Red flags to screen for malignancy and fracture in patients with low back pain: systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To review the evidence on diagnostic accuracy of red flag signs and symptoms to screen for fracture or malignancy in patients presenting with low back pain to primary, secondary, or tertiary care.Design
Systematic review.Data sources
Medline, OldMedline, Embase, and CINAHL from earliest available up to 1 October 2013.Inclusion criteria
Primary diagnostic studies comparing red flags for fracture or malignancy to an acceptable reference standard, published in any language.Review methods
Assessment of study quality and extraction of data was conducted by three independent assessors. Diagnostic accuracy statistics and post-test probabilities were generated for each red flag.Results
We included 14 studies (eight from primary care, two from secondary care, four from tertiary care) evaluating 53 red flags; only five studies evaluated combinations of red flags. Pooling of data was not possible because of index test heterogeneity. Many red flags in current guidelines provide virtually no change in probability of fracture or malignancy or have untested diagnostic accuracy. The red flags with the highest post-test probability for detection of fracture were older age (9%, 95% confidence interval 3% to 25%), prolonged use of corticosteroid drugs (33%, 10% to 67%), severe trauma (11%, 8% to 16%), and presence of a contusion or abrasion (62%, 49% to 74%). Probability of spinal fracture was higher when multiple red flags were present (90%, 34% to 99%). The red flag with the highest post-test probability for detection of spinal malignancy was history of malignancy (33%, 22% to 46%).Conclusions
While several red flags are endorsed in guidelines to screen for fracture or malignancy, only a small subset of these have evidence that they are indeed informative. These findings suggest a need for revision of many current guidelines.
SUBMITTER: Downie A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3898572 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effect of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation on clinically relevant outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain.DesignSystematic literature review of randomised controlled trials.ParticipantsA total of 1964 patients with disabling low back pain for more than three months.Main outcome measuresPain, function, employment, quality of life, and global assessments.ResultsTen trials reported on a total of 12 randomised comparisons of multidisciplinary treatment and a control condition. There was strong evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration improves function when compared with inpatient or outpatient non-multidisciplinary treatments. There was moderate evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration reduces pain when compared with outpatient non-multidisciplinary rehabilitation or usual care. There was contradictory evidence regarding vocational outcomes of intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention. Some trials reported improvements in work readiness, but others showed no significant reduction in sickness leaves. Less intensive outpatient psychophysical treatments did not improve pain, function, or vocational outcomes when compared with non-multidisciplinary outpatient therapy or usual care. Few trials reported effects on quality of life or global assessments.ConclusionsThe reviewed trials provide evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration reduces pain and improves function in patients with chronic low back pain. Less intensive interventions did not show improvements in clinically relevant outcomes.
| S-EPMC33389 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo systematically review studies quantifying the association between primary chronic headaches and persistent low back pain (LBP).Main textWe searched five electronic databases. We included case-control, cross-sectional and cohort studies that included a headache and back pain free group, reporting on any association between persistent LBP and primary headache disorders. Methodological quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Our primary outcome was the association between primary headache disorders and persistent LBP. Our secondary outcomes were any associations between severity of LBP and severity of headache, and the relationship between specific headache sub-types classified as per International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria and persistent LBP. We included 14 studies. The sizes of the studies ranged from 88 participants to a large international study with 404, 206 participants. Odds ratios for the association were between 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-2.11) and 8.00 (95% CI 5.3-12.1). Study heterogeneity meant statistical pooling was not possible. Only two studies presented data investigating persistent LBP and chronic headache disorders in accordance with ICDH criteria.ConclusionsWe identified a positive association between persistent LBP and primary headache disorders. The quality of the review findings is limited by diversity of populations, study designs and uncertainly about headache and LBP definitions.Trial registrationPROSPERO 2018 CRD42018086557 .
| S-EPMC6734435 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: This study was conducted in order to investigate the study design and main outcomes of acupuncture neuroimaging studies on low back pain (LBP). Methods: Neuroimaging studies of acupuncture on LBP were collected from three English databases such as PubMed and four Chinese databases such as China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from inception to December 31, 2020. Study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias were performed independently by two investigators. The quality of studies was appraised with the Cochrane's risk of bias tools. Information on basic information, methodology, and brain imaging data were extracted. Results: The literature search returned 310 potentially eligible studies and 19 articles met inclusion criteria; 78.9% of studies chose manual acupuncture as the intervention, 89.5% of studies evaluated functional changes elicited by acupuncture, and 68.4% of studies used resting-state fMRI as imaging condition. The most frequently reported acupuncture-induced brain alterations of LBP patients were in the prefrontal cortex, insula, cerebellum, primary somatosensory cortex, and anterior cingulate cortex. There was a significant correlation between improved clinical outcomes and changes in the brain. Conclusions: The results suggested that improving abnormal structure and functional activities in the brain of the LBP patient is an important mechanism of acupuncture treatment for LBP. The brain regions involved in acupuncture analgesia for LBP were mainly located in the pain matrix, default mode network (DMN), salience network (SN), and descending pain modulatory system (DPMS). However, it was difficult to draw a generalized conclusion due to the heterogeneity of study designs. Further well-designed multimodal neuroimaging studies investigating the mechanism of acupuncture on LBP are warranted.
