HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text All Versions of this Article: 2312030886v1 231/2/343    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gilbert, F. J. Articles by Wardlaw, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gilbert, F. J. Articles by Wardlaw, D.

Low Back Pain: Influence of Early MR Imaging or CT on Treatment and Outcome—Multicenter Randomized Trial¹

¹ From Depts of Radiology (F.J.G., M.G.C.G.), Health Services Research Unit (A.M.G., M.G.C.G., L.D.V., M.K.C.), Health Economics Research Unit (L.D.V.), Public Health (N.W.S.), and Orthopaedic Surgery (D.J.K., D.W.), University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, Scotland. Members of the Scottish Back Trial Group and their affiliations are listed at the end of this article. Received Jun 12, 2003; revision requested Aug 13; final revision received Oct 31; accepted Nov 25. Supported by NHS Research & Development Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Services Research Unit and Health Economics Research Unit supported by Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Executive Health Dept. Address correspondence to F.J.G. (e-mail: f.j.gilbert@abdn.ac.uk).

PURPOSE: To establish whether early use of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging or computed tomography (CT) influences treatment and outcome of patients with low back pain (LBP) and whether it is cost-effective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multicenter randomized study, two imaging policies for LBP were compared in 782 participants with symptomatic lumbar spine disorders who were referred to orthopedists or neurosurgeons. Participants were randomly allocated to early (393 participants; mean age, 43.9 years; range, 16–82 years) or delayed selective (389 participants; mean age, 42.8 years; range, 14–82 years) imaging groups. Delayed selective imaging referred to imaging restricted to patients in whom a clear clinical need subsequently developed. Main outcome measures were Aberdeen Low Back Pain (ALBP) score, Short Form 36 (SF-36) score (for multidimensional health status), EuroQol (EQ-5D) score (for quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] estimates), and healthcare resource use at 8 and 24 months after randomization. Data were evaluated with analysis of covariance, ordinal logistic regression analysis, and ² and Mann-Whitney tests.

RESULTS: Both groups showed improvement in ALBP score, but this was greater in the early group (adjusted mean difference between groups, -3.05 points [95% CI: -5.16, -0.95; P = .005] and -3.62 points [95% CI: -5.92, -1.32; P = .002] at 8 and 24 months, respectively). Scores for SF-36 (bodily pain domain) and EQ-5D were also significantly better at 24 months. Clinical treatment was similar in both groups. Differences in total costs reflected cost of imaging. Imaging provided an adjusted mean additional QALY of 0.041 during 24 months at a mean incremental cost per QALY of $2,124.

CONCLUSION: Early use of imaging does not appear to affect treatment overall. Decisions about the use of imaging depend on judgments concerning whether the small observed improvement in outcome justifies additional cost.

© RSNA, 2004

Index terms: Cost-effectiveness • Efficacy study • Spine, CT, 33.1211 • Spine, MR, 33.1214

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L.M. Ash, M.T. Modic, N.A. Obuchowski, J.S. Ross, M.N. Brant-Zawadzki, and P.N. Grooff Effects of Diagnostic Information, Per Se, on Patient Outcomes in Acute Radiculopathy and Low Back Pain AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., June 1, 2008; 29(6): 1098 - 1103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Ouwendijk, M. de Vries, T. Stijnen, P. M. T. Pattynama, M. R. H. M. van Sambeek, J. Buth, A. V. Tielbeek, D. A. van der Vliet, L. J. SchutzeKool, P. J. E. H. M. Kitslaar, et al. Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial of the Costs and Effects of Noninvasive Diagnostic Imaging in Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease: The DIPAD Trial Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1349 - 1357. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Chou, A. Qaseem, V. Snow, D. Casey, J. T. Cross Jr, P. Shekelle, D. K. Owens, and for the Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Joint Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society Ann Intern Med, October 2, 2007; 147(7): 478 - 491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. M Kymes, K. Lee, J. W Fletcher, and SNAP (CSP 027) Study Group Assessing diagnostic accuracy and the clinical value of positron emission tomography imaging in patients with solitary pulmonary nodules (SNAP) Clinical Trials, February 1, 2006; 3(1): 31 - 42. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J Teh, A Imam, and C Watts Imaging of back pain Imaging, December 1, 2005; 17(3): 171 - 207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Ouwendijk, M. de Vries, P. M. T. Pattynama, M. R. H. M. van Sambeek, M. W. de Haan, T. Stijnen, J. M. A. van Engelshoven, and M. G. M. Hunink Imaging Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Contrast-enhanced MR Angiography and Multi-Detector Row CT Angiography Radiology, September 1, 2005; 236(3): 1094 - 1103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. J. Carragee Persistent Low Back Pain N. Engl. J. Med., May 5, 2005; 352(18): 1891 - 1898. [Full Text] [PDF]