TY - JOUR T1 - Rapid magnetic resonance of the lumbar spine was not better than radiographs for evaluating low back pain JF - Evidence Based Medicine JO - Evid Based Med SP - 19 LP - 19 DO - 10.1136/ebm.9.1.19 VL - 9 IS - 1 A2 - , Y1 - 2004/01/01 UR - http://ebm.bmj.com/content/9/1/19.abstract N2 - Jarvik JG, Hollingworth W, Martin B, et al. Rapid magnetic resonance imaging vs radiographs for patients with low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003;289:2810–8.OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science 
 
 Q In patients with low back pain (LBP), are there clinical or economic consequences when replacing lumbar spine radiography (LSR) with rapid magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★☆☆ Rheumatology ★★★★★☆☆ 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 … ER -