Search

Abstract Background Several validated decision rules are available for clinicians to guide the appropriate use of imaging for patients with musculoskeletal injuries, including the Canadian CT Head Rule, Canadian C-Spine Rule, National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) guideline, Ottawa Ankle Rules and Ottawa Knee Rules. However, it is unclear to what extent clinicians are aware of the rules and are using these five rules in practice. Objective To determine the proportion of clinicians that are aware of five imaging decision rules and the proportion that use them in practice. Design Systematic review. Methods This was a systematic review conducted in accordance with the ‘Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses’ (PRISMA) statement. We performed searches in MEDLINE (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and Scopus databases to identify observational and experimental studies with data on the following outcomes among clinicians related to five validated imaging decision rules: awareness, use, attitudes, knowledge, and barriers and facilitators to implementation. Where possible, we pooled data using medians to summarise these outcomes. Results We included 39 studies. Studies were conducted in 15 countries (e.g. the USA, Canada, the UK, Australasia, New Zealand) and included various clinician types (e.g. emergency physicians, emergency nurses and nurse practitioners). Among the five decision rules, clinicians’ awareness was highest for the Canadian C-Spine Rule (84%, n = 3 studies) and lowest for the Ottawa Knee Rules (18%, n = 2). Clinicians’ use was highest for NEXUS (median percentage ranging from 7 to 77%, n = 4) followed by Canadian C-Spine Rule (56–71%, n = 7 studies) and lowest for the Ottawa Knee Rules which ranged from 18 to 58% (n = 4). Conclusion Our results suggest that awareness of the five imaging decision rules is low. Changing clinicians’ attitudes and knowledge towards these decision rules and addressing barriers to their implementation could increase use.

Summary: Background: The accuracy of diagnostic tests available in primary care to identify the disc, sacroiliac joint, and facet joint as the source of low back pain is uncertain. Methods: Systematic review of diagnostic tests available in primary care. MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched between March 2006 and 25th January 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently screened all studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using QUADAS-2. Pooling was performed for homogenous studies. Positive likelihood ratios (+LR) ≥2 and negative likelihood ratios (−LR) ≤0.5 were considered informative. This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020169828). Findings: We included 62 studies: 35 investigated the disc, 14 the facet joint, 11 the sacroiliac joint, and 2 investigated all three structures in patients with persistent low back pain. For risk of bias, the domain ‘reference standard’ scored worst, however approximately half the studies were of low risk of bias for every other domain. For the disc, pooling demonstrated MRI findings of disc degeneration and annular fissure resulted in informative +LRs: 2.53 (95% CI: 1.57–4.07) and 2.88 (95% CI: 2.02–4.10) and −LRs: 0.15 (95% CI: 0.09–0.24) and 0.24 (95% CI: 0.10–0.55) respectively. Pooled results for Modic type 1, Modic type 2, and HIZ on MRI, and centralisation phenomenon yielded informative +LRs: 10.00 (95% CI: 4.20–23.82), 8.03 (95% CI: 3.23–19.97), 3.10 (95% CI: 2.27–4.25), and 3.06 (95% CI: 1.44–6.50) respectively, but uninformative −LRs: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.74–0.96), 0.88 (95% CI: 0.80–0.96), 0.61 (95% CI: 0.48–0.77), and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.52–0.84) respectively. For the facet joint, pooling demonstrated facet joint uptake on SPECT resulted in informative +LRs: 2.80 (95% CI: 1.82–4.31) and −LRs: 0.44 (95% CI: 0.25–0.77). For the sacroiliac joint, a combination of pain provocation tests and absence of midline low back pain resulted in informative +LRs of 2.41 (95% CI: 1.89–3.07) and 2.44 (95% CI: 1.50–3.98) and −LRs of 0.35 (95% CI: 0.12–1.01) and 0.31 (95% CI: 0.21–0.47) respectively. Radionuclide imaging yielded an informative +LR 7.33 (95% CI: 1.42–37.80) but an uninformative −LR 0.74 (95% CI: 0.41–1.34). Interpretation: There are informative diagnostic tests for the disc, sacroiliac joint, and facet joint (only one test). The evidence suggests a diagnosis may be possible for some patients with low back pain, potentially guiding targeted and specific treatment approaches. Funding: There was no funding for this study.

