Chou Roger, Fu Rongwei, Carrino John A, Deyo Richard A
Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Lancet. 2009 Feb 7;373(9662):463-72. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60172-0.
Some clinicians do lumbar imaging routinely or in the absence of historical or clinical features suggestive of serious low-back problems. We investigated the effects of routine, immediate lumbar imaging versus usual clinical care without immediate imaging on clinical outcomes in patients with low-back pain and no indication of serious underlying conditions.
We analysed randomised controlled trials that compared immediate lumbar imaging (radiography, MRI, or CT) versus usual clinical care without immediate imaging for low-back pain. These trials reported pain or function (primary outcomes), quality of life, mental health, overall patient-reported improvement (based on various scales), and patient satisfaction in care received. Six trials (n=1804) met inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed by two independent reviewers with criteria adapted from the Cochrane Back Review Group. Meta-analyses were done with a random effects model.
We did not record significant differences between immediate lumbar imaging and usual care without immediate imaging for primary outcomes at either short-term (up to 3 months, standardised mean difference 0.19, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.39 for pain and 0.11, -0.29 to 0.50 for function, negative values favour routine imaging) or long-term (6-12 months, -0.04, -0.15 to 0.07 for pain and 0.01, -0.17 to 0.19 for function) follow-up. Other outcomes did not differ significantly. Trial quality, use of different imaging methods, and duration of low-back pain did not affect the results, but analyses were limited by small numbers of trials. Results are most applicable to acute or subacute low-back pain assessed in primary-care settings.
Lumbar imaging for low-back pain without indications of serious underlying conditions does not improve clinical outcomes. Therefore, clinicians should refrain from routine, immediate lumbar imaging in patients with acute or subacute low-back pain and without features suggesting a serious underlying condition.
一些临床医生常规进行腰椎成像检查,或者在没有提示严重腰背部问题的病史或临床特征的情况下进行该检查。我们调查了对于无严重潜在疾病迹象的腰痛患者,常规、即刻腰椎成像与不进行即刻成像的常规临床护理相比,对临床结局的影响。
我们分析了随机对照试验,这些试验比较了即刻腰椎成像(X线摄影、磁共振成像或计算机断层扫描)与不进行即刻成像的常规临床护理对腰痛的治疗效果。这些试验报告了疼痛或功能(主要结局)、生活质量、心理健康、患者总体报告的改善情况(基于各种量表)以及对所接受护理的满意度。六项试验(n = 1804)符合纳入标准。由两名独立评审员根据Cochrane背部审查小组改编的标准对研究质量进行评估。采用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。
在短期(长达3个月,疼痛的标准化均数差值为0.19,95%可信区间为 -0.01至0.39;功能的标准化均数差值为0.11,-0.29至0.50,负值有利于常规成像)或长期(6 - 12个月,疼痛的标准化均数差值为 -0.04,-0.15至0.07;功能的标准化均数差值为0.01,-0.17至0.19)随访中,我们未记录到即刻腰椎成像与不进行即刻成像的常规护理在主要结局方面存在显著差异。其他结局也无显著差异。试验质量、不同成像方法的使用以及腰痛持续时间均未影响结果,但分析受到试验数量较少的限制。结果最适用于在初级保健机构评估的急性或亚急性腰痛。
对于无严重潜在疾病迹象的腰痛患者,腰椎成像并不能改善临床结局。因此,临床医生不应在急性或亚急性腰痛且无提示严重潜在疾病特征的患者中常规、即刻进行腰椎成像检查。