Prevalence of and screening for serious spinal pathology in patients presenting to primary care settings with acute low back pain. Evaluating the accuracy of a simple heuristic to identify serious causes of low back pain. Lumbar spine films in primary care: current use and effects of selective ordering criteria. Spinal palpation: The challenges of information retrieval using available databases. Rapid diagnostic tests for the home-based management of malaria, in a high-transmission area. Surveillance of Aspergillus galactomannan antigenemia for invasive aspergillosis by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in neutropenic patients treated for hematological malignancies. Cancer as a cause of back pain: frequency, clinical presentation, and diagnostic strategies. The role of radiography in primary care patients with low back pain of at least 6 weeks duration: a randomised (unblinded) controlled trial.
To determine the prevalence of serious pathology in patients presenting to primary care settings with acute low back pain, and to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of recommended "red flag" screening questions.
                An inception cohort of 1,172 consecutive patients receiving primary care for acute low back pain was recruited from primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. At the initial consultation, clinicians recorded responses to 25 red flag questions and then provided an initial diagnosis. The reference standard was a 12-month followup supplemented with a specialist review of a random subsample of participants.
                There were 11 cases (0.9%) of serious pathology, including 8 cases of fracture. Despite the low prevalence of serious pathology, most patients (80.4%) had at least 1 red flag (median 2, interquartile range 1-3). Only 3 of the red flags for fracture recommended for use in clinical guidelines were informative: prolonged use of corticosteroids, age >70 years, and significant trauma. Clinicians identified 5 of the 11 cases of serious pathology at the initial consultation and made 6 false-positive diagnoses. The status of a diagnostic prediction rule containing 4 features (female sex, age >70 years, significant trauma, and prolonged use of corticosteroids) was moderately associated with the presence of fracture (the area under the curve for the rule score was 0.834 [95% confidence interval 0.654-1.014]; P = 0.001).
                In patients presenting to a primary care provider with back pain, previously undiagnosed serious pathology is rare. The most common serious pathology observed was vertebral fracture. Approximately half of the cases of serious pathology were identified at the initial consultation. Some red flags have very high false-positive rates, indicating that, when used in isolation, they have little diagnostic value in the primary care setting. Among patients presenting with low back pain (LBP), GPs have to identify those with serious, treatable conditions. However, excluding these conditions in every patient with LPB is time consuming and of low yield. We have suggested that identifying those patients where these serious conditions need to be considered can be made more efficient through asking patient if they feel their LBP is new or unfamiliar in some way.
                To evaluate the diagnostic validity of a simple heuristic based on the patient's view of the familiarity of LBP.
                Cross-sectional diagnostic study with delayed-type reference standard, nested within a three-arm randomized trial of quality improvement for LBP. A total of 1378 patients presenting, with LBP, to one of 126 participating GPs were included. They were asked whether their LBP was familiar or not (index test). At 1 year, patients were interviewed with regard to relevant conditions that in hindsight might explain their LBP. Reviewers deciding on disease status (reference standard) were blinded to the results of the index test.
                Totally 1190 patients answered the index test question and were available for interview at 1 year. Only four of these had a serious cause of their LBP. Two of these were identified by the familiarity heuristic, resulting in low sensitivity.
                The number of diseased patients was too small to obtain a reliable estimate of sensitivity. Low prevalence of serious disease in primary care poses difficulties for diagnostic research. In hindsight we would question whether an RCT-setting emphasizing non-specific LBP is suitable for this kind of research. At present, the familiarity heuristic cannot be recommended for patients presenting with LBP. Low back pain (LBP) often prompts radiography, although the diagnostic yield of lumbar spine films is low, and many radiographic abnormalities are unrelated to symptoms. Criteria have been proposed for selective x-ray use, but their value and safety are uncertain. To evaluate these criteria, the authors prospectively studied 621 walk-in patients with LBP. The yield of explanatory x-ray findings was over three times greater among patients with indications for radiography than among those without. Furthermore, an indication for x-rays existed for all patients found to have a malignancy, and for 13 of 14 patients with an identified fracture. Actual physician ordering, however, did not correspond well with the recommended indications. Application of selective criteria appears safe and may improve the yield of useful findings. It may not, however, reduce x-ray utilization from current levels without further refinement in the criteria. This study addressed 2 questions: first, what is the yield of PubMed MEDLINE for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) studies compared to other databases; second, what is an effective search strategy to answer a sample research question on spinal palpation?