Abstract Introduction Clinician time and resources may be underutilised if the treatment they offer does not match patient expectations and attitudes. We developed a questionnaire (AxEL-Q) to guide clinicians toward elements of first-line care that are pertinent to their patients with low back pain. Methods We used guidance from the COSMIN consortium to develop the questionnaire and evaluated it in a sample of people with low back pain of any duration. Participants were recruited from the community, were over 18 years and fluent in English. Statements that represented first-line care were identified. Semantic scales were used to measure attitude towards these statements. These items were combined to develop the questionnaire draft. Construct validity was evaluated with exploratory factor analysis and hypotheses testing, comparing to the Back Beliefs Questionnaire and modified Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. Reliability was evaluated and floor and ceiling effects calculated. Results We recruited 345 participants, and had complete data for analysis for 313 participants. The questionnaire draft was reduced to a 3-Factor questionnaire through exploratory factor analysis. Factor 1 comprised 9 items and evaluated Attitude toward staying active, Factor 2 comprised 4 items and evaluated Attitude toward low back pain being rarely caused by a serious health problem, Factor 3 comprised 4 items and evaluated Attitude toward not needing to know the cause of back pain to manage it effectively. There was a strong inverse association between each factor and the Back Beliefs Questionnaire and a moderate positive association with the modified Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. Each independent factor demonstrated acceptable internal consistency; Cronbach α Factor 1 = 0.92, Factor 2 = 0.91, Factor 3 = 0.90 and adequate interclass correlation coefficients; Factor 1 = 0.71, Factor 2 = 0.73, Factor 3 = 0.79. Conclusion This study demonstrates acceptable construct validity and reliability of the AxEL-Q, providing clinicians with an insight into the likelihood of patients following first-line care at the outset.

Abstract Background Community awareness of the harms of overdiagnosis remains low. Objective To evaluate community responses to a public health campaign designed for health service waiting rooms that focuses on the harms of unnecessary diagnostic imaging for low back pain. Methods We conducted two focus groups of 19 community members with or without low back pain in Sydney, Australia. This study formed the fourth and final stage of the development process of a public health campaign: (a) initial design, (b) expert review and revision, (c) online experiment and (d) community views & revision. We evaluated reactions to components of the campaign that included digital posters and an information leaflet using strong imagery and messaging about the risk of overdiagnosis. We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis to identify main themes. Results Community members reacted with surprise, initial mistrust, and occasionally anger towards imagery and messaging that suggested diagnostic imaging tests could be unnecessary and harmful. With further reflection and discussion, and after reading longer format information about overdiagnosis, the participants found some of the messages informative and useful. Participants appeared to gain a better understanding of the concept of overdiagnosis and the importance of not rushing to imaging. Conclusions Public health campaigns including posters and leaflets displayed in waiting rooms could raise awareness about overuse of diagnostic imaging and the harms of overdiagnosis more broadly. However, negative reactions are possible and must be managed carefully. Patient or Public Contribution We involved a community participation manager who provided advice on the focus group discussion guide, participant recruitment and manuscript presentation.

Objectives To explore how people perceive three different forms of advice for acute low back pain (LBP).Design Content analysis of qualitative data collected in a three-arm randomised experiment.Participants 2200 participants with acute LBP (ie, pain duration for ≤6 weeks) were randomly assigned to receive three types of advice: guideline advice and guideline advice with the addition of either brief pain science or ergonomics messages.Primary and secondary outcomes After receiving the advice, participants answered two questions: ‘If your health professional gave you this advice, how would it make you feel?’ and ‘If your health professional gave you this advice, what treatments (if any) do you think you would need?’ Two researchers coded responses using deductive content analysis.Results We analysed 4400 free-text responses from 2200 participants. There were little to no differences in participants’ feelings, thoughts and expectations after receiving three types of advice for acute LBP. Participants most commonly expressed feeling positive about the advice (38%–35%), reassured (23%–22%) and empowered (10%–8%). Some expressed being unhappy or being frustrated with the advice (4%–3%). Participants most commonly thought they needed no treatment apart from staying active, followed by exercise and medication.Conclusions Guideline advice with or without the addition of brief pain science or ergonomics messages generated positive feelings, reassurance or a sense of empowerment in many people with acute LBP, with no difference between types of advice.Trial registration number ACTRN12623000364673.

