Factors Affecting Post-trial Sustainment or De-implementation of Study Interventions: A Narrative Review.

In contrast to traditional randomized controlled trials, embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) are conducted within healthcare settings with real-world patient populations. ePCTs are intentionally designed to align with health system priorities leveraging existing healthcare system infrastructure and resources to ease intervention implementation and increase the likelihood that effective interventions translate into routine practice following the trial. The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), supports the conduct of large-scale ePCT Demonstration Projects that address major public health issues within healthcare systems. The Collaboratory has a unique opportunity to draw on the Demonstration Project experiences to generate lessons learned related to ePCTs and the dissemination and implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs. In this article, we use case studies from six completed Demonstration Projects to summarize the Collaboratory's experience with post-trial interpretation of results, and implications for sustainment (or de-implementation) of tested interventions. We highlight three key lessons learned. First, ineffective interventions (i.e., ePCT is null for the primary outcome) may be sustained if they have other measured benefits (e.g., secondary outcome or subgroup) or even perceived benefits (e.g., staff like the intervention). Second, effective interventions-even those solicited by the health system and/or designed with significant health system partner buy-in-may not be sustained if they require significant resources. Third, alignment with policy incentives is essential for achieving sustainment and scale-up of effective interventions. Our experiences point to several recommendations to aid in considering post-trial sustainment or de-implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs: (1) include secondary outcome measures that are salient to health system partners; (2) collect all appropriate data to allow for post hoc analysis of subgroups; (3) collect experience data from clinicians and staff; (4) engage policy-makers before starting the trial.

Mortality among older adults with osteoporotic vertebral fracture.

We evaluated whether older adults who received kyphoplasty had reduced risk of mortality compared to those who did not. In unmatched analyses, those receiving kyphoplasty were at reduced risk of death but after matching on age and medical complications, patients who received kyphoplasty were at increased risk of death. PURPOSE: In previous observational studies, kyphoplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures has been associated with decreased mortality compared to conservative management. The purpose of this research was to determine whether older adults who received kyphoplasty had reduced risk of mortality compared to matched patients who did not. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of US Medicare enrollees with osteoporotic vertebral fractures between 2017-2019 comparing patients who underwent kyphoplasty to those who did not. We identified 2 control groups a priori: 1) non-augmented patients who met inclusion criteria (group 1); 2) propensity-matched patients on demographic and clinical variables (group 2). We then identified additional control groups using matching for medical complications (group 3) and age + comorbidities (group 4). We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) associated with mortality. RESULTS: A total of 235,317 patients (mean (± standard deviation) age 81.1 ± 8.3 years; 85.8% female) were analyzed. In the primary analyses, those who received kyphoplasty were at reduced risk of death compared to those who did not: adjusted HR (95% CI) in group 1 = 0.84 (0.82, 0.87); and in group 2 = 0.88 (0.85, 0.91). However, in post hoc analyses, patients who received kyphoplasty were at increased risk of death: adjusted HR (95% CI) in group 3 = 1.32 (1.25, 1.41) and 1.81 (1.58, 2.09) in group 4. CONCLUSION: An apparent benefit of kyphoplasty on mortality among patients with vertebral fractures was not present after rigorous propensity matching, illustrating the importance of comparing similar individuals when evaluating observational data.

Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common presentation across different healthcare settings. Clinicians need to confidently be able to screen and identify people presenting with low back pain with a high suspicion of serious or specific pathology (e.g. vertebral fracture). Patients identified with an increased likelihood of having a serious pathology will likely require additional investigations and specific treatment. Guidelines recommend a thorough history and clinical assessment to screen for serious pathology as a cause of low back pain. However, the diagnostic accuracy of recommended red flags (e.g. older age, trauma, corticosteroid use) remains unclear, particularly those used to screen for vertebral fracture. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags used to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. Where possible, we reported results of red flags separately for different types of vertebral fracture (i.e. acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, vertebral traumatic fracture, vertebral stress fracture, unspecified vertebral fracture). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 July 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered primary diagnostic studies if they compared results of history taking or physical examination (or both) findings (index test) with a reference standard test (e.g. X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), single-photon emission computerised tomography (SPECT)) for the identification of vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. We included index tests that were presented individually or as part of a combination of tests. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data for diagnostic two-by-two tables from the publications or reconstructed them using information from relevant parameters to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive (+LR) and negative (-LR) likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We extracted aspects of study design, characteristics of the population, index test, reference standard, and type of vertebral fracture. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of studies and index tests, therefore the analysis was descriptive. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and LRs for each test and used these as an indication of clinical usefulness. Two review authors independently conducted risk of bias and applicability assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. MAIN RESULTS: This review is an update of a previous Cochrane Review of red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. We included 14 studies in this review, six based in primary care, five in secondary care, and three in tertiary care. Four studies reported on 'osteoporotic vertebral fractures', two studies reported on 'vertebral compression fracture', one study reported on 'osteoporotic and traumatic vertebral fracture', two studies reported on 'vertebral stress fracture', and five studies reported on 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. Risk of bias was only rated as low in one study for the domains reference standard and flow and timing. The domain patient selection had three studies and the domain index test had six studies rated at low risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of the data. Results from single studies suggest only a small number of the red flags investigated may be informative. In the primary healthcare setting, results from single studies suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs (range: 1.93 to 12.85) for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 6.42, 95% CI 2.94 to 14.02). Results from single studies suggest 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for studies in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 70 years: 11.19, 95% CI 5.33 to 23.51). Results from single studies suggest 'corticosteroid use' may be an informative red flag in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR range: 3.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 79.15 to 48.50, 95% CI 11.48 to 204.98) and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.46, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.34); however, diagnostic values varied and CIs were imprecise. Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and female gender' in primary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (16.17, 95% CI 4.47 to 58.43). In the secondary healthcare setting, results from a single study suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.18, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.54) and 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 75 years: 2.51, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.27). Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and trauma' in secondary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 4.35, 95% CI 2.92 to 6.48). Results from a single study suggest when '4 of 5 tests' were positive in secondary care, they demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 9.62, 95% CI 5.88 to 15.73). In the tertiary care setting, results from a single study suggest 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture' (+LR: 31.09, 95% CI 18.25 to 52.96). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that only a few red flags are potentially useful in guiding clinical decisions to further investigate people suspected to have a vertebral fracture. Most red flags were not useful as screening tools to identify vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. In primary care, 'older age' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture', and 'trauma' and 'corticosteroid use' were both informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture'. In secondary care, 'older age' was informative for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' and 'trauma' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. In tertiary care, 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture'. Combinations of red flags were also informative and may be more useful than individual tests alone. Unfortunately, the challenge to provide clear guidance on which red flags should be used routinely in clinical practice remains. Further research with primary studies is needed to improve and consolidate our current recommendations for screening for vertebral fractures to guide clinical care.

