Diagnostic imaging in the management of older adults with low back pain: analysis from the BAck Complaints in Elders: Chiropractic – Australia cohort study

Jenkins H.J., Downie A., Wong J.J., Young J.J., Roseen E.J., Nim C.G., McNaughton D., Øveras C.K., Hartvigsen J., Mior S., French S.D.

Abstract Background Chiropractors use a variety of therapeutic interventions in clinical practice. How the selection of interventions differs across musculoskeletal regions or with different patient and provider characteristics is currently unclear. This study aimed to describe how frequently different interventions are used for patients presenting for chiropractic care, and patient and provider characteristics associated with intervention selection. Methods Data were obtained from the Chiropractic Observation and Analysis STudy (COAST) and Ontario (O-COAST) studies: practice-based, cross-sectional studies in Victoria, Australia (2010–2012) and Ontario, Canada (2014–2015). Chiropractors recorded data on patient diagnosis and intervention selection from up to 100 consecutive patient visits. The frequency of interventions selected overall and for each diagnostic category (e.g., different musculoskeletal regions) were descriptively analysed. Univariable multi-level logistic regression (provider and patient as grouping factors), stratified by diagnostic category, was used to assess the association between patient/provider variables and intervention selection. Results Ninety-four chiropractors, representative of chiropractors in Victoria and Ontario for age, sex, and years in practice, participated. Data were collected on 7,966 patient visits (6419 unique patients), including 10,731 individual diagnoses (mean age: 43.7 (SD: 20.7), 57.8% female). Differences in patient characteristics and intervention selection were observed between chiropractors practicing in Australia and Canada. Overall, manipulation was the most common intervention, selected in 63% (95%CI:62–63) of encounters. However, for musculoskeletal conditions presenting in the extremities only, soft tissue therapies were more commonly used (65%, 95%CI:62–68). Manipulation was less likely to be performed if the patient was female (OR:0.74, 95%CI:0.65–0.84), older (OR:0.79, 95%CI:0.77–0.82), presenting for an initial visit (OR:0.73, 95%CI:0.56–0.95) or new complaint (OR:0.82, 95%CI:0.71–0.95), had one or more comorbidities (OR:0.63, 95%CI:0.54–0.72), or was underweight (OR:0.47, 95%CI:0.35–0.63), or obese (OR:0.69, 95%CI:0.58–0.81). Chiropractors with more than five years clinical experience were less likely to provide advice/education (OR:0.37, 95%CI:0.16–0.87) and exercises (OR:0.17, 95%CI:0.06–0.44). Conclusion In more than 10,000 diagnostic encounters, manipulation was the most common therapeutic intervention for spine-related problems, whereas soft tissue therapies were more common for extremity problems. Different patient and provider characteristics were associated with intervention selection. These data may be used to support further research on appropriate selection of interventions for common musculoskeletal complaints.

Chamoro M., de Luca K., Ozbulut O., Oei E.H., Vleggeert-Lankamp C.L., Koes B.W., Bierma- Zeinstra S.M., Chiarotto A.

ObjectiveSpinal osteoarthritis is difficult to study and diagnose, partly due to the lack of agreed diagnostic criteria. This systematic review aims to give an overview of the associations between clinical and imaging findings suggestive of spinal osteoarthritis in patients with low back pain to make a step towards agreed diagnostic criteria.DesignWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to April 29, 2021 to identify observational studies in adults that assessed the association between selected clinical and imaging findings suggestive of spinal osteoarthritis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the quality of evidence was graded using an adaptation of the GRADE approach.ResultsAfter screening 7902 studies, 30 met the inclusion criteria. High-quality evidence was found for the longitudinal association between low back pain (LBP) intensity, and both disc space narrowing and osteophytes, as well as for the association between LBP-related physical functioning and lumbar disc degeneration, the presence of spinal morning stiffness and disc space narrowing and for the lack of association between physical functioning and Schmorl’s nodes.ConclusionsThere is high- and moderate-quality evidence of associations between clinical and imaging findings suggestive of spinal osteoarthritis. However, the majority of the studied outcomes had low or very low-quality of evidence. Furthermore, clinical and methodological heterogeneity was a serious limitation, adding to the need and importance of agreed criteria for spinal osteoarthritis, which should be the scope of future research.

Ferreira M.L., de Luca K., Haile L.M., Steinmetz J.D., Culbreth G.T., Cross M., Kopec J.A., Ferreira P.H., Blyth F.M., Buchbinder R., Hartvigsen J., Wu A., Safiri S., Woolf A.D., Collins G.S., et. al.

Low back pain is highly prevalent and the main cause of years lived with disability (YLDs). We present the most up-to-date global, regional, and national data on prevalence and YLDs for low back pain from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2021.Population-based studies from 1980 to 2019 identified in a systematic review, international surveys, US medical claims data, and dataset contributions by collaborators were used to estimate the prevalence and YLDs for low back pain from 1990 to 2020, for 204 countries and territories. Low back pain was defined as pain between the 12th ribs and the gluteal folds that lasted a day or more; input data using alternative definitions were adjusted in a network meta-regression analysis. Nested Bayesian meta-regression models were used to estimate prevalence and YLDs by age, sex, year, and location. Prevalence was projected to 2050 by running a regression on prevalence rates using Socio-demographic Index as a predictor, then multiplying them by projected population estimates.In 2020, low back pain affected 619 million (95% uncertainty interval 554-694) people globally, with a projection of 843 million (759-933) prevalent cases by 2050. In 2020, the global age-standardised rate of YLDs was 832 per 100 000 (578-1070). Between 1990 and 2020, age-standardised rates of prevalence and YLDs decreased by 10·4% (10·9-10·0) and 10·5% (11·1-10·0), respectively. A total of 38·8% (28·7-47·0) of YLDs were attributed to occupational factors, smoking, and high BMI.Low back pain remains the leading cause of YLDs globally, and in 2020, there were more than half a billion prevalent cases of low back pain worldwide. While age-standardised rates have decreased modestly over the past three decades, it is projected that globally in 2050, more than 800 million people will have low back pain. Challenges persist in obtaining primary country-level data on low back pain, and there is an urgent need for more high-quality, primary, country-level data on both prevalence and severity distributions to improve accuracy and monitor change.Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Han C.S., Maher C.G., Steffens D., Diwan A., Magnussen J., Hancock E.C., Hancock M.J.

Do magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings predict future low back pain (LBP), associated disability and global recovery in people with current LBP? Do MRI findings predict these outcomes in people with no current LBP? Do MRI findings predict these outcomes in a mixed sample of people with and without current LBP? This review is an update of a previous systematic review investigating the relationship between lumbar spine MRI findings and future LBP. People with or without LBP with lumbar MRI scans. MRI findings, pain and disability. Of the included studies, 28 reported on participants with current LBP, eight reported on participants with no LBP and four reported on a mixed sample. Most results were based on single studies and did not demonstrate clear relationships between MRI findings and future LBP. In populations with current LBP, pooling demonstrated that the presence of Modic type 1 changes alone or Modic type 1 and 2 changes were associated with slightly worse pain or disability outcomes in the short term, and the presence of disc degeneration was associated with worse pain and disability outcomes in the long term. In populations with current LBP, pooling demonstrated no evidence of an association between the presence of nerve root compression and disability outcomes in the short term, and no evidence of an association between the presence of disc height reduction, disc herniation, spinal stenosis, high-intensity zone and clinical outcomes in the long term. In populations with no LBP, pooling demonstrated that the presence of disc degeneration may increase the likelihood of experiencing pain in the long term. In mixed populations, no pooling was possible; however, single studies demonstrated that Modic type 1, 2 or 3 changes and disc herniation were each associated with worse pain in the long term. The results suggest that some MRI findings may have weak associations with future LBP; however, larger high-quality studies are needed to resolve uncertainty. PROSPERO CRD42021252919.

de Luca K., Briggs A.M., French S.D., Ferreira M.L., Cross M., Blyth F., March L.

To report the national prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs) and attributable risk factors for all musculoskeletal conditions and separately for low back pain (LBP), as well as compare the disability burden related to musculoskeletal with other health conditions in Australia in 2019. Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2019 study meta-data on all musculoskeletal conditions and LBP specifically were accessed and aggregated. Counts and age-standardised rates, for both sexes and across all ages, for prevalence, YLDs and attributable risk factors are reported. In 2019, musculoskeletal conditions were estimated to be the leading cause of YLDs in Australia (20.1%). There were 7,219,894.5 (95% UI: 6,847,113–7,616,567) prevalent cases of musculoskeletal conditions and 685,363 (95% UI: 487,722–921,471) YLDs due to musculoskeletal conditions. There were 2,676,192 (95% UI: 2,339,327–3,061,066) prevalent cases of LBP and 298,624 (95% UI: 209,364–402,395) YLDs due to LBP. LBP was attributed to 44% of YLDs due to musculoskeletal conditions. In 2019, 22.3% and 39.8% of YLDs due to musculoskeletal conditions and LBP, respectively, were attributed to modifiable GBD risk factors. The ongoing high burden due to musculoskeletal conditions impacts Australians across the life course, and in particular females and older Australians. Strategies for integrative and organisational interventions in the Australian healthcare system should support high-value care and address key modifiable risk factors for disability such as smoking, occupational ergonomic factors and obesity.

