Reliability of reporting differences in degenerative MRI findings of the lumbar spine from the supine to the upright position.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the inter-rater reliability of identifying differences and types of differences in lumbar degenerative findings comparing supine and upright MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-nine participants, low back pain patients (LBP) with or without leg pain and no-LBP individuals were consecutively enrolled to receive supine and upright MRI of the lumbar spine. Three raters independently evaluated the MRIs for degenerative spinal pathologies and compared for differences. Presence/absence of degenerative findings were recorded for all supine and upright images, and then differences from the supine to the upright positions were classified into no-change, appeared, disappeared, worsened, or improved at each individual disc level. Reliability and agreement were calculated using Gwet's agreement coefficients (AC1 or AC2) and absolute agreement. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability of evaluating differences in eight degenerative lumbar findings comparing the supine and upright MRI position, ranged from 0.929 to 0.996 according to Gwet's agreement coefficients (AC2). The total number of positive MRI findings in the supine position ranged from 270 to 453, with an average of 366 per rater. Observed differences from supine to upright MRI ranged from 18 to 80, with an average of 56 per rater. CONCLUSION: Inter-rater reliability was found overall acceptable for classification of differences in eight types of degenerative pathology observed with supine and upright MRI of the lumbar spine. Results were primarily driven by high numbers and high reliability of rating negative findings, whereas agreement regarding positive findings and positive positional differences was lower.

Towards the diagnosis of osteoporosis - contributions from coincidental diagnostic imaging findings in chiropractors' practice.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is significantly associated with fractures and burdens the health of especially older people. Osteoporotic fractures cause pain, disability, and increased mortality. Early diagnosis of osteoporosis allows earlier initiation of treatment, thereby reducing the risk of osteoporotic fractures. Chiropractors encounter potential osteoporotic patients daily, and perform radiological evaluation of these and other patients, including evaluation of X-rays done for other purposes than osteoporosis. Therefore, chiropractors may identify vertebral fractures, vertebral deformity or osteopenia not otherwise suspected or recorded. METHODS: This study examines procedures available to the chiropractor to describe conventional X-rays with the focus of osteoporosis related findings. We review the indications for radiological examination in chiropractic practice, and in the realm of osteoporosis we describe radiological methods available for examination of conventional radiographs, and the necessity of inter-disciplinary communication. RESULTS: National guidelines are available regarding referral for X-rays in chiropractic practice. Standardized protocols ensure image acquisition of the highest quality in the chiropractors' radiological department. Conventional X-ray examination is not indicated on clinical suspicion of osteoporosis alone, as bone mineral density testing is the diagnostic test. Radiological assessment of all available X-rays of patients above the age of 50 years should include evaluation of the bone quality, and hip and vertebral fracture assessment. The Singh index, Genant Semi-Quantitative tool (GSQ), and Algorithm-Based Qualitative method (ABQ) should be used consistently during interpretation. Referral for additional imaging and evaluation should be prompt and systematic when needed. CONCLUSIONS: This article presents an overview of evidence-based radiological procedures for the purpose of promoting early diagnosis of osteoporosis. We present recommendations to the clinicians where we propose an opportunistic evaluation of X-rays, done for any reason, which include systematic evaluation of bone quality, presence of hip and vertebral fractures, and vertebral deformation of all patients above the age of 50 years. Detailed referral to healthcare professionals for further diagnostic evaluation is performed when needed. Consistent, high-quality radiological procedures in chiropractic practices could feasibly contribute to the timely diagnosis of osteoporosis, ultimately minimizing the impact of osteoporosis-related complications on patients' health.

Patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care who want diagnostic imaging are more likely to receive referral for imaging: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if the use of imaging for low back pain (LBP) is impacted by patient beliefs. This study aimed to: (1) describe beliefs about the importance of imaging and whether patients wanted imaging when presenting for chiropractic care for LBP; (2) describe associations between baseline patient characteristics and imaging beliefs and whether patients wanted imaging; and (3) determine whether patients who believed imaging to be important in the management of LBP, or who wanted to receive imaging, were more likely to receive an imaging referral. METHODS: Cross-sectional observational data was collected between November 2016 to December 2019 from 10 primary care chiropractic clinics in Denmark. Consecutive patients aged 18 or older and presenting with a new episode of LBP were included (N = 2818). Beliefs about the importance of imaging (two questions) and whether imaging was wanted (one question) were collected at the initial visit, together with baseline participant characteristics and whether an imaging referral was provided. Associations between imaging beliefs/desire to receive imaging and participant characteristics were explored using multivariable logistic regression analysis. The relationships between imaging beliefs and desire to receive imaging with subsequent imaging referral were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for pre-selected confounder variables. RESULTS: Approximately one third of participants believed imaging to be important for the management of LBP (29.5% (95%CI 27.8, 31.3) or 41.5% (95%CI 39.6, 43.3) depending on the two imaging beliefs questions). Approximately one quarter (26.1%, 95%CI 24.5, 27.7) of participants wanted to receive an imaging referral. Participants were more likely to believe in the importance of imaging or want an imaging referral if they had a longer duration of LBP, history of previous imaging for LBP, or a lower completed education level. Participants who wanted imaging at the initial consult were more likely to receive an imaging referral (Odds ratio; 95%CI 1.6; 1.2, 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one third of patients presenting for chiropractic care in Denmark believed imaging to be important in the management of LBP. One quarter wanted imaging at the initial consult. Patients' desire for imaging appeared to impact the use of diagnostic imaging.

Effects of weekly pain monitoring on back pain outcomes: a non-randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Disease monitoring is an important element of self-management of several chronic diseases. Pain monitoring has become very easily available, but the role in musculoskeletal pain conditions is not clear. Awareness of pain might be helpful for people to understand pain, but focusing on pain may on the contrary negatively affect pain experience and behaviours. The objective of this study was to investigate the potential impact of pain monitoring on low back pain (LBP), specifically to determine if pain intensity, activity limitation and pain control, differed between patients with weekly pain monitoring over 12 months and patients with follow-ups at 2 weeks, 3 months and 12 months. METHODS: This was a non-randomised controlled study embedded in a cohort study with data collection November 1st 2016 to December 21st 2018. Adults seeking care for LBP were enrolled at the first visit to a chiropractor and followed with surveys after 2 weeks, 3 months and 12 months. Those enrolled first, n = 1,623, furthermore received weekly SMS-questions about pain frequency and pain intensity, whereas those enrolled next was the control group, n = 1,269 followed only by surveys. Outcomes at 12-months were compared, adjusting for group differences on baseline parameters. RESULTS: LBP intensity (0-10) was slightly lower at 12-months follow-up in the SMS group than the control group (adjusted beta - 0.40 (95% CI: - 0.62; - 0.19)). No relevant between-group differences were observed for activity limitation (0-100) (1.51 (95% CI: - 0.83; 3.85)) or ability to control pain (0-10) (- 0.08 (95% CI - 0.31; 0.15)). CONCLUSIONS: Frequent pain monitoring did not demonstrate any negative effects of weekly pain monitoring, and it was perhaps even helpful. The role of self-monitoring as part of self-managing LBP should be explored further including optimal frequencies, formats, and methods for feedback. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was not registered as a clinical trial.

European guidelines on radiographic image quality in chiropractic practice - proposal of a cross-sectional graded classification reporting principle.