Predicting decompression surgery by applying multimodal deep learning to patients' structured and unstructured health data.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition made up of a variety of anatomic and clinical subtypes. Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) are two subtypes highly associated with LBP. Patients with LDH/LSS are often started with non-surgical treatments and if those are not effective then go on to have decompression surgery. However, recommendation of surgery is complicated as the outcome may depend on the patient's health characteristics. We developed a deep learning (DL) model to predict decompression surgery for patients with LDH/LSS. MATERIALS AND METHOD: We used datasets of 8387 and 8620 patients from a prospective study that collected data from four healthcare systems to predict early (within 2 months) and late surgery (within 12 months after a 2 month gap), respectively. We developed a DL model to use patients' demographics, diagnosis and procedure codes, drug names, and diagnostic imaging reports to predict surgery. For each prediction task, we evaluated the model's performance using classical and generalizability evaluation. For classical evaluation, we split the data into training (80%) and testing (20%). For generalizability evaluation, we split the data based on the healthcare system. We used the area under the curve (AUC) to assess performance for each evaluation. We compared results to a benchmark model (i.e. LASSO logistic regression). RESULTS: For classical performance, the DL model outperformed the benchmark model for early surgery with an AUC of 0.725 compared to 0.597. For late surgery, the DL model outperformed the benchmark model with an AUC of 0.655 compared to 0.635. For generalizability performance, the DL model outperformed the benchmark model for early surgery. For late surgery, the benchmark model outperformed the DL model. CONCLUSIONS: For early surgery, the DL model was preferred for classical and generalizability evaluation. However, for late surgery, the benchmark and DL model had comparable performance. Depending on the prediction task, the balance of performance may shift between DL and a conventional ML method. As a result, thorough assessment is needed to quantify the value of DL, a relatively computationally expensive, time-consuming and less interpretable method.

The Lumbar Stenosis Prognostic Subgroups for Personalizing Care and Treatment (PROSPECTS) study: protocol for an inception cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative condition that contributes to back and back-related leg pain in older adults. Most patients with symptomatic LSS initially receive non-operative care before surgical consultation. However, there is a scarcity of data regarding prognosis for patients seeking non-surgical care. The overall goal of this project is to develop and evaluate a clinically useful model to predict long-term physical function of patients initiating non-surgical care for symptomatic LSS. METHODS: This is a protocol for an inception cohort study of adults 50 years and older who are initiating non-surgical care for symptomatic LSS in a secondary care setting. We plan to recruit up to 625 patients at two study sites. We exclude patients with prior lumbar spine surgeries or those who are planning on lumbar spine surgery. We also exclude patients with serious medical conditions that have back pain as a symptom or limit walking. We are using weekly, automated data pulls from the electronic health records to identify potential participants. We then contact patients by email and telephone within 21 days of a new visit to determine eligibility, obtain consent, and enroll participants. We collect data using telephone interviews, web-based surveys, and queries of electronic health records. Participants are followed for 12 months, with surveys completed at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome measure is the 8-item PROMIS Physical Function (PF) Short Form. We will identify distinct phenotypes using PROMIS PF scores at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months using group-based trajectory modeling. We will develop and evaluate the performance of a multivariable prognostic model to predict 12-month physical function using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator and will compare performance to other machine learning methods. Internal validation will be conducted using k-folds cross-validation. DISCUSSION: This study will be one of the largest cohorts of individuals with symptomatic LSS initiating new episodes of non-surgical care. The successful completion of this project will produce a cross-validated prognostic model for LSS that can be used to tailor treatment approaches for patient care and clinical trials.

Effects of Including Epidemiologic Data in Lumbar Spine Imaging Reports on Prescribing Non-Opioid Medications for Pain.

BACKGROUND: Information on the prevalence of common imaging findings among patients without back pain in spine imaging reports might affect pain medication prescribing for patients with back pain. Prior research on inserting this text suggested a small reduction in opioid prescribing. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of epidemiologic information in spine imaging reports on non-opioid pain medication prescribing for primary care patients with back pain. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the Lumbar Imaging with Reporting of Epidemiology cluster-randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 170,680 patients aged ≥ 18 years from four healthcare systems who received thoracolumbar, lumbar, or lumbosacral spine imaging from 2013 to 2016 and had not received a prescription for non-opioid pain medication in the preceding 120 days. INTERVENTION: Text of age- and modality-specific epidemiologic benchmarks indicating the prevalence of common findings in people without back pain inserted into thoracolumbar, lumbar, or lumbosacral spine imaging reports at intervention clinics. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes: any non-opioid prescription within 90 days after index imaging, overall, and by sub-class (skeletal muscle relaxants, NSAIDs, gabapentinoids, tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, duloxetine). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: count of non-opioid prescriptions within 90 days, overall, and by sub-class. KEY RESULTS: The intervention was not associated with the likelihood of patients receiving at least one prescription for new non-opioid pain-related medications, overall (adjusted OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.97-1.08) or by sub-class. The intervention was not associated with the number of prescriptions for any non-opioid medication (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.04). However, the intervention was associated with more new prescriptions for NSAIDs (IRR, 1.12) and tricyclic antidepressants (IRR, 1.11). CONCLUSIONS: Inserting epidemiologic text in spine imaging reports had no effect on whether new non-opioid pain-related medications were prescribed but was associated with the number of new prescriptions for certain non-opioid sub-classes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02015455.

