Characteristics and Effectiveness of Interventions That Target the Reporting, Communication, or Clinical Interpretation of Lumbar Imaging Findings: A Systematic Review

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Wu A,
   2. March L,
   3. Zheng X, et al

   . Global low back pain prevalence and years lived with disability from 1990 to 2017: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Ann Transl Med 2020;8:299 doi:10.21037/atm.2020.02.175 pmid:32355743

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Buchbinder R,
   2. Underwood M,
   3. Hartvigsen J, et al

   . The Lancet Series call to action to reduce low value care for low back pain: an update. Pain 2020;16(Suppl 1):S57–64 doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001869 pmid:33090740

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Lemmers GP,
   2. van Lankveld W,
   3. Westert GP, et al

   . Imaging versus no imaging for low back pain: a systematic review, measuring costs, healthcare utilization and absence from work. Eur Spine J 2019;28:937–50 doi:10.1007/s00586-019-05918-1 pmid:30796513

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Sharma S,
   2. Traeger AC,
   3. Reed B, et al

   . Clinician and patient beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain: a systematic qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Open 2020;10:e037820 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037820 pmid:32830105

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Lin IB,
   2. O’Sullivan PB,
   3. Coffin JA, et al

   . Disabling chronic low back pain as an iatrogenic disorder: a qualitative study in Aboriginal Australians. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002654 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002654 pmid:23575999

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   1. Brodersen J,
   2. Schwartz LM,
   3. Heneghan C, et al

   . Overdiagnosis: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ Evid Based Med 2018;23:1–3 doi:10.1136/ebmed-2017-110886 pmid:29367314

   FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   1. Brinjikji W,
   2. Luetmer PH,
   3. Comstock B, et al

   . Systematic literature review of imaging features of spinal degeneration in asymptomatic populations. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:811–16 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4173 pmid:25430861

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   1. Stueckle CA,
   2. Talarczyk S,
   3. Stueckle KF, et al

   . Back pain: a phenomenon of age? Degenerative alterations of the spine are normal with increasing age—but how is this “normal” in old age defined, does it compulsorily lead to more complaints and a relevant impairment of the quality of life? [in German]. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2021 June 11. [Epub ahead on print] doi:10.1007/s00391-021-01912-9 pmid:34115173

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Sajid IM,
   2. Parkunan A,
   3. Frost K

   . Unintended consequences: quantifying the benefits, iatrogenic harms and downstream cascade costs of musculoskeletal MRI in UK primary care. BMJ Open Qual 2021;10:e001287 doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001287 pmid:34215659

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    1. Franz EW,
    2. Bentley JN,
    3. Yee PP, et al

    . Patient misconceptions concerning lumbar spondylosis diagnosis and treatment. J Neurosurg Spine 2015;22:496–502 doi:10.3171/2014.10.SPINE14537 pmid:25723120

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Chou R,
    2. Qaseem A,
    3. 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;154:181–89 doi:10.7326/0003-4819-154-3-201102010-00008 pmid:21282698

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    1. Jenkins HJ,
    2. Hancock MJ,
    3. French SD, et al

    . Effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce the use of imaging for low-back pain: a systematic review. CMAJ 2015;187:401–08 doi:10.1503/cmaj.141183 pmid:25733741

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    1. Downie A,
    2. Hancock M,
    3. Jenkins H, et al

    . How common is imaging for low back pain in primary and emergency care? Systematic review and meta-analysis of over 4 million imaging requests across 21 years. Br J Sports Med 2020;54:642–51 doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-100087 pmid:30760458

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC.). What study designs can be considered for inclusion in an EPOC review and what should they be called? EPOC resources for review authors. 2017. epoc.cochrane.org/resources/epoc-resources-review-authors Accessed February 6, 2021
15. 15.↵
    1. Hoffmann TC,
    2. Glasziou PP,
    3. Boutron I, et al

    . Better reporting of interventions: Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687 doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687 pmid:24609605

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    1. Sterne JA,
    2. Savovic J,
    3. Page MJ, et al

    . RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898 doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898 pmid:31462531

    FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    1. Sterne JA,
    2. Hernan MA,
    3. Reeves BC, et al

    . ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919 doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919 pmid:27733354

    FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    1. Mueller PS,
    2. Montori VM,
    3. Bassler D, et al