Jenkins H.J., Kongsted A., French S.D., Jensen T.S., Doktor K., Hartvigsen J., Hancock M.

It is unclear if the use of imaging for low back pain (LBP) is impacted by patient beliefs. This study aimed to: (1) describe beliefs about the importance of imaging and whether patients wanted imaging when presenting for chiropractic care for LBP; (2) describe associations between baseline patient characteristics and imaging beliefs and whether patients wanted imaging; and (3) determine whether patients who believed imaging to be important in the management of LBP, or who wanted to receive imaging, were more likely to receive an imaging referral. Cross-sectional observational data was collected between November 2016 to December 2019 from 10 primary care chiropractic clinics in Denmark. Consecutive patients aged 18 or older and presenting with a new episode of LBP were included (N = 2818). Beliefs about the importance of imaging (two questions) and whether imaging was wanted (one question) were collected at the initial visit, together with baseline participant characteristics and whether an imaging referral was provided. Associations between imaging beliefs/desire to receive imaging and participant characteristics were explored using multivariable logistic regression analysis. The relationships between imaging beliefs and desire to receive imaging with subsequent imaging referral were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for pre-selected confounder variables. Approximately one third of participants believed imaging to be important for the management of LBP (29.5% (95%CI 27.8, 31.3) or 41.5% (95%CI 39.6, 43.3) depending on the two imaging beliefs questions). Approximately one quarter (26.1%, 95%CI 24.5, 27.7) of participants wanted to receive an imaging referral. Participants were more likely to believe in the importance of imaging or want an imaging referral if they had a longer duration of LBP, history of previous imaging for LBP, or a lower completed education level. Participants who wanted imaging at the initial consult were more likely to receive an imaging referral (Odds ratio; 95%CI 1.6; 1.2, 2.1). Approximately one third of patients presenting for chiropractic care in Denmark believed imaging to be important in the management of LBP. One quarter wanted imaging at the initial consult. Patients’ desire for imaging appeared to impact the use of diagnostic imaging.

de Luca K., Hogg-Johnson S., Funabashi M., Mior S., French S.D.

Musculoskeletal conditions are the primary reason older adults seek general medical care, resulting in older adults as the highest consumers of health care services. While there is high use of chiropractic care by older adults, there is no recent, specific data on why older adults seek chiropractic care and how chiropractors manage conditions. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe the demographic characteristics of older adults seeking chiropractic care, and to report problems diagnosed by chiropractors and the treatment provided to older adults who seek chiropractic care. A secondary data analysis from two, large cross-sectional observational studies conducted in Australia (COAST) and Canada (O-COAST). Patient encounter and diagnoses were classified using the International Classification of Primary Care, 2nd edition (ICPC-2), using the Australian ICPC-2 PLUS general practice terminology and the ICPC-2 PLUS Chiro terminology. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize chiropractor, patient and encounter characteristics. Encounter and patient characteristics were compared between younger (< 65 years old) and older (≥65 years old) adults using χ2 tests or t-tests, accounting for the clustering of patients and encounters within chiropractors. A total of 6781 chiropractor–adult patient encounters were recorded. Of these, 1067 encounters were for persons aged > 65 years (16%), from 897 unique older patients. The most common diagnosis within older adult encounters was a back problem (56%), followed by neck problems (10%). Soft tissue techniques were most frequently used for older patients (85 in every 100 encounters) and in 29 of every 100 encounters, chiropractors recommended exercise to older patients as a part of their treatment. From 6781 chiropractor–adult patient encounters across two countries, one in seven adult chiropractic patients were > 65 years. Of these, nearly 60% presented with a back problem, with neck pain and lower limb problems the next most common presentation to chiropractors. Musculoskeletal conditions have a significant burden in terms of disability in older adults and are the most commonly treated conditions in chiropractic practice. Future research should explore the clinical course of back pain in older patients seeking chiropractic care and compare the provision of care to older adults across healthcare professions.

Jenks A.D., Hoekstra T., Axén I., de Luca K., Field J., Newell D., Hartvigsen J., French S.D., Koes B., van Tulder M.W., Rubinstein S.M.

