Factors influencing imaging clinical decision-making in low back pain management. A scoping review.

IF 1.5 Q3 RHEUMATOLOGY
Luke Tanner, Nicola L Saywell, Thomas Adams, Imran Khan Niazi, Julia Hill
{"title":"Factors influencing imaging clinical decision-making in low back pain management. A scoping review.","authors":"Luke Tanner, Nicola L Saywell, Thomas Adams, Imran Khan Niazi, Julia Hill","doi":"10.1002/msc.1898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of diagnostic imaging in low back pain (LBP) management is often inappropriate, despite recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. There is a limited understanding of factors that influence the imaging clinical decision-making (CDM) process.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>Explore the literature on factors influencing imaging CDM for people with LBP and consider how these findings could be used to reduce inappropriate use of imaging in LBP management.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Scoping review.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review extension for scoping reviews. A digital search was conducted in Medline, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for eligible studies published between January 2010-2023. Data reporting influences on imaging CDM were extracted. Data were then analysed through an inductive process to group the influencing factors into categories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After screening, 35 studies (5 qualitative and 30 quantitative) were included in the review, which reported factors influencing imaging CDM. Three categories were developed: clinical features (such as red flags, pain, and neurological deficit), non-modifiable factors (such as age, sex, and ethnicity) and modifiable factors (such as beliefs about consequences and clinical practice). Most studies reported non-modifiable factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of this scoping review challenge the perception that imaging CDM is purely based on clinical history and objective findings. There is a complex interplay between clinical features, patient and clinician characteristics, beliefs, and environment. These findings should be considered when designing strategies to address inappropriate imaging behaviour.</p>","PeriodicalId":46945,"journal":{"name":"Musculoskeletal Care","volume":"22 2","pages":"e1898"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Musculoskeletal Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.1898","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The use of diagnostic imaging in low back pain (LBP) management is often inappropriate, despite recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. There is a limited understanding of factors that influence the imaging clinical decision-making (CDM) process.

Aim: Explore the literature on factors influencing imaging CDM for people with LBP and consider how these findings could be used to reduce inappropriate use of imaging in LBP management.

Design: Scoping review.

Method: This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review extension for scoping reviews. A digital search was conducted in Medline, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for eligible studies published between January 2010-2023. Data reporting influences on imaging CDM were extracted. Data were then analysed through an inductive process to group the influencing factors into categories.

Results: After screening, 35 studies (5 qualitative and 30 quantitative) were included in the review, which reported factors influencing imaging CDM. Three categories were developed: clinical features (such as red flags, pain, and neurological deficit), non-modifiable factors (such as age, sex, and ethnicity) and modifiable factors (such as beliefs about consequences and clinical practice). Most studies reported non-modifiable factors.

Conclusions: The results of this scoping review challenge the perception that imaging CDM is purely based on clinical history and objective findings. There is a complex interplay between clinical features, patient and clinician characteristics, beliefs, and environment. These findings should be considered when designing strategies to address inappropriate imaging behaviour.

影响腰背痛治疗中影像学临床决策的因素。范围综述。
背景:尽管临床实践指南提出了建议,但在腰背痛(LBP)治疗中使用影像诊断往往是不恰当的。目的:探讨有关影响腰背痛患者影像学临床决策(CDM)的因素的文献,并考虑如何利用这些发现来减少在腰背痛治疗中影像学的不当使用:设计:范围界定综述:本综述遵循了范围界定综述的 "系统综述首选报告项目"。在 Medline、《护理与相关健康文献累积索引》、Scopus 和 Cochrane 对照试验中央登记册中进行了数字检索,以查找 2010 年 1 月至 2023 年间发表的符合条件的研究。提取了报告成像 CDM 影响的数据。然后通过归纳法对数据进行分析,将影响因素分门别类:经过筛选,35 项研究(5 项定性研究和 30 项定量研究)被纳入综述,这些研究报告了成像 CDM 的影响因素。共分为三类:临床特征(如红色信号、疼痛和神经功能缺损)、不可改变因素(如年龄、性别和种族)和可改变因素(如对后果和临床实践的看法)。大多数研究报告了不可改变的因素:本次范围界定审查的结果对影像 CDM 纯粹基于临床病史和客观结果的观点提出了质疑。临床特征、患者和临床医生的特点、信念和环境之间存在着复杂的相互作用。在设计应对不当成像行为的策略时,应考虑这些研究结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Musculoskeletal Care
Musculoskeletal Care RHEUMATOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
88
期刊介绍: Musculoskeletal Care is a peer-reviewed journal for all health professionals committed to the clinical delivery of high quality care for people with musculoskeletal conditions and providing knowledge to support decision making by professionals, patients and policy makers. This journal publishes papers on original research, applied research, review articles and clinical guidelines. Regular topics include patient education, psychological and social impact, patient experiences of health care, clinical up dates and the effectiveness of therapy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信