| S-EPMC8488100 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Injection therapy and denervation procedures are commonly used in the management of chronic low-back pain (LBP) despite uncertainty regarding their effectiveness and safety. To provide an evaluation of the current evidence associated with the use of these procedures, a systematic review was performed. Existing systematic reviews were screened, and the Cochrane Back Review Group trial register was searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Studies were included if they recruited adults with chronic LBP, evaluated the use of injection therapy or denervation procedures and measured at least one clinically relevant outcome (such as pain or functional status). Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias (RoB). A meta-analysis was performed with clinically homogeneous studies, and the GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence. In total, 27 RCTs were included, 14 on injection therapy and 13 on denervation procedures. 18 (66%) of the studies were determined to have a low RoB. Because of clinical heterogeneity, only two comparisons could be pooled. Overall, there is only low to very low quality evidence to support the use of injection therapy and denervation procedures over placebo or other treatments for patients with chronic LBP. However, it cannot be ruled out that in carefully selected patients, some injection therapy or denervation procedures may be of benefit.
| S-EPMC2989278 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Running is one of the most popular sports worldwide. Despite low back pain (LBP) represents the most common musculoskeletal disorder in population and in sports, there is currently sparse evidence about prevalence, incidence and risk factors for LBP among runners. The aims of this systematic review were to investigate among runners: prevalence and incidence of LBP and specific risk factors for the onset of LBP. METHODS:A systematic review has been conducted according to the guidelines of the PRISMA statement. The research was conducted in the following databases from their inception to 31st of July 2019: PubMed; CINAHL; Google Scholar; Ovid; PsycINFO; PSYNDEX; Embase; SPORTDiscus; Scientific Electronic Library Online; Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The checklists of The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools were used to investigate the risk of bias of the included studies. RESULTS:Nineteen studies were included and the interrater agreement for full-text selection was good (K?=?0.78; 0.61-0.80 IC 95%). Overall, low values of prevalence (0.7-20.2%) and incidence (0.3-22%) of LBP among runners were reported. Most reported risk factors were: running for more than 6?years; body mass index >?24; higher physical height; not performing traditional aerobics activity weekly; restricted range of motion of hip flexion; difference between leg-length; poor hamstrings and back flexibility. CONCLUSIONS:Prevalence and incidence of LBP among runners are low compared to the others running related injuries and to general, or specific population of athletes. View the low level of incidence and prevalence of LBP, running could be interpreted as a protective factor against the onset of LBP. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42018102001.
| S-EPMC7271446 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMost patients in the secondary care sector consulting for low back pain (LBP) seem to have a more or less constant course of pain during the ensuing year. Fewer patients with LBP in the primary care sector report continual pain over a one-year period. However, not much is known about the long-term course of LBP in the general population. A systematic critical literature review was undertaken in order to study the natural course of LBP over time in the general population.MethodsA search of articles was performed in Pubmed, Cinahl and Psychinfo using the search terms 'epidemiology'; 'low back pain' or 'back pain'; 'prospective study' or 'longitudinal study'; 'follow-up', 'natural course', 'course' or 'natural history'; 'general population' or 'working population'. Inclusion criteria were that one of the objectives was to study the course of (L)BP in the adult population, that the period of follow-up was at least 3 months, and that there were three points of observation or more. The review was undertaken by two independent reviewers using three checklists relating to description of studies, quality and outcomes. The course of LBP was established in relation to those who, at baseline, were reported not to have LBP or to have LBP. Would this course be stable, fluctuating, worsening, or improving over time? A synthesis of results in relation to common patterns was presented in a table and interpreted in a narrative form.ResultsEight articles were included. Articles were different on time span, the number of surveys, and the definition of LBP. In six of the seven relevant studies, for those with no LBP at baseline, relatively substantial stable subgroups of people who continued to be LBP free were identified. In six of the seven relevant studies, definite stable subgroups of continued LBP were noted and improvement (becoming pain free) was never reported to be a common finding.ConclusionThe status of LBP in individuals of the general population appears to be relatively stable over time, perhaps particularly so for those without LBP at baseline.
| S-EPMC3599187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to evaluate current literature for the prevalence, causes, and effect of low back pain (LBP) in traumatic lower limb amputees, specifically its association with the kinematics and kinetics of the lumbar spine and lower extremities.Data sourcesDatabases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were searched systematically for eligible studies from inception to January 2018.Study selectionThe inclusion terms were synonyms of low back pain, lower limb amputation, and trauma, whereas studies involving nontraumatic amputee populations, single cases, or reviews were excluded. 1822 studies were initially identified, of which 44 progressed to full-text reading, and 11 studies were included in the review.Data extractionTwo independent reviewers reviewed the included studies, which were evaluated using a quality assessment tool and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system for risk of bias, prior to analyzing results and conclusions.Data synthesisThere was an LBP prevalence of 52%-64% in traumatic amputees, compared to 48%-77% in the general amputee population (predominantly vascular, tumor, trauma), attributed to a mixture of biomechanical, psychosocial, and personal factors. These factors determined the presence, frequency, and severity of the pain in the amputees, significantly affecting their quality of life. However, little evidence was available on causality.ConclusionThe high prevalence of LBP in traumatic amputees highlights the necessity to advance research into the underlying mechanics behind LBP, specifically the spinal kinematics and kinetics. This may facilitate improvements in rehabilitation, with the potential to improve quality of life in traumatic amputees.
