reaching a specific diagnosis is often impossible. Arch Intern Med 2002;162(13):1444–7. doi: 10.1001/archinte.162.13.1444 12090877

17. Jenkins HJ, Downie AS, Maher CG, et al. Imaging for low back pain: is clinical use consistent with guidelines? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J Published Online First: 3 May 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.05.004 29730460

18. Benchimol EI, Smeeth L, Guttmann A, et al. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) Statement. PLoS Med 2015;12(10):e1001885. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001885 26440803

19. Nicholls SG, Quach P, Von Elm E, et al. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement: Methods for arriving at consensus and developing reporting guidelines. PLoS ONE 2015; 10(5):e0125620. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125620 25965407

20. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg 2014;12(12):1495–99. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013 25046131

21. Noah N. The STROBE Initiative STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). Epidemiol Infect 2008;136(7):865. doi: 10.1017/S0950268808000733 18482461

22. Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins J. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 2007;36(3):666–76. doi: 10.1093/ije/dym018 17470488

23. Nyaga VN, Arbyn M, Aerts M. Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data. Archives of Public Health 2014;72(1):39. doi: 10.1186/2049-3258-72-39 25810908

24. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64(4):383–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 21195583

25. Fullen BM, Maher T, Bury G, et al. Adherence of Irish general practitioners to European guidelines for acute low back pain: A prospective pilot study. Eur J Pain 2007;11(6):614–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2006.09.007 17126046

26. Raja AS, Ip IK, Cochon L, et al. Will publishing evidence-based guidelines for low back pain imaging decrease imaging use? Am J Emerg Med Published Online First: 2018 July 18. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.07.039 30037562

27. Charlesworth CJ, Meath THA, Schwartz AL, et al. Comparison of low-value care in medicaid vs commercially insured populations. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176(7):998–1004. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2086 27244044

28. Foo C, Pearson K. Are we choosing wisely at northern health?[abstract] Intern Med J 2017;47:12.

29. Kost A, Genao I, Lee JW, et al. Clinical decisions made in primary care clinics before and after Choosing Wisely™. J Am Board Fam Med 2015;28(4):471–4. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2015.05.140332 26152437

30. Lin IB, Coffin J, O'Sullivan PB. Using theory to improve low back pain care in Australian Aboriginal primary care: a mixed method single cohort pilot study. BMC Fam Pract 2016;17:44. doi: 10.1186/s12875-016-0441-z 27068773

31. Rao S, Rao S, Harvey HB, et al. Low back pain in the emergency department—Are the ACR Appropriateness Criteria being followed? J Am Coll Radiol 2015;12(4):364–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.10.020 25703700

32. Rego MH, Nagiah S. Over-imaging in uncomplicated low back pain: a 12-month audit of a general medical unit. Intern Med J 2016;46(12):1437–9. doi: 10.1111/imj.13279 27981773

33. Bishop PB, Wing PC. Compliance with clinical practice guidelines in family physicians managing worker's compensation board patients with acute lower back pain. Spine J 2003;3(6):442–50. doi: 10.1016/s1529-9430(03)00152-9 14609688

34. Buller-Close K, Schriger DL, Baraff LJ. Heterogeneous effect of an Emergency Department Expert Charting System. Ann Emerg Med 2003;41(5):644–52. doi: 10.1067/mem.2003.182 12712031

35. Day F, Hoang LP, Ouk S, et al. The impact of a guideline-driven computer charting system on the emergency care of patients with acute low back pain. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1995:576–80. 8563351

36. Eccles M, Steen N, Grimshaw J, et al. Effect of audit and feedback, and reminder messages on primary-care radiology referrals: a randomised trial. Lancet 2001;357(9266):1406–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04564-5 11356439

37. Espeland A, Albrektsen G, Larsen JL. Plain radiography of the lumbosacral spine. An audit of referrals from general practitioners. Acta Radiol 1999;40(1):52–9. doi: 10.1080/02841859909174403 9973903

38. Halpin SF, Yeoman L, Dundas DD. Radiographic examination of the lumbar spine in a community hospital: an audit of current practice. BMJ 1991;303(6806):813–5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.303.6806.813 1932970

39. Hourcade S, Treves R. Computed tomography in low back pain and sciatica. A retrospective study of 132 patients in the Haute-Vienne district of France. Joint Bone Spine 2002;69(6):589–96. doi: 10.1016/s1297-319x(02)00456-6 12537267

40. Gonzalez-Urzelai V, Palacio-Elua L, Lopez-de-Munain J. Routine primary care management of acute low back pain: adherence to clinical guidelines. Eur Spine J 2003;12(6):589–94. doi: 10.1007/s00586-003-0567-2 14605973

41. Schectman JM, Schroth WS, Verme D, et al. Randomized controlled trial of education and feedback for implementation of guidelines for acute low back pain. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18(10):773–80. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.10205.x 14521638

42. Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Russell AS, et al. Use of lumbar radiographs for the early diagnosis of low back pain: Proposed guidelines would increase utilization. JAMA 1997;277(22):1782–6. 9178791

43. Tacci JA, Webster BS, Hashemi L, et al. Clinical practices in the management of new-onset, uncomplicated, low back workers' compensation disability claims. J Occup Environ Med 1999;41(5):397–404. doi: 10.1097/00043764-199905000-00008 10337610

44. Deyo RA, Diehl AK. Lumbar spine films in primary care. J Gen Intern Med 1986;1(1):20–25. doi: 10.1007/bf02596320 2945915

45. Espeland A, Baerheim A, Albrektsen G, et al. Patients’ views on importance and usefulness of plain radiography for low back pain. Spine J 2001;26(12):1356–63.

46. Richards PJ, Tins B, Cherian R, et al. The emergency department: an appropriate referral rate for radiography. Clin Radiol 2002;57(8):753–8. doi: 10.1053/crad.2002.0970 12169288

47. Baez J, Khorasani R. Lumbar radiographs: Adherence to evidence based guidelines[abstract]. Emerg Radiol 2011;18(6):460.

48. Culleton S, Quinn C, O'Keeffe P. Imaging of low back pain in older people: An audit of current practice[abstract]. Ir J Med Sci 2013;182:S246.

49. Oikarinen H, Meriläinen S, Pääkkö E, et al. Unjustified CT examinations in young patients. Eur Radiol 2013;19(5):1161–5.

50. Tahvonen P, Oikarinen H, Niinimäki J, et al. Justification and active guideline implementation for spine radiography referrals in primary care. Acta Radiol 2017;58(5):586–92. doi: 10.1177/0284185116661879 27609905

51. Schlemmer E, Mitchiner JC, Brown M, et al. Imaging during low back pain ED visits: A claims-based descriptive analysis. Am J Emerg Med 2015;33(3):414–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2014.12.060 25624075

52. Muntión-Alfaro MT, Benítez-Camps M, Bordas-Julve JM, et al. Back pain: Do we follow the recommendations of the guidelines? Aten Prim 2006;37(4):215–20.

53. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(4):264–9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 19622511

54. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000;283(15):2008–12. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 10789670

Článok vyšiel v časopise


2019 Číslo 12