 |
|
Rapid Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs Radiographs for Patients With Low Back Pain
A Randomized Controlled Trial
Jeffrey G. Jarvik, MD, MPH;
William Hollingworth, PhD;
Brook Martin, BS;
Scott S. Emerson, MD, PhD;
Darryl T. Gray, MD, ScD;
Steven Overman, MD, MPH;
David Robinson, MD;
Thomas Staiger, MD;
Frank Wessbecher, MD;
Sean D. Sullivan, PhD;
William Kreuter, MPA;
Richard A. Deyo, MD, MPH
JAMA. 2003;289:2810-2818.
Context Faster magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning has made MRI a potential cost-effective replacement for radiographs for patients with low back pain. However, whether rapid MRI scanning results in better patient outcomes than radiographic evaluation or a cost-effective alternative is unknown.
Objective To determine the clinical and economic consequences of replacing spine radiographs with rapid MRI for primary care patients.
Design, Setting, and Patients Randomized controlled trial of 380 patients aged 18 years or older whose primary physicians had ordered that their low back pain be evaluated by radiographs. The patients were recruited between November 1998 and June 2000 from 1 of 4 imaging centers in the Seattle, Wash, area: a university-based teaching program, a nonuniversity-based teaching program, and 2 private clinics.
Intervention Patients were randomly assigned to receive lumbar spine evaluation by rapid MRI or by radiograph.
Main Outcome Measures Back-related disability measured by the modified Roland questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), pain, preference scores, satisfaction, and costs.
Results At 12 months, primary outcomes of functional disability were obtained from 337 (89%) of the 380 patients enrolled. The mean back-related disability modified Roland score for the 170 patients assigned to the radiograph evaluation group was 8.75 vs 9.34 for the 167 patients assigned the rapid MRI evaluation group (mean difference, -0.59; 95% CI, -1.69 to 0.87). The mean differences in the secondary outcomes were not statistically significant : pain bothersomeness (0.07; 95% CI -0.88 to 1.22), pain frequency (0.12; 95% CI, -0.69 to 1.37), and SF-36 subscales of bodily pain (1.25; 95% CI, -4.46 to 4.96), and physical functioning (2.73, 95% CI -4.09 to 6.22). Ten patients in the rapid MRI group vs 4 in the radiograph group had lumbar spine operations (risk difference, 0.34; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.73). The rapid MRI strategy had a mean cost of $2380 vs $2059 for the radiograph strategy (mean difference, $321; 95% CI, -1100 to 458).
Conclusions Rapid MRIs and radiographs resulted in nearly identical outcomes for primary care patients with low back pain. Although physicians and patients preferred the rapid MRI, substituting rapid MRI for radiographic evaluations in the primary care setting may offer little additional benefit to patients, and it may increase the costs of care because of the increased number of spine operations that patients are likely to undergo.
Author Affiliations: Departments of Radiology (Drs Jarvik and Hollingworth), Neurosurgery (Dr Jarvik), Health Services (Drs Jarvik, Gray, Sullivan, and Deyo and Mr Kreuter), Medicine (Mr Martin and Drs Staiger and Deyo), Pediatrics (Dr Gray), Pharmacy (Dr Sullivan), and Biostatistics (Dr Emerson); Center for Cost and Outcomes Research (Drs Jarvik, Hollingworth, Gray, and Deyo and Messrs Martin and Kreuter), University of Washington, Seattle; Minor and James Clinic PLLC, Seattle (Dr Overman); Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle (Dr Robinson); and Tacoma Radiology Associates, Tacoma, Wash (Dr Wessbecher).
