Routine versus needs-based MRI in patients with prolonged low back pain: a comparison of duration of treatment, number of clinical contacts and referrals to surgery

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The routine use of radiology is normally discouraged in patients with low back pain (LBP). Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) provides clinicians and patients with detailed knowledge of spinal structures and has no known physical side effects. It is possible that insight into the pathological changes in LBP patients could affect patient management. However, to our knowledge, this has never been tested. Until June 2006, all patients at our specialised out-patient public clinic were referred for MRI on the basis of clinical indications, economic constraints, and availability of MRI (the "needs-based MRI" group). As a new approach, we now refer all patients who meet certain criteria for routine up-front MRI before the clinical examination (the "routine MRI" group).</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>The aims of this study were to investigate if these two MRI approaches resulted in differences in: (1) duration of treatment, (2) number of contacts with clinicians, and (3) referral for surgery.</p> <p>Design</p> <p>Comparison of two retrospective clinical cohorts.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>Files were retrieved from consecutive patients in both groups. Criteria for referral were: (1) LBP or leg pain of at least 3 on an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale, (2) duration of present symptoms from 2 to12 months and (3) age above 18 years. A comparison was made between the "needs-based MRI" and "routine MRI" groups on the outcomes of duration of treatment and use of resources.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In all, 169 "needs-based MRI" and 208 "routine MRI" patient files were identified. The two groups were similar in age, sex, and severity of LBP. However, the median duration of treatment for the "needs-based MRI" group was 160 versus 115 days in the "routine MRI" group (p = 0.0001). The median number of contacts with clinicians for the "needs-based MRI" group was 4 versus 3 for the "routine MRI" group (p = 0.003). There was no difference between the two approaches in frequency of referral for back surgery (p = 0.81). When the direct clinical costs were compared, the "routine MRI" group was less costly but only by €11.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In our clinic, the management strategy of routinely performing an up-front MRI at the start of treatment did reduce the duration of treatment and number of contacts with clinicians, and did not increase the rate of referral for back surgery. Also, the direct costs were not increased.</p

Red flags for the early detection of spinal infection in back pain patients

© 2019 The Author(s). Background: Red flags are signs and symptoms that are possible indicators of serious spinal pathology. There is limited evidence or guidance on how red flags should be used in practice. Due to the lack of robust evidence for many red flags their use has been questioned. The aim was to conduct a systematic review specifically reporting on studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of red flags for Spinal Infection in patients with low back pain. Methods: Searches were carried out to identify the literature from inception to March 2019. The databases searched were Medline, CINHAL Plus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, Pedro, OpenGrey and Grey Literature Report. Two reviewers screened article texts, one reviewer extracted data and details of each study, a second reviewer independently checked a random sample of the data extracted. Results: Forty papers met the eligibility criteria. A total of 2224 cases of spinal infection were identified, of which 1385 (62%) were men and 773 (38%) were women mean age of 55 (± 8) years. In total there were 46 items, 23 determinants and 23 clinical features. Spinal pain (72%) and fever (55%) were the most common clinical features, Diabetes (18%) and IV drug use (9%) were the most occurring determinants. MRI was the most used radiological test and Staphylococcus aureus (27%), Mycobacterium tuberculosis (12%) were the most common microorganisms detected in cases. Conclusion: The current evidence surrounding red flags for spinal infection remains small, it was not possible to assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags for spinal infection, as such, a descriptive review reporting the characteristics of those presenting with spinal infection was carried out. In our review, spinal infection was common in those who had conditions associated with immunosuppression. Additionally, the most frequently reported clinical feature was the classic triad of spinal pain, fever and neurological dysfunction. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Ossificação pulmonar dendriforme Dendriform pulmonary ossification

A ossificação pulmonar difusa é uma condição rara, de etiologia desconhecida, na qual osso maduro é encontrado no parênquima pulmonar. É quase sempre descoberta como um achado incidental de autópsias. Freqüentemente afeta homens de meia-idade e é assintomática. Relata-se o caso de um paciente de 75 anos, que apresentou uma radiografia torácica com comprometimento pulmonar difuso e cujo diagnóstico foi baseado no exame histopatológico de fragmento pulmonar obtido através da biópsia a céu aberto, o qual demonstrou fibrose intersticial acentuada com ossificação do parênquima pulmonar.<br>Diffuse pulmonary ossification is a rare condition of unknown pathogenesis in which mature bone is found in the pulmonary parenchyma. It is almost invariably discovered as an incidental finding at autopsy. Most commonly, it affects middle-aged men and is asymptomatic. We present the case of a 75-year-old man in which the chest X-ray showed diffuse interstitial infiltrate. Diagnosis was based on histopathological examination by open-lung biopsy, which revealed interstitial fibrosis with pulmonary ossification

Screening for malignancy in low back pain patients: a systematic review

To describe the accuracy of clinical features and tests used to screen for malignancy in patients with low back pain. A systematic review was performed on all available records on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL electronic databases. Studies were considered eligible if they investigated a cohort of low back pain patients, used an appropriate reference standard, and reported sufficient data on the diagnostic accuracy of tests. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data to calculate positive (LR+) and negative (LR−) likelihood ratios. Six studies evaluating 22 different clinical features and tests were identified. The prevalence of malignancy ranged from 0.1 to 3.5%. A previous history of cancer (LR+ = 23.7), elevated ESR (LR+ = 18.0), reduced hematocrit (LR+ = 18.2), and overall clinician judgement (LR+ = 12.1) increased the probability of malignancy when present. A combination of age ≥50 years, a previous history of cancer, unexplained weight loss, and failure to improve after 1 month had a reported sensitivity of 100%. Overall, there was poor reporting of methodological quality items, and very few studies were performed in community primary care settings. Malignancy is rare as a cause of low back pain. The most useful features and tests are a previous history of cancer, elevated ESR, reduced hematocrit, and clinician judgement

A spatiotemporal analysis of public pharmaceutical expenditure

I11, L65, R15, C21, C23,

Rapid Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Diagnosing Cancer-related Low Back Pain: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the relative efficiency of lumbar x-ray and rapid magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for diagnosing cancer-related low back pain (LBP) in primary care patients. DESIGN: We developed a decision model with Markov state transitions to calculate the cost per case detected and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of rapid MR imaging. Model parameters were estimated from the medical literature. The costs of x-ray and rapid MR were calculated in an activity-based costing study. SETTING AND PATIENTS: A hypothetical cohort of primary care patients with LBP referred for imaging to exclude cancer as the cause of their pain. MAIN RESULTS: The rapid MR strategy was more expensive due to higher initial imaging costs and larger numbers of patients requiring conventional MR and biopsy. The overall sensitivity of the rapid MR strategy was higher than that of the x-ray strategy (62% vs 55%). However, because of low pre-imaging prevalence of cancer-related LBP, this generates <1 extra case per 1,000 patients imaged. Therefore, the incremental cost per case detected using rapid MR was high ($213,927). The rapid MR strategy resulted in a small increase in quality-adjusted survival (0.00043 QALYs). The estimated incremental cost per QALY for the rapid MR strategy was$296,176. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently not enough evidence to support the routine use of rapid MR to detect cancer as a cause of LBP in primary care patients

Exploring spatial patterns in general practice expenditure

GP expenditure, Panel data, Reverse causality, Small-area variation, Spatial spillover, I11, I18, D43, C21, C23,