Low back pain is a common condition among older adults that significantly influences physical function and participation. Compared to their younger counterparts, there is limited information available about the clinical course of low back pain in older people, in particularly those presenting for chiropractic care. Improving our understanding of this patient population and the course of their low back pain may provide input for studies researching safer and more effective care than is currently provided. The primary objectives are to examine the clinical course over one year of pain intensity, healthcare costs and pain, functional status and recovery rates of low back pain in people 55 years and older who visit a chiropractor for a new episode of low back pain. An international prospective, multi-center cohort study with one-year follow-up. Chiropractic practices are to be recruited in the Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom and Australia. Treatment will be left to the discretion of the chiropractor. Inclusion/Exclusion criteria: Patients aged 55 and older who consult a chiropractor for a new episode of low back pain, meaning low back pain for the first time or those patients who have not been to a chiropractor in the previous six months. This is independent of whether they have seen another type of health care provider for the current episode. Patients who are unable to complete the web-based questionnaires because of language restrictions or those with computer literacy restrictions will be excluded as well as those with cognitive disorders. In addition, those with a suspected tumor, fracture, infection or any other potential red flag or condition considered to be a contraindication for chiropractic care will be excluded. Data will be collected using online questionnaires at baseline, and at 2 and 6 weeks and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. This study, to our knowledge, is the first large-scale, prospective, multicenter, international cohort study to be conducted in a chiropractic setting to focus on older adults with low back pain consulting a chiropractor. By understanding the clinical course, satisfaction and safety of chiropractic treatment of this common debilitating condition in the aged population, this study will provide input for informing future clinical trials. Nederlandse Trial Registrar NL7507.

Wu A., March L., Zheng X., Huang J., Wang X., Zhao J., Blyth F.M., Smith E., Buchbinder R., Hoy D.

Low back pain (LBP) is a common musculoskeletal problem globally. Updating the prevalence and burden of LBP is important for researchers and policy makers. This paper presents, compares and contextualizes the global prevalence and years lived with disability (YLDs) of LBP by age, sex and region, from 1990 to 2017.Data were extracted from the GBD (the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study) 2017 Study. Age, sex and region-specific analyses were conducted to estimate the global prevalence and YLDs of LBP, with the uncertainty intervals (UIs).The age-standardized point prevalence of LBP was 8.20% (95% UI: 7.31-9.10%) in 1990 and decreased slightly to 7.50% (95% UI: 6.75-8.27%) in 2017. The prevalent numbers of people with LBP at any one point in time in 1990 was 377.5 million, and this increased to 577.0 million in 2017. Age-standardized prevalence of LBP was higher in females than males. LBP prevalence increased with age, and peaked around the ages of 80 to 89 years, and then decreased slightly. Global YLDs were 42.5 million (95% UI: 30.2 million-57.2 million) in 1990 and increased by 52.7% to 64.9 million (95% UI: 46.5 million-87.4 million) in 2017. YLDs were also higher in females than males and increased initially with age; they peaked at 35-39 years of age in 1990, before decreasing, whereas in 2017, they peaked at 45-49 years of age, before decreasing. Western Europe had the highest number of LBP YLDs.Globally, LBP is the leading global cause of YLDs. Greater attention is urgently needed to mitigate this increasing burden and the impact it is having on health and social systems.

Jensen R.K., Jensen T.S., Koes B., Hartvigsen J.

To estimate the prevalence of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in adults, identified by clinical symptoms and/or radiological criteria. Systematic review of the literature. Pooled prevalence estimates by care setting and clinical or radiological diagnostic criteria were calculated and plotted [PROSPERO ID: CRD42018109640]. In total, 41 papers reporting on 55 study samples were included. The overall risk of bias was considered high in two-thirds of the papers. The mean prevalence, based on a clinical diagnosis of LSS in the general population, was 11% (95% CI 4–18%), 25% (95% CI 19–32%) in patients from primary care, 29% (95% CI 22–36%) in patients from secondary care and 39% (95% CI 39–39%) in patients from mixed primary and secondary care. Evaluating the presence of LSS based on radiological diagnosis, the pooled prevalence was 11% (95% CI 5–18%) in the asymptomatic population, 38% (95% CI − 10 to 85%) in the general population, 15% (95% CI 13–18%) in patients from primary care, 32% (95% CI 22–41%) in patients from secondary care and 21% (95% CI 16–26%) in a mixed population from primary and secondary care. The mean prevalence estimates based on clinical diagnoses vary between 11 and 39%, and the estimates based on radiological diagnoses similarly vary between 11 and 38%. The results are based on studies with high risk of bias, and the pooled prevalence estimates should therefore be interpreted with caution. With an growing elderly population, there is a need for future low risk-of-bias research clarifying clinical and radiological diagnostic criteria of lumbar spinal stenosis. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Street K.J., White S.G., Vandal A.C.