Introduction Opioids and imaging are considered low-value care for most people with low back pain. Yet around one in three people presenting to the emergency department (ED) will receive imaging, and two in three will receive an opioid. NUDG-ED aims to determine the effectiveness of two different behavioural ‘nudge’ interventions on low-value care for ED patients with low back pain.Methods and analysis NUDG-ED is a 2×2 factorial, open-label, before-after, cluster randomised controlled trial. The trial includes 8 ED sites in Sydney, Australia. Participants will be ED clinicians who manage back pain, and patients who are 18 years or over presenting to ED with musculoskeletal back pain. EDs will be randomly assigned to receive (i) patient nudges, (ii) clinician nudges, (iii) both interventions or (iv) no nudge control. The primary outcome will be the proportion of encounters in ED for musculoskeletal back pain where a person received a non-indicated lumbar imaging test, an opioid at discharge or both. We will require 2416 encounters over a 9-month study period (3-month before period and 6-month after period) to detect an absolute difference of 10% in use of low-value care due to either nudge, with 80% power, alpha set at 0.05 and assuming an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.10, and an intraperiod correlation of 0.09. Patient-reported outcome measures will be collected in a subsample of patients (n≥456) 1 week after their initial ED visit. To estimate effects, we will use a multilevel regression model, with a random effect for cluster and patient, a fixed effect indicating the group assignment of each cluster and a fixed effect of time.Ethics and dissemination This study has ethical approval from Southwestern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH00472). We will disseminate the results of this trial via media, presenting at conferences and scientific publications.Trial registration number ACTRN12623001000695.

Introduction Most simple undisplaced fractures can be managed without surgery by immobilising the limb with a splint, prescribing medication for pain, and providing advice and early rehabilitation. Recent systematic reviews based on retrospective observational studies have reported that virtual fracture clinics can deliver follow-up care that is safe and cost-effective. However, no randomised controlled trial has investigated if a virtual fracture clinic can provide non-inferior physical function outcomes compared with an in-person clinic for patients with simple fractures.Methods and analysis 312 participants will be recruited from 2 metropolitan hospitals located in Sydney, Australia. Adult patients will be eligible if they have an acute simple fracture that can be managed with a removable splint and is deemed appropriate for follow-up at either the virtual or in-person fracture clinic by an orthopaedic doctor. Patients will not be eligible if they have a complex fracture that requires a cast or surgery. Eligible participants will be randomised to receive their follow-up care either at the virtual or the in-person fracture clinic. Participants at the virtual fracture clinic will be reviewed within 5 days of receiving a referral through video calls with a physiotherapist. Participants at the in-person fracture clinic will be reviewed by an orthopaedic doctor within 7–10 days of receiving a referral. The primary outcome will be the patient’s function measured using the Patient-Specific Functional Scale at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include health-related quality of life, patient-reported experiences, pain, health cost, healthcare utilisation, medication use, adverse events, emergency department representations and surgery.Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the Sydney Local Health District Ethics Review Committee (RPAH Zone) (X23-0200 and 2023/ETH01038). The trial results will be submitted for publication in a reputable international journal and will be presented at professional conferences.Trial registration number ACTRN12623000934640.

