Aron Downie

Red flags to screen for malignancy and fracture in patients with low back pain: systematic review

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.

Quantifying the High-Velocity, Low-Amplitude Spinal Manipulative Thrust: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to systematically review studies that quantify the high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) spinal thrust, to qualitatively compare the apparatus used and the force-time profiles generated, and to critically appraise studies involving the quantification of thrust as an augmented feedback tool in psychomotor learning. METHODS A search of the literature was conducted to identify the sources that reported quantification of the HVLA spinal thrust. MEDLINE-OVID (1966-present), MANTIS-OVID (1950-present), and CINAHL-EBSCO host (1981-present) were searched. Eligibility criteria included that thrust subjects were human, animal, or manikin and that the thrust type was a hand-delivered HVLA spinal thrust. Data recorded were single force, force-time, or displacement-time histories. Publications were in English language and after 1980. The relatively small number of studies, combined with the diversity of method and data interpretation, did not enable meta-analysis. RESULTS Twenty-seven studies met eligibility criteria: 17 studies measured thrust as a primary outcome (13 human, 2 cadaver, and 2 porcine). Ten studies demonstrated changes in psychomotor learning related to quantified thrust data on human, manikin, or other device. CONCLUSIONS Quantifiable parameters of the HVLA spinal thrust exist and have been described. There remain a number of variables in recording that prevent a standardized kinematic description of HVLA spinal manipulative therapy. Despite differences in data between studies, a relationship between preload, peak force, and thrust duration was evident. Psychomotor learning outcomes were enhanced by the application of thrust data as an augmented feedback tool.

What have we learned from ten years of trajectory research in low back pain

BackgroundNon-specific low back pain (LBP) is often categorised as acute, subacute or chronic by focusing on the duration of the current episode. However, more than twenty years ago this concept was challenged by a recognition that LBP is often an episodic condition. This episodic nature also means that the course of LBP is not well described by an overall population mean. Therefore, studies have investigated if specific LBP trajectories could be identified which better reflect individuals’ course patterns. Following a pioneering study into LBP trajectories published by Dunn et al. in 2006, a number of subsequent studies have also identified LBP trajectories and it is timely to provide an overview of their findings and discuss how insights into these trajectories may be helpful for improving our understanding of LBP and its clinical management.DiscussionLBP trajectories in adults have been identified by data driven approaches in ten cohorts, and these have consistently demonstrated that different trajectory patterns exist. Despite some differences between studies, common trajectories have been identified across settings and countries, which have associations with a number of patient characteristics from different health domains. One study has demonstrated that in many people such trajectories are stable over several years. LBP trajectories seem to be recognisable by patients, and appealing to clinicians, and we discuss their potential usefulness as prognostic factors, effect moderators, and as a tool to support communication with patients.ConclusionsInvestigations of trajectories underpin the notion that differentiation between acute and chronic LBP is overly simplistic, and we believe it is time to shift from this paradigm to one that focuses on trajectories over time. We suggest that trajectory patterns may represent practical phenotypes of LBP that could improve the clinical dialogue with patients, and might have a potential for supporting clinical decision making, but their usefulness is still underexplored.

