Imaging versus no imaging for low back pain: a systematic review, measuring costs, healthcare utilization and absence from work
- 993 Downloads
Imaging (X-ray, CT and MRI) provides no health benefits for low back pain (LBP) patients and is not recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Whether imaging leads to increased costs, healthcare utilization or absence from work is unclear. Therefore, this study systematically reviews if imaging in patients with LBP leads to an increase in these outcomes.
We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science until October 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OSs), comparing imaging versus no imaging on targeted outcomes. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment was performed independently by two reviewers. The quality of the body of evidence was determined using GRADE methodology.
Moderate-quality evidence (1 RCT; n = 421) supports that direct costs increase for patients undergoing X-ray. Low-quality evidence (3 OSs; n = 9535) supports that early MRI may lead to an increase in costs. There is moderate-quality evidence (1 RCT, 2 OSs; n = 3897) that performing MRI or imaging (MRI or CT) is associated with an increase in healthcare utilization (e.g., future injections, surgery, medication, etc.). There is low-quality evidence (5 OSs; n = 15,493) that performing X-ray or MRI is associated with an increase in healthcare utilization. Moderate-quality evidence (2 RCTs; n = 667) showed no significant differences between X-ray or MRI groups compared with non-imaging groups on absence from work. However, low-quality evidence (2 Oss; n = 7765) did show significantly greater mean absence from work in the MRI groups in comparison with the non-imaging groups.
Imaging in LBP may be associated with higher medical costs, increased healthcare utilization and more absence from work.
KeywordsLow back pain Imaging Costs Healthcare utilization Absence from work
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest
- 2.Freburger JK, Holmes GM, Agans RP, Jackman AM, Darter JD, Wallace AS, Castel LD, Kalsbeek WDCT (2009) The rising prevalence of chronic low back pain. Med Arch Intern 169:8–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2008.543.The CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M et al (2012) Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380:2163–2196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61729-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.Ma VY, Chan L, Carruthers K (2015) The incidence, prevalence, costs and impact on disability of common conditions requiring rehabilitation in the US: stroke, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, limb loss, and back. Pain 95:986–995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.10.032.The CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Dagenais SHS (2012) Evidence-based management of low back pain. In: Dagenais S, Haldeman S (eds) Evidence-based management of low back pain. Mosby, St Louis, pp 1–12Google Scholar
- 28.Lurie JD, Birkmeyer NJ, Weinstein JN (2003) Rates of advanced spinal imaging and spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:616–620. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000049927.37696.DC CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Higgins J (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.0. Cochrane CollaborationGoogle Scholar
- 40.Institute. NHL and B (2014) Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies—NHLBI, NIH. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MDGoogle Scholar
- 44.Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A E (2013) GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Updated October 2013. The GRADE Working GroupGoogle Scholar
- 48.Ryan R, Santesso N, Hill S (2016) Preparing Summary of Findings (SoF) tables. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group, available at http://cccrg.cochrane.org/author-resources. Version 2.0 December 2016
- 50.Cohen SP, Gupta A, Strassels SA, Christo PJ, Erdek MA, Griffith SR, Kurihara C, Buckenmaier CC III, Cornblath D, Vu T-N (2012) Effect of MRI on treatment results or decision making in patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy referred for epidural steroid injections. Arch Intern Med 172:134. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.593 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 52.Miller P, Kendrick D, Bentley E, Fielding K (2002) Cost-effectiveness of lumbar spine radiography in primary care patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:2291–2297. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000029264.83803.74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 56.Graves JM, Fulton-Kehoe D, Jarvik JG, Franklin GM (2014) Health care utilization and costs associated with adherence to clinical practice guidelines for early magnetic resonance imaging among workers with acute occupational low back pain. Health Serv Res 49:645–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12098 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 60.Fritz JM, Brennan GP, Hunter SJ (2015) Physical therapy or advanced imaging as first management strategy following a new consultation for low back pain in primary care: associations with future health care utilization and charges. Health Serv Res 50:1927–1940. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12301 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 63.Doniselli FM, Zanardo M, Manfrè L et al (2018) A critical appraisal of the quality of low back pain practice guidelines using the AGREE II tool and comparison with previous evaluations: a EuroAIM initiative. Eur Spine J 27:2781–2790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5763-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 75.Suman A, Dikkers MF, Schaafsma FG et al (2016) Effectiveness of multifaceted implementation strategies for the implementation of back and neck pain guidelines in health care: a systematic review. Implement Sci 11:126. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0482-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar