Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Do MRI findings identify patients with low back pain or sciatica who respond better to particular interventions? A systematic review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can reveal a range of degenerative findings and anatomical abnormalities; however, the clinical importance of these remains uncertain and controversial. We aimed to investigate if the presence of MRI findings identifies patients with low back pain (LBP) or sciatica who respond better to particular interventions.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched. We included RCTs investigating MRI findings as treatment effect modifiers for patients with LBP or sciatica. We excluded studies with specific diseases as the cause of LBP. Risk of bias was assessed using the criteria of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Each MRI finding was examined for its individual capacity for effect modification.

Results

Eight published trials met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of trials was inconsistent. Substantial variability in MRI findings, treatments and outcomes across the eight trials prevented pooling of data. Patients with Modic type 1 when compared with patients with Modic type 2 had greater improvements in function when treated by Diprospan (steroid) injection, compared with saline. Patients with central disc herniation when compared with patients without central disc herniation had greater improvements in pain when treated by surgery, compared with rehabilitation.

Conclusions

Although individual trials suggested that some MRI findings might be effect modifiers for specific interventions, none of these interactions were investigated in more than a single trial. High quality, adequately powered trials investigating MRI findings as effect modifiers are essential to determine the clinical importance of MRI findings in LBP and sciatica (PROSPERO: CRD42013006571).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hoy D, Brooks P, Blyth F, Buchbinder R (2010) The epidemiology of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 24:769–781. doi:10.1016/j.berh.2010.10.002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Buchbinder R, Blyth FM, March LM, Brooks P, Woolf AD, Hoy DG (2013) Placing the global burden of low back pain in context. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 27:575–589. doi:10.1016/j.berh.2013.10.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. van Tulder MW, Koes B, Malmivaara A (2006) Outcome of non-invasive treatment modalities on back pain: an evidence-based review. Eur Spine J 15(Suppl 1):S64–S81. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-1048-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Keller A, Hayden J, Bombardier C, van Tulder M (2007) Effect sizes of non-surgical treatments of non-specific low-back pain. Eur Spine J 16:1776–1788. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0379-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Costa Lda C, Koes BW, Pransky G, Borkan J, Maher CG, Smeets RJ (2013) Primary care research priorities in low back pain: an update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:148–156. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318267a92f

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kent P, Kjaer P (2012) The efficacy of targeted interventions for modifiable psychosocial risk factors of persistent nonspecific low back pain—a systematic review. Man Ther 17:385–401. doi:10.1016/j.math.2012.02.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kent P, Mjosund HL, Petersen DH (2010) Does targeting manual therapy and/or exercise improve patient outcomes in nonspecific low back pain? A systematic review. BMC Med 8:22. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-22

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Smart KM, Blake C, Staines A, Thacker M, Doody C (2012) Mechanisms-based classifications of musculoskeletal pain: part 1 of 3: symptoms and signs of central sensitisation in patients with low back (±leg) pain. Man Ther 17:336–344. doi:10.1016/j.math.2012.03.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rabey M, Beales D, Slater H, O’Sullivan P (2015) Multidimensional pain profiles in four cases of chronic non-specific axial low back pain: an examination of the limitations of contemporary classification systems. Man Ther 20:138–147. doi:10.1016/j.math.2014.07.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Vibe Fersum K, O’Sullivan P, Skouen JS, Smith A, Kvale A (2013) Efficacy of classification-based cognitive functional therapy in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Pain 17:916–928. doi:10.1002/j.1532-2149.2012.00252.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. O’Sullivan P (2005) Diagnosis and classification of chronic low back pain disorders: maladaptive movement and motor control impairments as underlying mechanism. Man Ther 10:242–255. doi:10.1016/j.math.2005.07.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Steffens D, Hancock MJ, Maher CG, Williams C, Jensen TS, Latimer J (2013) Does magnetic resonance imaging predict future low back pain? A systematic review. Eur J Pain. doi:10.1002/j.1532-2149.2013.00427.x

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cheung KM, Karppinen J, Chan D, Ho DW, Song YQ, Sham P, Cheah KS, Leong JC, Luk KD (2009) Prevalence and pattern of lumbar magnetic resonance imaging changes in a population study of one thousand forty-three individuals. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:934–940. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a01b3f

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hancock M, Maher C, Macaskill P, Latimer J, Kos W, Pik J (2012) MRI findings are more common in selected patients with acute low back pain than controls? Eur Spine J 21:240–246. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1955-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Coomarasamy A, Khan KS, Bossuyt PM (2007) Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods. Health Technol Assess 11(III):IX–51

    Google Scholar 

  16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151(264–269):W264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M (2009) 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1929–1941. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b1c99f

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hancock MJ, Kjaer P, Korsholm L, Kent P (2013) Interpretation of subgroup effects in published trials. Phys Ther 93:852–859. doi:10.2522/ptj.20120296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pearson A, Lurie J, Tosteson T, Zhao W, Abdu W, Weinstein JN (2012) Who should have surgery for spinal stenosis? Treatment effect predictors in SPORT. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:1791–1802. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182634b04

