You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 289 No. 21, June 4, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Editorial
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (9)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related letters
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Radiologic Imaging
 •Magnetic Resonance Imaging
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

MRI for Regional Back Pain

Need for Less Imaging, Better Understanding

Nortin M. Hadler, MD

JAMA. 2003;289:2863-2865.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In this issue of THE JOURNAL, Jarvik and colleagues1 detail the benefits and costs that accrued when rapid MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) was substituted for the more traditional radiographs physicians have used when evaluating patients with regional back pain. Rapid MRI is an adaptation of standard MRI, but provides adequate images more rapidly and at considerably less cost. The study shows that substituting rapid MRI neither saved money nor led to improved clinical outcomes. Rather, the data suggest that substituting rapid MRI increases cost in part because it predisposes patients to undergo surgical intervention.

As a result of this randomized controlled trial, rapid MRI joins the ranks of appealing innovations that have proved illusory. Modern medicine is conditioned to be swayed by such a result, as is society at large, and is less conditioned to question the reasoning that generated the experiment in the first place. . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliation: Departments of Medicine and Microbiology/Immunology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

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
Edzard Ernst
JAMA. 2003;290(14):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

Rapid Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs Radiographs for Patients With Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Jeffrey G. Jarvik, William Hollingworth, Brook Martin, Scott S. Emerson, Darryl T. Gray, Steven Overman, David Robinson, Thomas Staiger, Frank Wessbecher, Sean D. Sullivan, William Kreuter, and Richard A. Deyo
JAMA. 2003;289(21):2810-2818.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Back Pain in the Workplace
Hadler et al.
JAMA 2007;297:1594-1596.
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  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2003 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.