                We formulated the following research question: "What is the reliability of spinal palpation procedures?" We identified specific Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and key terms as used in osteopathic medicine, allopathic medicine, chiropractic, and physical therapy. Using PubMed, we formulated an initial search template and applied it to 12 additional selected databases. Subsequently, we applied the inclusion criteria and evaluated the yield in terms of precision and sensitivity in identifying relevant studies.
                The online search result of the 13 databases identified 1189 citations potentially addressing the research question. After excluding overlapping and nonpertinent citations and those not meeting the inclusion criteria, 49 citations remained. PubMed yielded 19, while MANTIS (Manual Alternative and Natural Therapy Index System), a manual therapy database, yielded 35 citations. Twenty-six of the 49 online citations were repeatedly indexed in 3 or more databases. Content experts and selective manual searches identified 11 additional studies. In all, we identified 60 studies that addressed the research question. The cost of the databases used for conducting this search ranged from free-of-charge to $43,000 per year for a single network subscription.
                Commonly used databases often do not provide accurate indexing or coverage of CAM publications. Subject-specific specialized databases are recommended. Access, cost, and ease of using specialized databases are limiting factors. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) are sometimes recommended to improve the home-based management of malaria. The accuracy of an RDT for the detection of clinical malaria and the presence of malarial parasites has recently been evaluated in a high-transmission area of southern Mali. During the same study, the cost-effectiveness of a 'test-and-treat' strategy for the home-based management of malaria (based on an artemisinin-combination therapy) was compared with that of a 'treat-all' strategy. Overall, 301 patients, of all ages, each of whom had been considered a presumptive case of uncomplicated malaria by a village healthworker, were checked with a commercial RDT (Paracheck-Pf). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of this test, compared with the results of microscopy and two different definitions of clinical malaria, were then determined. The RDT was found to be 82.9% sensitive (with a 95% confidence interval of 78.0%-87.1%) and 78.9% (63.9%-89.7%) specific compared with the detection of parasites by microscopy. In the detection of clinical malaria, it was 95.2% (91.3%-97.6%) sensitive and 57.4% (48.2%-66.2%) specific compared with a general practitioner's diagnosis of the disease, and 100.0% (94.5%-100.0%) sensitive but only 30.2% (24.8%-36.2%) specific when compared against the fulfillment of the World Health Organization's (2003) research criteria for uncomplicated malaria. Among children aged 0-5 years, the cost of the 'test-and-treat' strategy, per episode, was about twice that of the 'treat-all' (U.S.$1.0. v. U.S.$0.5). In older subjects, however, the two strategies were equally costly (approximately U.S.$2/episode). In conclusion, for children aged 0-5 years in a high-transmission area of sub-Saharan Africa, use of the RDT was not cost-effective compared with the presumptive treatment of malaria with an ACT. In older patients, use of the RDT did not reduce costs. The question remains whether either of the strategies investigated can be made affordable for the affected population. The incidence of invasive fungal infections is increasing in patients with hematological malignancies. Invasive aspergillosis is one of the most frequently encountered infections with a high mortality rate. New diagnostic tests for invasive aspergillosis such as the detection of Aspergillus galactomannan antigen by a sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) have recently been described. The objective of this study was to evaluate this assay as a potential surrogate for invasive procedures used to diagnose IA.
                We analyzed the performance of a commercially available ELISA test which we routinely use for the surveillance of galactomannan antigenemia in patients with hematological malignancies experiencing chemotherapy-induced prolonged neutropenia (ANC < 500/mm(3) for more than 7 days). Serum samples were collected on a weekly basis. Test positivity was defined in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
                Over the 2 year study period, we analyzed 507 samples obtained during 193 neutropenic episodes from 135 patients. Ten, six and two patients were considered to have proven, probable or possible invasive aspergillosis, respectively, based on clinical, radiological or microbiological data. Forty-four positive (Index>1.5) and 26 'undetermined' (1.5 > Index > 1.0) test results were observed in 17 and ten patients respectively. All invasive aspergillosis cases had at least a positive or an undetermined test result. Only one positive and one undetermined result were found in two patients before the onset of clinical or radiological signs suggesting invasive aspergillosis. Sensitivity was 69% and specificity 96% if only positive results are considered; when 'undetermined' test results were combined with positive results, sensitivity attained 100% and specificity 92% suggesting that the cutoff value for positivity can be lowered from 1.5 to 1.0.