RELATED LETTERS
The Value of Diagnostic Tests for Low Back Pain
Louis R. Caplan
JAMA. 2003;290(14):1851-1852.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Value of Diagnostic Tests for Low Back Pain
Lissy Jarvik
JAMA. 2003;290(14):1852.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLE
MRI for Regional Back Pain: Need for Less Imaging, Better Understanding
Nortin M. Hadler
JAMA. 2003;289(21):2863-2865.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
The Medical Home: Growing Evidence to Support a New Approach to Primary Care
Rosenthal
J Am Board Fam Med 2008;21:427-440.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effects of Diagnostic Information, Per Se, on Patient Outcomes in Acute Radiculopathy and Low Back Pain
Ash et al.
Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2008;29:1098-1103.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial of the Costs and Effects of Noninvasive Diagnostic Imaging in Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease: The DIPAD Trial
Ouwendijk et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008;190:1349-1357.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Joint Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society
Chou et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2007;147:478-491.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Current Status of Breast MR Imaging * Part 2. Clinical Applications
Kuhl
Radiology 2007;244:672-691.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Low Back Pain
Bradley and for the Expert Panel on Neurologic Imaging
Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2007;28:990-992.
FULL TEXT
Evidence-based Practice in Radiology: An Introduction to the Series
Malone
Radiology 2007;242:12-14.
FULL TEXT
Assessing diagnostic accuracy and the clinical value of positron emission tomography imaging in patients with solitary pulmonary nodules (SNAP)
Kymes et al.
Clin Trials 2006;3:31-42.
ABSTRACT
Imaging of back pain
Teh et al.
Imaging 2005;17:171-207.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Imaging for Whom: Patient or Physician?
Gottlieb
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2005;185:1399-1403.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Acute Low Back Pain and Radiculopathy: MR Imaging Findings and Their Prognostic Role and Effect on Outcome
Modic et al.
Radiology 2005;237:597-604.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
DSA versus Multi-Detector Row CT Angiography in Peripheral Arterial Disease: Randomized Controlled Trial
Kock et al.
Radiology 2005;237:727-737.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Radiology Cost and Outcomes Studies: Standard Practice and Emerging Methods
Hollingworth
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2005;185:833-839.
FULL TEXT
Imaging Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Contrast-enhanced MR Angiography and Multi-Detector Row CT Angiography
Ouwendijk et al.
Radiology 2005;236:1094-1103.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
How Sensitive Are Cost-Effectiveness Analyses to Choice of Parametric Distributions?
Thompson and Nixon
Med Decis Making 2005;25:416-423.
ABSTRACT
Cost-effectiveness Analysis in the Assessment of Diagnostic Imaging Technologies
Gazelle et al.
Radiology 2005;235:361-370.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Low Back Pain: Influence of Early MR Imaging or CT on Treatment and Outcome--Multicenter Randomized Trial
Gilbert et al.
Radiology 2004;231:343-351.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Rapid Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Radiography Led to Similar Pain and Disability Outcomes for Patients with Low-Back Pain
Hanley
JBJS 2004;86:440-440.
FULL TEXT
Rapid magnetic resonance of the lumbar spine was not better than radiographs for evaluating low back pain
Underwood
Evid. Based Med. 2004;9:19-19.
FULL TEXT
New Diagnostic Tests: Breakthrough Approaches or Expensive Add-ons?
Deyo and Jarvik
ANN INTERN MED 2003;139:950-951.
FULL TEXT
Routine use of magnetic resonance scans for back pain increases costs without improving pain or function
BMJ 2003;327:.
FULL TEXT
The Value of Diagnostic Tests for Low Back Pain
Ernst
JAMA 2003;290:1852-1852.
FULL TEXT
The Value of Diagnostic Tests for Low Back Pain
Caplan
JAMA 2003;290:1851-1852.
FULL TEXT
The Value of Diagnostic Tests for Low Back Pain
Jarvik
JAMA 2003;290:1852-1852.
FULL TEXT
MRI as a Screening Tool for Low Back Pain
JWatch Emergency Med. 2003;2003:7-7.
FULL TEXT
Spine X-Rays vs. MRI for Patients with Low Back Pain
JWatch General 2003;2003:6-6.
FULL TEXT
|