Red flags presented in current low back pain guidelines: a review

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to identify and descriptively compare the red flags endorsed in guidelines for the detection of serious pathology in patients presenting with low back pain to primary care.MethodWe searched databases, the World Wide Web and contacted experts aiming to find the multidisciplinary clinical guideline in low back pain in primary care, and selected the most recent one per country. We extracted data on the number and type of red flags for identifying patients with higher likelihood of serious pathology. Furthermore, we extracted data on whether or not accuracy data (sensitivity/specificity, predictive values, etc.) were presented to support the endorsement of specific red flags.ResultsWe found 21 discrete guidelines all published between 2000 and 2015. One guideline could not be retrieved and after selecting one guideline per country we included 16 guidelines in our analysis from 15 different countries and one for Europe as a whole. All guidelines focused on the management of patients with low back pain in a primary care or multidisciplinary care setting. Five guidelines presented red flags in general, i.e., not related to any specific disease. Overall, we found 46 discrete red flags related to the four main categories of serious pathology: malignancy, fracture, cauda equina syndrome and infection. The majority of guidelines presented two red flags for fracture (‘major or significant trauma’ and ‘use of steroids or immunosuppressors’) and two for malignancy (‘history of cancer’ and ‘unintentional weight loss’). Most often pain at night or at rest was also considered as a red flag for various underlying pathologies. Eight guidelines based their choice of red flags on consensus or previous guidelines; five did not provide any reference to support the choice of red flags, three guidelines presented a reference in general, and data on diagnostic accuracy was rarely provided.ConclusionA wide variety of red flags was presented in guidelines for low back pain, with a lack of consensus between guidelines for which red flags to endorse. Evidence for the accuracy of recommended red flags was lacking.

Accuracy of clinical tests in the diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament injury: a systematic review

BackgroundNumerous clinical tests are used in the diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury but their accuracy is unclear. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for the diagnosis of ACL injury.MethodsStudy Design: Systematic review. The review protocol was registered through PROSPERO (CRD42012002069).Electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched up to 19th of June 2013 to identify diagnostic studies comparing the accuracy of clinical tests for ACL injury to an acceptable reference standard (arthroscopy, arthrotomy, or MRI). Risk of bias was appraised using the QUADAS-2 checklist. Index test accuracy was evaluated using a descriptive analysis of paired likelihood ratios and displayed as forest plots.ResultsA total of 285 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, from which 14 studies were included in this review. Included studies were deemed to be clinically and statistically heterogeneous, so a meta-analysis was not performed. Nine clinical tests from the history (popping sound at time of injury, giving way, effusion, pain, ability to continue activity) and four from physical examination (anterior draw test, Lachman’s test, prone Lachman’s test and pivot shift test) were investigated for diagnostic accuracy. Inspection of positive and negative likelihood ratios indicated that none of the individual tests provide useful diagnostic information in a clinical setting. Most studies were at risk of bias and reported imprecise estimates of diagnostic accuracy.ConclusionDespite being widely used and accepted in clinical practice, the results of individual history items or physical tests do not meaningfully change the probability of ACL injury. In contrast combinations of tests have higher diagnostic accuracy; however the most accurate combination of clinical tests remains an area for future research.Clinical relevanceClinicians should be aware of the limitations associated with the use of clinical tests for diagnosis of ACL injury.

Red flags to screen for malignancy and fracture in patients with low back pain

STUDY QUESTION What are the best red flags to indicate the possibility of fracture or malignancy in patients presenting with low back pain in primary, secondary, or tertiary care? SUMMARY ANSWER Older age, prolonged corticosteroid use, severe trauma, and presence of a contusion or abrasion increase the likelihood of spinal fracture (likelihood was higher with multiple red flags); a history of malignancy increases the likelihood of spinal malignancy.

Most red flags for malignancy in low back pain guidelines lack empirical support; a systematic review.

Abstract Clinicians do not want to miss underlying serious pathology, but it is still unclear which red flags are relevant. We aimed to evaluate the origin and evidence on diagnostic accuracy of red flags for malignancy for management of low back pain (LBP) in primary care. We performed a comprehensive overview and searched the literature using snowballing techniques and reference checking for evidence on red flags endorsed in clinical guidelines for identifying patients with higher likelihood of malignancy. We selected studies including people with LBP without any restriction on study design. We extracted data on prevalence and diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore, we assessed the methodological quality of studies evaluating diagnostic accuracy. We identified 13 red flags endorsed in a total of 16 guidelines and 2 extra red flags not endorsed in any guideline. We included 33 publications varying from systematic reviews to case reports. The origin of many red flags was unclear or was sourced from case reports. The incidence of malignancy in patients presenting with LBP in primary care varied between 0% and 0.7%. Seven studies provided diagnostic accuracy data on red flags. We found 5 red flags with accuracy data from 2 or more studies, with 2 (“history of malignancy” and “strong clinical suspicion”) considered informative. In conclusion, the origin and diagnostic accuracy of many red flags endorsed in guidelines are unclear. A “history of malignancy” and “strong clinical suspicion” are the only red flags with empirical evidence of acceptably high diagnostic accuracy.