BACKGROUND: The Commission of the European Communities (CEC) has published: European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images. These guidelines are considered a gold standard, recommended for use in quality assurance protocols. The objectives of this study: 1) Propose a graded classification format for Danish chiropractic clinics according to the CEC-quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images of the lumbar spine. 2) Propose a reporting principle for quality of radiographic images. 3) Document variation in radiation exposure among clinics. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of image quality based on random sampling from 148 chiropractic clinics. Clinics were included if using: 1) Digital radiography and 2) The chiropractic picture and archiving system (KirPACS) at the Nordic Institute of Chiropractic and Clinical Biomechanics (NIKKB) in Denmark. A sample of 296 lumbar spine series were randomly collected from KirPACS (January 2018). Two independent observers reviewed 50 lumbar spine series twice with a 4-week interval, testing intra- and inter-observer reproducibility. The same observers then reviewed the remaining 246 radiographic studies. All studies were evaluated using the CEC Quality Criteria. Patient radiation dose values were retrieved from KirPACS (First quarter of 2020). RESULTS: A reporting and classification principle of diagnostic image quality was used in 148 chiropractic clinics. Compliance with the 22 CEC Quality Criteria had proportions ranging from 0.72-0.96 for 18 criteria, while 4 criteria specifying detail and definition ranged between 0.20-0.66. The proposed rating system (A to E) revealed: 18 A clinics, 28 B clinics, 32 C clinics, 25 D clinics and 45 E clinics (A = highest quality; E = lowest quality). The patient radiation reference dose in Denmark is 7 mGy for the AP/PA lumbar spine. Very few clinics exceed the reference dose value, approximately 50% of clinics were below 5 mGy. CONCLUSION: A reporting principle is proposed for a graded classification format based on the CEC-quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images of the lumbar spine. The Quality Criteria are for the most part met satisfactorily in 148 Danish chiropractic clinics, but important image details are compromised, in most cases, because of low patient radiation doses. The results of a patient radiation dose survey enabled documentation of variation in radiation exposure among chiropractic clinics.

What are the effects of diagnostic imaging on clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care: a matched observational study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that diagnostic imaging for low back pain does not improve care in the absence of suspicion of serious pathology. However, the effect of imaging use on clinical outcomes has not been investigated in patients presenting to chiropractors. The aim of this study was to determine if diagnostic imaging affects clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care. METHODS: A matched observational study using prospective longitudinal observational data with one year follow up was performed in primary care chiropractic clinics in Denmark. Data was collected from November 2016 to December 2019. Participants included low back pain patients presenting for chiropractic care, who were either referred or not referred for diagnostic imaging during their initial visit. Patients were excluded if they were less than 18 years old, had a diagnosis of underlying pathology, or had previous imaging relevant to their current clinical presentation. Coarsened exact matching was used to match participants referred for diagnostic imaging with participants not referred for diagnostic imaging on baseline variables including participant demographics, pain characteristics, and clinical history. Mixed linear and logistic regression models were used to assess the effect of imaging on back pain intensity and disability at two-weeks, three-months, and one-year, and on global perceived effect and satisfaction with care at two-weeks. RESULTS: 2162 patients were included, with 24.1% referred for imaging. Near perfect balance between matched groups was achieved for baseline variables except age and leg pain. Participants referred for imaging had slightly higher back pain intensity at two-weeks (0.4, 95%CI: 0.1, 0.8) and one-year (0.4, 95%CI: 0.0, 0.7), and disability at two-weeks (5.7, 95%CI: 1.4, 10.0), but the changes are unlikely to be clinically meaningful. No difference between groups was found for the other outcome measures. Similar results were found when sensitivity analysis, adjusted for age and leg pain intensity, was performed. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic imaging did not result in better clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care. These results support that current guideline recommendations against routine imaging apply equally to chiropractic practice.

The Danish Chiropractic Low Back Pain Cohort (ChiCo): Description and Summary of an Available Data Source for Research Collaborations.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is among the most frequent reasons for care seeking globally. Observational clinical cohorts are useful for understanding why people seek care, the content of that care, and factors related to prognosis. This paper describes the Danish Chiropractic low back pain Cohort (ChiCo) and summarizes the primary characteristics of the population to inform the scientific community of the availability of these data as a resource for collaborative research projects. METHODS: Adults seeking chiropractic care for a new episode of non-specific back pain were enrolled at the initial visit and followed up after 2, 13, and 52 weeks, with a subpopulation having weekly follow-ups for 1 year. Patient-reported and clinical-reported data were collected in an electronic database using the REDCap software (REDCap Consortium, projectredcap.org). Variables were chosen to measure pre-defined research domains and questions and to capture information across health constructs deemed relevant for additional research. Non-responders at 13 and 52 weeks were contacted by phone to maximize follow-up data and explore differences on core outcomes between responders and non-responders. RESULTS: A total of 2848 patients (mean age 45 years, 59% men) were included from 10 clinics with 71%, 68% and 64% responding to follow-ups at 2, 13 and 52 weeks, respectively. Most participants (82%) were employed, nearly half reported current LBP for 1-7 days, and 83% had experienced LBP episodes previously. We did not identify indications of serious attrition bias. CONCLUSION: We have described the aims and procedures for establishing the ChiCo cohort, characteristics of the cohort, and available information about attrition bias. These data have the potential to be linked, at an individual participant level, to the extensive Danish population-based registries that measure diverse health and social characteristics.

