Imaging versus no imaging for low back pain: a systematic review, measuring costs, healthcare utilization and absence from work.

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.

Three-dimensional kinematics of the cervical spine using an electromagnetic tracking device. Differences between healthy subjects and subjects with non-specific neck pain and the effect of age.

BACKGROUND: A cross-sectional observational study of three-dimensional cervical kinematics in 35 non-specific neck pain patients and 100 asymptomatic controls. To compare qualitative and quantitative aspects of cervical kinematics between healthy subjects and subjects with non-specific neck pain and to determine the effect of age on cervical kinematics in healthy subjects. METHODS: Three-dimensional kinematics of active lateral bending and flexion-extension of 35 patients and 100 controls were registered by means of an electromagnetic tracking system. The means of several kinematic parameters were compared using t-tests. In addition, we assessed the age-dependency of the three-dimensional kinematic parameters by stratifying the 100 control subjects in 6 age categories. FINDINGS: Comparison of the patient group with the control group reveals no statistically significant differences in qualitative and quantitative parameters. Analysis of the effect of age showed that the range of motion decreases significantly (p < 0.01) with increasing age. In lateral bending, the ratio between axial rotation and lateral bending increases significantly (p < 0.01) among older subjects. Differences in acceleration, jerk and polynomial fit are seen between the age categories, but are not significant. INTERPRETATION: This study demonstrates no significant differences in kinematic parameters between healthy subjects and subjects with non-specific neck pain. Healthy subjects in higher age categories demonstrate higher ratios of coupled movements and lower ranges of motion. Future research should focus on classifying patients with non-specific neck pain in order to gain a better insight on possible subgroup specific differences in kinematics. More studies on this subject are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.