| S-EPMC7853329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ethnopharmacological relevanceTibetan traditional medicine CheeZheng Pain-Relieving Plaster (CZPRP) is frequently used as an over-the-counter external analgesic for musculoskeletal pain; however, its evidence for low back pain (LBP) has not been evaluated.Aim of the studyThis study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of CZPRP for both acute, subacute and chronic LBP through a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.Materials and methodsPubMed, CENTRAL, CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang databases were searched through April 20, 2020 for randomized controlled trials of CZPRP for LBP. Eligible comparators were placebo, active treatment, or usual care. Clinical outcomes included pain severity, lower back function score, pain-free rate, and adverse events (AEs). Qualitative evaluations were conducted using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools. Quantitative analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.ResultsThis study includes 1674 LBP patients from nine clinical studies. Pooled analyses among subjects with acute LBP show 1) significant pain reductions (mean difference -0.84, 95% confidence interval[CI] -1.31, -0.37) in CZPRP plus diclofenac versus diclofenac, 2) significant improvements in lower back function (standard mean difference -1.50, 95% CI -2.16, -0.85) in CZPRP versus diclofenac, and 3) a higher pain-free rate in CZPRP alone (risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.16, 1.89; I2 = 61%) or CZPRP plus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (risk ratio 1.66, 95% CI 1.14, 2.40; I2 = 0%) versus NSAIDs. However, in a heterogeneous population with mixed LBP subtypes, there was no significant difference in pain outcomes between CZPRP and diclofenac. Additionally, CZPRP use did not increase AEs compared with no CZPRP (p = 0.40). All nine studies are associated with moderate to high risk of bias.ConclusionsThe use of CZPRP is associated with improved acute LBP outcomes compared to diclofenac. However, due to the moderate to high risk of bias of the studies, future rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effects of CZPRP for acute and chronic LBP.
| S-EPMC9254726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTrials on sling exercise (SE), commonly performed to manage chronic low back pain (LBP), yield conflicting results. This study aimed to review the effects of SE on chronic LBP.MethodsThe randomized controlled trials comparing SE with other treatments or no treatment, published up to August 2013, were identified by electronic searches. Primary outcomes were pain, function, and return to work. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated, using a random-effects model.ResultsRisk of bias was rated as high in 9 included trials, where some important quality components such as blinding were absent and sample sizes were generally small. We found no clinically relevant differences in pain or function between SE and other forms of exercise, traditional Chinese medical therapy, or in addition to acupuncture. Based on two trials, SE was more effective than thermomagnetic therapy at reducing pain (short-term: WMD -13.90, 95% CI -22.19 to -5.62; long-term: WMD -26.20, 95% CI -31.32 to -21.08) and improving function (short-term: WMD -10.54, 95% CI -14.32 to -6.75; long-term: WMD -25.75, 95% CI -30.79 to -20.71). In one trial we found statistically significant differences between SE and physical agents combined with drug therapy (meloxicam combined with eperisone hydrochloride) but of borderline clinical relevance for pain (short-term: WMD -15.00, 95% CI -19.64 to -10.36) and function (short-term: WMD -10.00; 95% CI -13.70 to -6.30). There was substantial heterogeneity among the two trials comparing SE and thermomagnetic therapy; both these trials and the trial comparing SE with physical agents combined with drug therapy had serious methodological limitations.InterpretationBased on limited evidence from 2 trials, SE was more effective for LBP than thermomagnetic therapy. Clinically relevant differences in effects between SE and other forms of exercise, physical agents combined with drug therapy, traditional Chinese medical therapy, or in addition to acupuncture could not be found. More high-quality randomized trials on the topic are warranted.
| S-EPMC4053356 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is one of the most common symptoms prompting patients to seek treatment. In China, tuina is a common treatment for LBP, but its effects and safety remain uncertain. This protocol is to provide the methods used to assess the effectiveness and safety of tuina for the treatment of patients with LBP.MethodsWe will search the following databases by electronic methods: MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data (WAN FANG), and VIP Information (VIP). The time limit for retrieving studies is set to be built in and before July 2018 for each database. The therapeutic effects according to the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) will be accepted as the primary outcomes. We will use RevMan V.5.3 software as well to compute the data synthesis carefully when a meta-analysis is allowed.ResultsThis study will provide a high-quality synthesis of current evidence of tuina for the treatment of patients with LBP.ConclusionThe conclusion of our systematic review will provide evidence to judge whether tuina is an effective intervention for patient with LBP.Prospero registration numberPROSPERO CRD 42018096762.
| S-EPMC6113039 | biostudies-literature