Degenerative findings in lumbar spine MRI: an inter-rater reliability study involving three raters.

BACKGROUND: For diagnostic procedures to be clinically useful, they must be reliable. The interpretation of lumbar spine MRI scans is subject to variability and there is a lack of studies where reliability of multiple degenerative pathologies are rated simultaneously. The objective of our study was to determine the inter-rater reliability of three independent raters evaluating degenerative pathologies seen with lumbar spine MRI. METHODS: Fifty-nine people, 35 patients with low back pain (LBP) or LBP and leg pain and 24 people without LBP or leg pain, received an MRI of the lumbar spine. Three raters (one radiologist and two chiropractors) evaluated the MRIs for the presence and severity of eight degenerative spinal pathologies using a standardized format: Spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, annular fissure, disc degeneration, disc contour, nerve root compromise, spinal stenosis and facet joint degeneration. Findings were identified and classified at disc level according to type and severity. Raters were instructed to evaluate all study sample persons once to assess inter-rater reliability (fully crossed design). Reliability was calculated using Gwet's Agreement Coefficients (AC1 and AC2) and Cohen's Kappa (κ) and Conger's extension of Cohen's. Gwet's probabilistic benchmarking method to the Landis and Koch scale was used. MRI-findings achieving substantial reliability was considered acceptable. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability for all raters combined, ranged from (Gwet's AC1 or AC2): 0.64-0.99 and according to probabilistic benchmarking to the Landis and Koch scale equivalent to moderate to almost perfect reliability. Overall reliability level for individual pathologies was almost perfect reliability for spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, scoliosis and annular fissure, substantial for nerve root compromise and disc degeneration, and moderate for facet joint degeneration and disc contour. CONCLUSION: Inter-rater reliability for 3 raters, evaluating 177 disc levels, was found to be overall acceptable for 6 out of 8 degenerative MRI-findings in the lumbar spine. Ratings of facet joint degeneration and disc contour achieved moderate reliability and was considered unacceptable.

European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images of the lumbar spine - an intra- and inter-observer reproducibility study.

Background: The Commission of the European Communities has published guidelines to be used as a gold standard for quality assessment of diagnostic radiographic images. Image quality and radiation dose must be monitored and optimally balanced for diagnostic purposes on patients. The objective of the current study was to assess intra- and inter-observer reproducibility in less experienced observers using the proposed European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images in a quality assessment of lumbar spine radiographs in primary chiropractic practice in Denmark. Methods: Two observers initially evaluated lumbar spine radiographs randomly selected from fifty chiropractic clinics, all connected to the national PACS server (KirPACS) in Denmark. All evaluations were performed twice by both observers using a four-week interval and for compliance with the European Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images. Inter- and intra-observer reproducibility was calculated using kappa statistics. In the interpretation of the kappa coefficient, the standards for strength of agreement reported by Landis and Koch were followed. Results: The strength of the inter-observer agreement of general image quality at baseline ranged from moderate agreement (k = 0.47) to substantial agreement (k = 0.68). After four weeks, the inter-observer agreement still ranged from moderate agreement (k = 0.59) to substantial agreement (k = 0.71), but with increased agreement for both kappa coefficients. In relation to intra-observer agreement of general image quality, the strength for observer A ranged from moderate (k = 0.58) to substantial (k = 0.72) and the strength for observer B overall was substantial (k = 0.63-0.75). Conclusion: The European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images are considered a gold-standard and used in a method for quality assurance within the Danish chiropractic profession. The inter-rater and intra-rater agreements in this study, using the CEC-criteria, were found mostly acceptable. With appropriate attention to clear understanding of the individual criteria and sufficient training, this method is found to be reliable, even using less experienced observers, to carry out Diagnostic Radiographic Image Quality-assurance in primary care settings.