HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Underwood, M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Underwood, M.

Rapid magnetic resonance of the lumbar spine was not better than radiographs for evaluating low back pain

Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care Rheumatology

Key Words: low back pain • magnetic resonance imaging • radiography

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

METHODS
Design: randomised controlled trial with 12 months of follow up.

Allocation: concealed.^*

Blinding: blinded (outcome assessors.)^*

Follow up period: 12 months.

Setting: 4 imaging centres in Western Washington State, USA.

Patients: 380 patients >18 years of age (mean age 53 y, 56% women) who had LBP with or without radiating leg pain referred for radiographs of their lumbar spine. Exclusion criteria included lumbar surgery within 1 year before enrolment, history of acute external trauma, metallic implants in the lumbar spine, any contraindications for MRI, lack of a telephone, pregnancy, and inability to speak English.

Intervention: 190 patients each were allocated to lumbar spine evaluation by MRI or LSR.

Outcomes: back related disability (0–23 point modified Roland questionnaire with higher scores indicating worse function) measured at 3, 6, and 12 months of follow up; patient reassurance; and costs (2001 US dollars).

Patient follow up: 89%.

MAIN RESULTS
At 12 months, the groups did . . . [Full text of this article]

Martin Underwood

Institute of Community Health Sciences, Bart’s and The London
London, United Kingdom