                Although the ELISA test did not appear to play a role in the early diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis and in the anticipation of antifungal therapy in our experience, it clarifies the diagnosis of infection in probable or possible invasive aspergillosis especially when the cutoff value is lowered and is useful for monitoring patients receiving specific therapy. Back pain is very common. Rarely, it may be the first manifestation of cancer. Although many advocate selective use of laboratory and x-ray tests for back pain patients, the early detection of cancer may be an important reason to obtain such tests. To develop a diagnostic approach that would identify malignancies while remaining parsimonious, the authors evaluated 1,975 walk-in patients with a chief complaint of back pain. Thirteen patients (0.66%) proved to have underlying cancer. Findings significantly associated with underlying cancer (p less than 0.05) were: age greater than or equal to 50 years, previous history of cancer, duration of pain greater than 1 month, failure to improve with conservative therapy, elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and anemia. Combining historical features and ESR results led to an algorithm that would have limited x-ray utilization to just 22% of subjects while recommending an x-ray for every cancer patient. It would further suggest which patients with negative x-ray findings require further work-up. To test the hypotheses that: (1) Lumbar spine radiography in primary care patients with low back pain is not associated with improved patient outcomes, including pain, disability, health status, sickness absence, reassurance, and patient satisfaction or belief in the value of radiography. (2) Lumbar spine radiography in primary care patients with low back pain is not associated with changes in patient management, including medication use, and the use of primary and secondary care services, physical therapies and complementary therapies. (3) Participants choosing their treatment group (i.e. radiography or no radiography) do not have better outcomes than those randomised to a treatment group. (4) Lumbar spine radiography is not cost-effective compared with usual care without lumbar spine radiography.
                A randomised unblinded controlled trial.
                Seventy-three general practices in Nottingham, North Nottinghamshire, Southern Derbyshire, North Lincolnshire and North Leicestershire. Fifty-two practices recruited participants to the trial.
                Randomised arm: 421 participants with low back pain, with median duration of 10 weeks. Patient preference arm: 55 participants with low back pain, with median duration of 11 weeks.
                Lumbar spine radiography and usual care versus usual care without radiography.
                Roland adaptation of the Sickness Impact Profile, visual analogue pain scale, health status scale, EuroQol, use of primary and secondary care services, and physical and complementary therapies, sickness absence, medication use, patient satisfaction, reassurance and belief in value of radiography at 3 and 9 months post-randomisation.
                Participants randomised to receive an X-ray were more likely to report low back pain at 3 months (odds ratio (OR) = 1.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02 to 2.40) and had a lower overall health status score (p = 0.02). There were no differences in health or functional status at 9 months. A higher proportion of participants consulted the general practitioner (GP) in the 3 months following an X-ray (OR = 2.72; 95% CI, 1.80 to 4.10). There were no differences in use of any other services, medication use or sickness absence at 3 or 9 months. No serious spinal pathology was identified in either group. The commonest X-ray reports were of discovertebral degeneration and normal findings. Many patients did not perceive their information needs were met within the consultation. Satisfaction with care was greater in the group receiving radiography at 9 months. Participants randomised to receive an X-ray were not less worried, or more reassured about serious disease causing their low back pain. Satisfaction was associated with meeting participants' information needs and reduced belief in the necessity for investigations for low back pain, including X-rays and blood tests. In both groups, at 3 and 9 months 80% of participants would choose to have an X-ray if the choice was available. Participants in the patient preference group achieved marginally better outcomes than those randomised to a treatment group, but the clinical significance of these differences is unclear. Lumbar spine radiography was associated with a net economic loss at 3 and 9 months.
                Lumbar spine radiography in primary care patients with low back pain of at least 6 weeks duration is not associated with improved functioning, severity of pain or overall health status, and is associated with an increase in GP workload. Participants receiving X-rays are more satisfied with their care, but are not less worried or more reassured about serious disease causing their low back pain. CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Further work is required to develop and test an educational package that educates patients and GPs about the utility of radiography and provides strategies for identifying and meeting the information needs of patients, and the needs of patients and GPs to be reassured about missing serious disease. Guidelines on the management of low back pain in primary care should be consistent about not recommending lumbar spine radiography in patients with low back pain in the absence of red flags for serious spinal pathology, even if the pain has persisted for at least 6 weeks.
For most "red flags," there is insufficient evidence to provide recommendations regarding their diagnostic accuracy or usefulness for detecting spinal malignancy. The available evidence indicates that in patients with LBP, an indication of spinal malignancy should not be based on the results of one single "red flag" question. Further research to evaluate the performance of different combinations of tests is recommended.