Fysius Back Experts, Bedrijvenweg 7, 7442 CX, Nijverdal, The Netherlands.
Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Eur Spine J. 2019 May;28(5):937-950. doi: 10.1007/s00586-019-05918-1. Epub 2019 Feb 22.
PURPOSE: Imaging (X-ray, CT and MRI) provides no health benefits for low back pain (LBP) patients and is not recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Whether imaging leads to increased costs, healthcare utilization or absence from work is unclear. Therefore, this study systematically reviews if imaging in patients with LBP leads to an increase in these outcomes. METHODS: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science until October 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OSs), comparing imaging versus no imaging on targeted outcomes. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment was performed independently by two reviewers. The quality of the body of evidence was determined using GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Moderate-quality evidence (1 RCT; n = 421) supports that direct costs increase for patients undergoing X-ray. Low-quality evidence (3 OSs; n = 9535) supports that early MRI may lead to an increase in costs. There is moderate-quality evidence (1 RCT, 2 OSs; n = 3897) that performing MRI or imaging (MRI or CT) is associated with an increase in healthcare utilization (e.g., future injections, surgery, medication, etc.). There is low-quality evidence (5 OSs; n = 15,493) that performing X-ray or MRI is associated with an increase in healthcare utilization. Moderate-quality evidence (2 RCTs; n = 667) showed no significant differences between X-ray or MRI groups compared with non-imaging groups on absence from work. However, low-quality evidence (2 Oss; n = 7765) did show significantly greater mean absence from work in the MRI groups in comparison with the non-imaging groups. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging in LBP may be associated with higher medical costs, increased healthcare utilization and more absence from work. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
目的:影像学检查(X 射线、CT 和 MRI)对腰痛患者没有健康益处,也不被临床实践指南推荐。目前尚不清楚影像学检查是否会导致成本增加、医疗保健利用增加或旷工增加。因此,本研究系统地综述了腰痛患者影像学检查是否会导致这些结果的增加。
方法:我们检索了 PubMed、CINAHL、EMBASE、Cochrane 图书馆和 Web of Science,截至 2017 年 10 月,以获取比较影像学检查与不影像学检查对目标结局影响的随机对照试验(RCT)和观察性研究(OS)。两名评审员独立进行数据提取和偏倚风险评估。使用 GRADE 方法确定证据质量。
结果:中等质量证据(1 项 RCT;n=421)支持 X 射线检查会增加患者的直接成本。低质量证据(3 项 OS;n=9535)支持早期 MRI 可能会增加成本。有中等质量证据(1 项 RCT、2 项 OS;n=3897)表明进行 MRI 或影像学检查(MRI 或 CT)与医疗保健利用率增加相关(例如,未来的注射、手术、药物治疗等)。有低质量证据(5 项 OS;n=15493)表明进行 X 射线或 MRI 与医疗保健利用率增加相关。中等质量证据(2 项 RCT;n=667)表明与非影像学组相比,X 射线或 MRI 组在旷工方面无显著差异。然而,低质量证据(2 项 OS;n=7765)表明与非影像学组相比,MRI 组的平均旷工时间明显更长。
结论:在腰痛患者中进行影像学检查可能与更高的医疗成本、更高的医疗保健利用率和更长的旷工时间有关。这些幻灯片可以在电子补充材料中检索到。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013-8-1
JAMA Intern Med. 2016-2
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011-10-1
Eur Spine J. 2018-8-28
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2025-4
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025-3-7
Aten Primaria. 2025-3
BMC Health Serv Res. 2024-11-8
Lancet. 2018-3-21
BMJ Open. 2017-12-27