0

The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >
Academia and the Profession |

Diagnostic Evaluation of Low Back Pain with Emphasis on Imaging

Jeffrey G. Jarvik, MD, MPH; and Richard A. Deyo, MD, MPH
[+] Article and Author Information

From University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.


Grant Support: In part by grants HS-08194 and HS-094990 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a Veterans Affairs ERIC grant, and grant 1 P60 AR48093 from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.

Requests for Single Reprints: Jeffrey G. Jarvik, MD, MPH, Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Box 357115, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA 98195; e-mail, jarvikj@u.washington.edu.

Current Author Addresses: Dr. Jarvik, MD, MPH, Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Box 357115, 1959 NE Pacific Sreet, Seattle, WA 98195.

Dr. Deyo: Center for Cost and Outcomes Research, 146 North Canal Street, #300, Seattle, WA 98103.


Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(7):586-597. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-137-7-200210010-00010
Text Size: A A A

Purpose: To review evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of clinical information and imaging for patients with low back pain in primary care settings.

Data Source: MEDLINE search (January 1966 to September 2001) for articles and reviews relevant to the accuracy of the clinical and radiographic examination of patients with low back pain.

Study Selection: The authors reviewed abstracts and selected articles for review on the basis of a combined judgment. Data on the clinical examination were based primarily on recent systematic reviews; data on imaging tests were based primarily on original articles.

Data Extraction: Diagnostic results were extracted by one or the other author. Quality of methods was evaluated informally. Major potential biases were identified, but neither quantitative data extraction nor scoring was done.

Data Synthesis: Formal meta-analysis was not used because the diagnostic hardware and software, gold standards, and patient selection methods were heterogeneous and the number of studies was small. Sensitivity for cancer was highest for magnetic resonance imaging (0.83 to 0.93) and radionuclide scanning (0.74 to 0.98); specificity was highest for magnetic resonance imaging (0.9 to 0.97) and radiography (0.95 to 0.99). Magnetic resonance imaging was the most sensitive (0.96) and specific (0.92) test for infection. The sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging for herniated discs were slightly higher than those for computed tomography but very similar for the diagnosis of spinal stenosis.

Conclusions: The data suggest a diagnostic strategy similar to the 1994 Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines. For adults younger than 50 years of age with no signs or symptoms of systemic disease, symptomatic therapy without imaging is appropriate. For patients 50 years of age and older or those whose findings suggest systemic disease, plain radiography and simple laboratory tests can almost completely rule out underlying systemic diseases. Advanced imaging should be reserved for patients who are considering surgery or those in whom systemic disease is strongly suspected.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure.
Suggested algorithm for the diagnostic evaluation of patients with low back pain.

Patients are evaluated according to signs and symptoms of back pain only, sciatica, or possible stenosis. CT = computed tomography; ESR = erythrocyte sedimentation rate; IV = intravenous; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging.

Grahic Jump Location

Tables

References

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Related Point of Care
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)