Introduction Social media provide promising contemporary platforms for sharing public health information with a broad audience. Before implementation, testing social media campaigns that are intended to engage audiences and initiate behaviour change is necessary. This trial aims to investigate the effectiveness of a public health campaign to increase people’s confidence in becoming more active despite low back pain in comparison with no intervention.Methods and analysis This is an online randomised controlled trial with two intervention groups and one control group in a 1:1:1 allocation. People over 18 years of age and fluent in English will be recruited via social media advertising. We developed a social media-based public health campaign to support recommendations for managing low back pain. The interventions are two videos. Participants in the control group will be asked questions about low back pain but will not view either video intervention. The primary outcome will be item 10 of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, which asks participants to rate how confident they would feel to gradually become more active despite pain ranging from 0 (not at all confident) to 6 (completely confident). This outcome will be measured immediately in all participant groups. We will compare group mean of the three arms of the trial using univariate analyses of variance.Ethics and dissemination This trial has been prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. We obtained ethical approval from our institutions Human Research Ethics Committee before data collection. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed medical journal and on institution websites.Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622000466741).

Objectives To explore how people perceive different advice for rotator cuff disease in terms of words/feelings evoked by the advice and treatment needs.Setting We performed a content analysis of qualitative data collected in a randomised experiment.Participants 2028 people with shoulder pain read a vignette describing someone with rotator cuff disease and were randomised to: bursitis label plus guideline-based advice, bursitis label plus treatment recommendation, rotator cuff tear label plus guideline-based advice and rotator cuff tear label plus treatment recommendation. Guideline-based advice included encouragement to stay active and positive prognostic information. Treatment recommendation emphasised that treatment is needed for recovery.Primary and secondary outcomes Participants answered questions about: (1) words/feelings evoked by the advice; (2) treatments they feel are needed. Two researchers developed coding frameworks to analyse responses.Results 1981 (97% of 2039 randomised) responses for each question were analysed. Guideline-based advice (vs treatment recommendation) more often elicited words/feelings of reassurance, having a minor issue, trust in expertise and feeling dismissed, and treatment needs of rest, activity modification, medication, wait and see, exercise and normal movements. Treatment recommendation (vs guideline-based advice) more often elicited words/feelings of needing treatment/investigation, psychological distress and having a serious issue, and treatment needs of injections, surgery, investigations, and to see a doctor.Conclusions Words/feelings evoked by advice for rotator cuff disease and perceived treatment needs may explain why guideline-based advice reduces perceived need for unnecessary care compared to a treatment recommendation.

BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a major health problem. Globally it is responsible for the most years lived with disability. The most problematic type of LBP is chronic LBP (pain lasting longer than 3 mo); it has a poor prognosis and is costly, and interventions are only moderately effective. Targeting interventions according to risk profile is a promising approach to prevent the onset of chronic LBP. Developing accurate prognostic models is the first step. No validated prognostic models are available to accurately predict the onset of chronic LBP. The primary aim of this study was to develop and validate a prognostic model to estimate the risk of chronic LBP.Methods and findingsWe used the PROGRESS framework to specify a priori methods, which we published in a study protocol. Data from 2,758 patients with acute LBP attending primary care in Australia between 5 November 2003 and 15 July 2005 (development sample, n = 1,230) and between 10 November 2009 and 5 February 2013 (external validation sample, n = 1,528) were used to develop and externally validate the model. The primary outcome was chronic LBP (ongoing pain at 3 mo). In all, 30% of the development sample and 19% of the external validation sample developed chronic LBP. In the external validation sample, the primary model (PICKUP) discriminated between those who did and did not develop chronic LBP with acceptable performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.66 [95% CI 0.63 to 0.69]). Although model calibration was also acceptable in the external validation sample (intercept = -0.55, slope = 0.89), some miscalibration was observed for high-risk groups. The decision curve analysis estimated that, if decisions to recommend further intervention were based on risk scores, screening could lead to a net reduction of 40 unnecessary interventions for every 100 patients presenting to primary care compared to a "treat all" approach. Limitations of the method include the model being restricted to using prognostic factors measured in existing studies and using stepwise methods to specify the model. Limitations of the model include modest discrimination performance. The model also requires recalibration for local settings.ConclusionsBased on its performance in these cohorts, this five-item prognostic model for patients with acute LBP may be a useful tool for estimating risk of chronic LBP. Further validation is required to determine whether screening with this model leads to a net reduction in unnecessary interventions provided to low-risk patients.