In rare cases low back pain may be caused by underlying serious pathology such as fracture, malignancy, cauda equina syndrome, or spinal infection. The lack of evidence regarding either the clinical prevalence or population incidence of serious pathologies in the lumbar spine makes it difficult for clinicians to adequately assess a patient's risk of serious pathology.To determine the prevalence of serious pathologies in patients with low back pain who have been referred for a lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by a specialist in a private secondary care or public tertiary care setting. The incidence of these serious pathologies in the geographic region of South Auckland, New Zealand was also investigated.Retrospective, observational cohort study.Consecutive patients referred for lumbar MRI over a 10-month period (1st of October 2013-31st of July 2014).Data from all eligible MRI reports was analyzed and any serious pathologies were identified and recorded. Prevalence (along with 95% confidence intervals) was calculated as a percentage of the study population. Prevalence specific to private secondary care and public tertiary care settings was also calculated and prevalence rate ratios were determined to allow comparison between settings. Incidence in the geographic region of South Auckland, New Zealand, was determined using data collected from participants recruited from the regional public hospital. Population incidence with respect to age, gender, and ethnicity for each target condition was calculated and incidence rate ratios were computed to compare groups.A total of 2,383 participants referred for lumbar MRI scans were included in this study. Prevalence was significantly higher in the public tertiary care setting than in the private secondary care setting for all pathologies investigated in this study. Pathology specific prevalence in secondary care vs tertiary care settings was: malignancy, 0.3%, 4.4% (p

Powell A.C., Rogstad T.L., Elliott S.W., Price S.E., Long J.W., Deshmukh U.U., Murad M.H., Steffen M.W.

Forte M.L., Maiers M.

The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to compare functional limitations and comorbidity prevalence between older adult users and nonusers of chiropractic and osteopathic (DC/DO) manipulation to inform provider training.We conducted a secondary analysis of the 2012 National Health Interview Survey data. Adults age 65 or older who responded to the survey were included. Descriptive statistics are reported for adults who used DC/DO manipulation (vs nonusers) regarding function, comorbidities, musculoskeletal complaints, and medical services. Weighted percentages were derived using SAS and compared with χ2 tests.The DC/DO users were more often female, overweight or obese, and of white race than nonusers. More DC/DO users reported arthritis (55.3% vs 47.0%,

Downie A., Hancock M., Jenkins H., Buchbinder R., Harris I., Underwood M., Goergen S., Maher C.G.

ObjectivesTo (1) estimate the proportion of patients seeking care for low back pain (LBP) who are imaged and (2) explore trends in the proportion of patients who received diagnostic imaging over time. We also examined the effect of study-level factors on estimates of imaging proportion.Data sourcesElectronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases from January 1995 to December 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesObservational designs and controlled trials that reported imaging for patients presenting to primary care or emergency care for LBP. We assessed study quality and calculated pooled proportions by care setting and imaging type, with strength of evidence assessed using the GRADE system.Results45 studies were included. They represented 19 451 749 consultations for LBP that had resulted in 4 343 919 imaging requests/events over 21 years. Primary care: moderate quality evidence that simple imaging proportion was 16.3% (95% CI 12.6% to 21.1%) and complex imaging was 9.2% (95% CI 6.2% to 13.5%). For any imaging, the pooled proportion was 24.8% (95% CI 19.3%to 31.1%). Emergency care: moderate quality evidence that simple imaging proportion was 26.1% (95% CI 18.2% to 35.8%) and high-quality evidence that complex imaging proportion was 8.2% (95% CI 4.4% to 15.6%). For any imaging, the pooled proportion was 35.6% (95% CI 29.8% to 41.8%). Complex imaging increased from 7.4% (95% CI 5.7% to 9.6%) for imaging requested in 1995 to 11.4% (95% CI 9.6% to 13.5%) in 2015 (relative increase of 53.5%). Between-study variability in imaging proportions was only partially explained by study-level characteristics; there were insufficient data to comment on some prespecified study-level factors.Summary/conclusionOne in four patients who presented to primary care with LBP received imaging as did one in three who presented to the emergency department. The rate of complex imaging appears to have increased over 21 years despite guideline advice and education campaigns.Trial registration numberCRD42016041987.

Jenkins H.J., Downie A.S., Moore C.S., French S.D.

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.