Current evidence for spinal X-ray use in the chiropractic profession: a narrative review

The use of routine spinal X-rays within chiropractic has a contentious history. Elements of the profession advocate for the need for routine spinal X-rays to improve patient management, whereas other chiropractors advocate using spinal X-rays only when endorsed by current imaging guidelines. This review aims to summarise the current evidence for the use of spinal X-ray in chiropractic practice, with consideration of the related risks and benefits. Current evidence supports the use of spinal X-rays only in the diagnosis of trauma and spondyloarthropathy, and in the assessment of progressive spinal structural deformities such as adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. MRI is indicated to diagnose serious pathology such as cancer or infection, and to assess the need for surgical management in radiculopathy and spinal stenosis. Strong evidence demonstrates risks of imaging such as excessive radiation exposure, overdiagnosis, subsequent low-value investigation and treatment procedures, and increased costs. In most cases the potential benefits from routine imaging, including spinal X-rays, do not outweigh the potential harms. The use of spinal X-rays should not be routinely performed in chiropractic practice, and should be guided by clinical guidelines and clinician judgement.

Evaluation of guideline-endorsed red flags to screen for fracture in patients presenting with low back pain

Objectives (1) Describe the evolution of guideline-endorsed red flags for fracture in patients presenting with low back pain; (2) evaluate agreement between guidelines; and (3) evaluate the extent to which recommendations are accompanied by information on diagnostic accuracy of endorsed red flags. Design Systematic review. Data sources MEDLINE and PubMed, PEDro, CINAHL and EMBASE electronic databases. We also searched in guideline databases, including the National Guideline Clearinghouse and Canadian Medical Association Infobase. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Data extraction Two review authors independently extracted the following data: health professional association or society producing guideline, year of publication, the precise wording of endorsed red flag for vertebral fracture, recommendations for diagnostic workup if fracture is suspected, if the guidelines substantiate the recommendation with citation to a primary diagnostic study or diagnostic review, if the guideline provides any diagnostic accuracy data. Results 78 guidelines from 28 countries were included. A total of 12 discrete red flags were reported. The most commonly recommended red flags were older age, use of steroids, trauma and osteoporosis. Regarding the evolution of red flags, older age, trauma and osteoporosis were the first red flags endorsed (in 1994); and previous fracture was the last red flag endorsed (in 2003). Agreement between guidelines in endorsing red flags was only fair; kappa=0.32. Only 9 of the 78 guidelines substantiated their red flag recommendations by research and only nine provided information on diagnostic accuracy. Summary/conclusion The number of red flags endorsed in guidelines to screen for fracture has risen over time; most guidelines do not endorse the same set of red flags and most recommendations are not supported by research or accompanied by diagnostic accuracy data.

Trajectories of acute low back pain: a latent class growth analysis

The World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC) held its 13th Biennial Congress in Athens, Greece, on May 13 through 16, 2015. The WFC call for abstracts resulted in 237 submissions from 19 countries (Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States). From these abstracts, a total of 40 platforms and 117 posters were presented at the Congress.Objectives: People of rural Botswana rely on walking as their principal mode of transport over long distances and rugged geographical terrain. For those who suffer from Muscle, Bone and Joint (MuBoJo) disorders, navigating spaces and places contributes to everyday burdens that are not well represented in the literature. In this qualitative study we observed the use of walking sticks amongst villagers in rural Botswana and examined how they might support MuBoJo health.