0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Special Article | Less Is More| Less Is More

Application of “Less Is More” to Low Back Pain

Shubha V. Srinivas, MD, MPH; Richard A. Deyo, MD, MPH; Zackary D. Berger, MD, PhD
Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(13):1016-1020. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1838.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

An initiative of the National Physicians Alliance, the project titled “Promoting Good Stewardship in Clinical Practice,” developed a list of the top 5 activities in primary care for which changes in practice could lead to higher-quality care and better use of finite clinical resources. One of the top 5 recommendations was “Don't do imaging for low back pain within the first 6 weeks unless red flags are present.” This article presents data that support this recommendation. We selectively reviewed the literature, including recent reviews, guidelines, and commentaries, on the benefits and risks of routine imaging in low back pain. In particular, we searched PubMed for systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in the past 5 years. We also assessed the cost of spine imaging using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. One high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis focused on clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain and found no clinically significant difference in pain or function between those who received immediate lumbar spine imaging vs usual care. Published data also document harms associated with early imaging for low back pain, including patient “labeling,” unneeded follow-up tests for incidental findings, irradiation exposure, unnecessary surgery, and significant cost. Routine imaging should not be pursued in acute low back pain. Not imaging patients with acute low back pain will reduce harms and costs, without affecting clinical outcomes.

Figures in this Article

Sign in

Create a free personal account to sign up for alerts, share articles, and more.

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 1. Improvement in pain (A) and function (B) among patients with low back pain who received immediate lumbar imaging (intervention) vs usual care (control). Adapted from Chou et al7 with permission from the publisher. CT indicates computed tomography; MR, magnetic resonance; RDQ, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire; SF-36, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey; VAS, visual analog scale.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 2. Estimation of patients receiving routine imaging for low back pain in 1 year.

Tables

References

Correspondence

CME


You need to register in order to view this quiz.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 13

Sign in

Create a free personal account to sign up for alerts, share articles, and more.

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
JAMAevidence.com
brightcove.createExperiences();