Disparities in Provider Ordering Practices of Image-Guided Interventions and Surgery for Patients With Low Back Pain: A Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess individual- and neighborhood-level sociodemographic factors associating with providers' ordering of nonpharmacologic treatments for patients with low back pain (LBP), specifically physical therapy, image-guided interventions, and lumbar surgery. METHODS: Our cohort included all patients diagnosed with LBP from 2000 to 2017 in a statewide database of all hospitals and ambulatory surgical facilities within Utah. We compared sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of (1) patients with LBP who received any treatment with those who received none and (2) patients with LBP who received invasive LBP treatments with those who only received noninvasive LBP treatments using the Student's t test, Wilcoxon's rank-sum tests, and Pearson's χ2 tests, as applicable, and two separate multivariate logistic regression models: (1) to determine whether sociodemographic characteristics were risk factors for receiving any LBP treatments and (2) risk factors for receiving invasive LBP treatments. RESULTS: Individuals in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods were less likely to receive any nonpharmacologic treatment orders (odds ratio [OR] 0.74 for most disadvantaged, P < .001) and received fewer invasive therapies (0.92, P = .018). Individual-level characteristics correlating with lower rates of treatment orders were female sex, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander race (OR 0.50, P < .001), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 0.77, P < .001), single or unmarried status (OR 0.69, P < .001), and no insurance or self-pay (OR 0.07, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Neighborhood and individual sociodemographic variables associated with treatment orders for LBP with Area Deprivation Index, sex, race or ethnicity, insurance, and marital status associating with receipt of any treatment, as well as more invasive image-guided interventions and surgery.

Time for change? Radiologists highly concordant assessing change in stenoses on follow-up cervical spine MRI.

OBJECTIVE: There is considerable variability among radiologists when grading spinal canal and foraminal stenosis on MRI. However, to date, studies have not evaluated radiologists' agreement when assessing interval change in cervical spine stenoses. The purpose of this study was to evaluate radiologists' concordance for change in cervical spine stenoses on follow-up MRIs, a major indication for these exams. METHODS: Initial and follow-up cervical MRIs were retrospectively reviewed by three blinded radiologists. Spinal canal and foramina from C1 through T1 were rated for interval change and concordance between the blinded raters was calculated. The original MRI reports were also reviewed for specific language assessing interval change on the follow-up exams. RESULTS: 40 cervical MRI exams and 40 corresponding MRI follow-ups were assessed. Agreement for interval change in spinal canal and foraminal stenosis was near perfect amongst all readers (kappa values of 0.78-0.94). 97% of the original MRI reports used the standard severity scale. 68% of follow-up MRI reports specifically assessed for change. DISCUSSION: Blinded radiologists had high agreement when assessing for change in spinal canal and foraminal stenosis on follow-up cervical spine MRIs. Because of inter-rater variability in stenosis grading, reports that do not emphasize change assessment, may imply change that is not truly present. For clarity and consistency in reporting of cervical spine stenoses, change assessment should be emphasized and added to structured reporting templates.