Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 1170–1187 | Cite as

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

  • Daniel SteffensEmail author
  • Mark J. Hancock
  • Leani S.M. Pereira
  • Peter M. Kent
  • Jane Latimer
  • Chris G. Maher
Review Article

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).

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging Low back pain Sciatica Subgroup analysis Randomised controlled trial Systematic review 

Notes

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.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 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–51Google Scholar
  16. 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):W264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Steffens
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Mark J. Hancock
    • 3
  • Leani S.M. Pereira
    • 2
  • Peter M. Kent
    • 4
    • 5
  • Jane Latimer
    • 1
  • Chris G. Maher
    • 1
  1. 1.Musculoskeletal Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney Medical SchoolThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of PhysiotherapyFederal University of Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil
  3. 3.Discipline of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Sports Science and Clinical BiomechanicsUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  5. 5.Research Department, The Spine Centre of Southern Denmark, Institute of Regional Health Services ResearchUniversity of Southern DenmarkMiddelfartDenmark

Personalised recommendations