    . Ethical issues in stopping randomized trials early because of apparent benefit. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:878–81doi:10.7326/0003-4819-146-12-200706190-00009 pmid:17577007

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    1. Ash LM,
    2. Modic MT,
    3. Obuchowski NA, et al

    . Effects of diagnostic information, per se, on patient outcomes in acute radiculopathy and low back pain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1098–1103 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0999 pmid:18467522

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Fried JG,
    2. Andrew AS,
    3. Ring NY, et al

    . Changes in primary care health care utilization after inclusion of epidemiologic data in lumbar spine MR imaging reports for uncomplicated low back pain. Radiology 2018;287:563–69 doi:10.1148/radiol.2017170722 pmid:29361247

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Jarvik JG,
    2. Meier EN,
    3. James KT, et al

    . The effect of including benchmark prevalence data of common imaging findings in spine image reports on health care utilization among adults undergoing spine imaging: a stepped-wedge randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e2015713 doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.15713 pmid:32886121

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Karran EL,
    2. Hillier SL,
    3. Yau YH, et al

    . A quasi-randomised, controlled, feasibility trial of GLITtER (Green Light Imaging Interpretation to Enhance Recovery): a psychoeducational intervention for adults with low back pain attending secondary care. PeerJ 2018;6:e4301 doi:10.7717/peerj.4301 pmid:29404212

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. McCullough BJ,
    2. Johnson GR,
    3. Martin BI, et al

    . Lumbar MR imaging and reporting epidemiology: do epidemiologic data in reports affect clinical management? Radiology 2012;262:941–46 doi:10.1148/radiol.11110618 pmid:22357893

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    1. Weeks WB,
    2. Pike J,
    3. Schaeffer CJ, et al

    . Integrating epidemiological information into MRI reports reduces ensuing radiologic testing costs among patients with low back pain: a controlled study. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2020;46:365–68 doi:10.1016/j.jcjq.2020.03.010 pmid:32354627

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Marcum ZA,
    2. Gold LS,
    3. James KT, et al

    . Effects of including epidemiologic data in lumbar spine imaging reports on prescribing non-opioid medications for pain. J Gen Intern Med 2021;36:2237–43 doi:10.1007/s11606-021-06627-6 pmid:33559061

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Suri P,
    2. Meier EN,
    3. Gold LS, et al

    . Providing epidemiological data in lumbar spine imaging reports did not affect subsequent utilization of spine procedures: secondary outcomes from a stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial. Pain Med 2021;22:1272–80 doi:10.1093/pm/pnab065 pmid:33595635

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Rajasekaran S,
    2. Dilip Chand Raja S,
    3. Pushpa BT, et al

    . The catastrophization effects of an MRI report on the patient and surgeon and the benefits of 'clinical reporting': results from an RCT and blinded trials. Eur Spine J 2021;30:2069–81 doi:10.1007/s00586-021-06809-0 pmid:33748882

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Chou R,
    2. Turner JA,
    3. Devine EB, et al

    . The effectiveness and risks of long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain: a systematic review for a National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:276–86 doi:10.7326/M14-2559 pmid:25581257

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Weiner C

    . Anticipate and communicate: Ethical management of incidental and secondary findings in the clinical, research, and direct-to-consumer contexts (December 2013 report of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues). Am J Epidemiol 2014;180:562–64 doi:10.1093/aje/kwu217 pmid:25150271

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Cabarrus M,
    2. Naeger DM,
    3. Rybkin A, et al

    . Patients prefer results from the ordering provider and access to their radiology reports. J Am Coll Radiology 2015;12:556–62 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2014.12.009 pmid:25892226

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Espeland A,
    2. Baerheim A

    . General practitioners’ views on radiology reports of plain radiography for back pain. Scand J Prim Health Care 2007;25:15–19 doi:10.1080/02813430600973459 pmid:17354154

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Karran EL,
    2. Medalian Y,
    3. Hillier SL, et al

    . The impact of choosing words carefully: an online investigation into imaging reporting strategies and best practice care for low back pain. PeerJ 2017;5:e4151 doi:10.7717/peerj.4151 pmid:29230375

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Farmer CI,
    2. Bourne AM,
    3. O’Connor D, et al

    . Enhancing clinician and patient understanding of radiology reports: a scoping review of international guidelines. Insights Imaging 2020;11:62 doi:10.1186/s13244-020-00864-9 pmid:32372369

    CrossRefPubMed