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pearson AM, Blood EA, Frymoyer JW, Herkowitz H, Abdu WA, Woodward R, Longley M, Emery SE, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Weinstein JN (2008) SPORT lumbar intervertebral disk herniation and back pain: does treatment, location, or morphology matter? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:428–435. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816469de

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Arts MP, Brand R, Koes BW, Peul WC (2010) Effect modifiers of outcome of surgery in patients with herniated disc related sciatica? A subgroup analysis of a randomised clinical trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 81:1265–1274. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2009.192906

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Peul WC, Arts MP, Brand R, Koes BW (2009) Timing of surgery for sciatica: subgroup analysis alongside a randomized trial. Eur Spine J 18:538–545. doi:10.1007/s00586-008-0867-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Tafazal S, Ng L, Chaudhary N, Sell P (2009) Corticosteroids in peri-radicular infiltration for radicular pain: a randomised double blind controlled trial. One year results and subgroup analysis. Eur Spine J 18:1220–1225. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-1000-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Buttermann GR (2004) The effect of spinal steroid injections for degenerative disc disease. Spine J 4:495–505. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2004.03.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cao P, Jiang L, Zhuang C, Yang Y, Zhang Z, Chen W, Zheng T (2011) Intradiscal injection therapy for degenerative chronic discogenic low back pain with end plate Modic changes. Spine J 11:100–106. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2010.07.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hellum C, Johnsen LG, Gjertsen O, Berg L, Neckelmann G, Grundnes O, Rossvoll I, Skouen JS, Brox JI, Storheim K (2012) Predictors of outcome after surgery with disc prosthesis and rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc: 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 21:681–690. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-2145-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Modic MT, Masaryk TJ, Ross JS, Carter JR (1988) Imaging of degenerative disk disease. Radiology 168:177–186. doi:10.1148/radiology.168.1.3289089

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Modic MT, Steinberg PM, Ross JS, Masaryk TJ, Carter JR (1988) Degenerative disk disease: assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging. Radiology 166:193–199. doi:10.1148/radiology.166.1.3336678

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hancock M, Herbert RD, Maher CG (2009) A guide to interpretation of studies investigating subgroups of responders to physical therapy interventions. Phys Ther 89:698–704. doi:10.2522/ptj.20080351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sun X, Briel M, Walter SD, Guyatt GH (2010) Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ 340:c117. doi:10.1136/bmj.c117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Carrino JA, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD, Carragee EJ, Kaiser J, Grove MR, Blood E, Pearson LH, Weinstein JN, Herzog R (2009) Lumbar spine: reliability of MR imaging findings. Radiology 250:161–170. doi:10.1148/radiol.2493071999

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Bendix T, Sorensen JS, Henriksson GA, Bolstad JE, Narvestad EK, Jensen TS (2012) Lumbar modic changes-a comparison between findings at low- and high-field magnetic resonance imaging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:1756–1762. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318257ffce

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jensen RK, Leboeuf-Yde C (2011) Is the presence of modic changes associated with the outcomes of different treatments? A systematic critical review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:183. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-183

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Kent P, Hancock M, Petersen DH, Mjosund HL (2010) Clinimetrics corner: choosing appropriate study designs for particular questions about treatment subgroups. J Man Manip Ther 18:147–152. doi:10.1179/106698110x12640740712419

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Chou R, Baisden J, Carragee EJ, Resnick DK, Shaffer WO, Loeser JD (2009) Surgery for low back pain: a review of the evidence for an american pain society clinical practice guideline. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1094–1109. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a105fc

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Professor Michele Crites-Battie and Professor Jeffrey G. Jarvik for reviewing included studies and suggesting possible additional studies. We also thank authors from the included studies for providing additional information.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Musculoskeletal Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, P.O. Box M201, Missenden Rd, Sydney, NSW, 2050, Australia

    Daniel Steffens, Jane Latimer & Chris G. Maher

  2. Department of Physiotherapy, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

    Daniel Steffens & Leani S.M. Pereira

  3. Discipline of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    Mark J. Hancock

  4. Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Peter M. Kent

  5. Research Department, The Spine Centre of Southern Denmark, Institute of Regional Health Services Research, University of Southern Denmark, Middelfart, Denmark

    Peter M. Kent

Authors
  1. Daniel Steffens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark J. Hancock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leani S.M. Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter M. Kent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jane Latimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chris G. Maher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Steffens.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Table 4 Search strategy 1
Full size table
Table 5 Search strategy 2
Full size table
Table 6 Criteria list for the risk of bias assessment
Full size table
Table 7 List of excluded full-text articles and the primary reason for exclusion
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Steffens, D., Hancock, M.J., Pereira, L.S. et al. Do MRI findings identify patients with low back pain or sciatica who respond better to particular interventions? A systematic review. Eur Spine J 25, 1170–1187 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4195-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4195-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation