 |
|
The Value of Diagnostic Tests for Low Back Pain—Reply
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In Reply: Dr Caplan argues that imaging is necessary to arrive at a meaningful level of reassurance that there is no other underlying pathology. However, in the setting of regional back pain, imaging, even MRI is so low in yield as to render it superfluous.1 Unless there is a clue from history or physical examination that something other than a regional disorder is present before imaging, all one is likely to discern is nonspecific pathology that correlates only with the age of the patient and leads to no specific therapy. The role of the physician is to artfully generate some assurance that there is no such clue.
In response to Dr Jarvik, I define regional back pain as back pain afflicting someone of working age who has experienced no traumatic event involving external forces, who would be entirely well were it not for these symptoms, and who has no important . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Nortin M. Hadler, MD
Department of Medicine
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLES
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
The Value of Diagnostic Tests for Low Back Pain—Reply
Jeffrey G. Jarvik, Richard A. Deyo, and William Hollingworth
JAMA. 2003;290(14):1852-1853.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
