Sharma Sweekriti, Traeger Adrian C, Reed Ben, Hamilton Melanie, O'Connor Denise A, Hoffmann Tammy C, Bonner Carissa, Buchbinder Rachelle, Maher Chris G
Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
BMJ Open. 2020 Aug 23;10(8):e037820. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037820.
Overuse of diagnostic imaging for patients with low back pain remains common. The underlying beliefs about diagnostic imaging that could drive overuse remain unclear. We synthesised qualitative research that has explored clinician, patient or general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain.
A qualitative evidence synthesis using a thematic analysis.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO from inception to 17 June 2019. Qualitative studies that interviewed clinicians, patients and/or general public exploring beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain were included. Four review authors independently extracted data and organised these according to themes and subthemes. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool to critically appraise included studies. To assess confidence in review findings, we used the GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research method.
We included 69 qualitative studies with 1747 participants. Key findings included: Patients and clinicians believe diagnostic imaging is an important test to locate the source of low back pain (33 studies, high confidence); patients with chronic low back pain believe pathological findings on diagnostic imaging provide evidence that pain is real (12 studies, moderate confidence); and clinicians ordered diagnostic imaging to reduce the risk of a missed diagnosis that could lead to litigation, and to manage patients' expectations (12 studies, moderate confidence).
Clinicians and patients can believe that diagnostic imaging is an important tool for locating the source of non-specific low back pain. Patients may underestimate the harms of unnecessary imaging tests. These beliefs could be important targets for intervention.
CRD42017076047.
对腰痛患者过度使用诊断性影像学检查的情况仍然很常见。关于诊断性影像学检查可能导致过度使用的潜在观念尚不清楚。我们综合了定性研究,这些研究探讨了临床医生、患者或公众对腰痛诊断性影像学检查的看法。
采用主题分析的定性证据综合。
我们检索了从数据库建库至2019年6月17日的MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、AMED和PsycINFO。纳入了对临床医生、患者和/或公众进行访谈,探讨对腰痛诊断性影像学检查看法的定性研究。四位综述作者独立提取数据,并根据主题和子主题进行整理。我们使用批判性评估技能计划工具对纳入的研究进行批判性评估。为了评估对综述结果的信心,我们使用了定性研究综述证据的GRADE-信心方法。
我们纳入了69项定性研究,共1747名参与者。主要发现包括:患者和临床医生认为诊断性影像学检查是确定腰痛来源的重要检查(33项研究,高信心度);慢性腰痛患者认为诊断性影像学检查的病理结果提供了疼痛真实存在的证据(12项研究,中等信心度);临床医生开具诊断性影像学检查是为了降低漏诊风险,以免引发诉讼,并管理患者的期望(12项研究,中等信心度)。
临床医生和患者可能认为诊断性影像学检查是确定非特异性腰痛来源的重要工具。患者可能低估了不必要的影像学检查的危害。这些观念可能是干预的重要目标。
PROSPERO注册号:CRD42017076047。