Providing Epidemiological Data in Lumbar Spine Imaging Reports Did Not Affect Subsequent Utilization of Spine Procedures: Secondary Outcomes from a Stepped-Wedge Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of inserting epidemiological information into lumbar spine imaging reports on subsequent nonsurgical and surgical procedures involving the thoracolumbosacral spine and sacroiliac joints. DESIGN: Analysis of secondary outcomes from the Lumbar Imaging with Reporting of Epidemiology (LIRE) pragmatic stepped-wedge randomized trial. SETTING: Primary care clinics within four integrated health care systems in the United States. SUBJECTS: 238,886 patients ≥18 years of age who received lumbar diagnostic imaging between 2013 and 2016. METHODS: Clinics were randomized to receive text containing age- and modality-specific epidemiological benchmarks indicating the prevalence of common spine imaging findings in people without low back pain, inserted into lumbar spine imaging reports (the "LIRE intervention"). The study outcomes were receiving 1) any nonsurgical lumbosacral or sacroiliac spine procedure (lumbosacral epidural steroid injection, facet joint injection, or facet joint radiofrequency ablation; or sacroiliac joint injection) or 2) any surgical procedure involving the lumbar, sacral, or thoracic spine (decompression surgery or spinal fusion or other spine surgery). RESULTS: The LIRE intervention was not significantly associated with subsequent utilization of nonsurgical lumbosacral or sacroiliac spine procedures (odds ratio [OR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.09; P = 0.79) or any surgical procedure (OR = 0.99, 95 CI 0.91-1.07; P = 0.74) involving the lumbar, sacral, or thoracic spine. The intervention was also not significantly associated with any individual spine procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Inserting epidemiological text into spine imaging reports had no effect on nonsurgical or surgical procedure utilization among patients receiving lumbar diagnostic imaging.

Observational Study of the Downstream Consequences of Inappropriate MRI of the Lumbar Spine.

BACKGROUND: Contrary to guidelines, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is often ordered in the first 6 weeks of new episodes of uncomplicated non-specific low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To determine the downstream consequences of early imaging. DESIGN: Retrospective matched cohort study using data from electronic health records of primary care clinics of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. PARTICIPANTS: Patients seeking primary care for non-specific low back pain without a red flag condition or an encounter for low back pain in the prior 6 months (N = 405,965). EXPOSURE: MRI of the lumbar spine within 6 weeks of the initial primary care visit. MAIN MEASURES: Covariates included patient demographics, health history in the prior year, and baseline pain. Outcomes were lumbar surgery, prescription opioid use, acute health care costs, and last pain score recorded within 1 year of the index visit. KEY RESULTS: Early MRI was associated with more back surgery (1.48% vs. 0.12% in episodes without early MRI), greater use of prescription opioids (35.1% vs. 28.6%), a higher final pain score (3.99 vs. 3.87), and greater acute care costs ($8082 vs. $5560), p < 0.001 for all comparisons. LIMITATIONS: Reliance on data gathered in normal clinical care and the potential for residual confounding despite the use of coarsened exact matching weights to adjust for baseline differences. CONCLUSIONS: The association between early imaging and increased utilization was apparent even in a setting largely unaffected by incentives of fee-for-service care. Reduced imaging cost is only part of the motivation to improve adherence with guidelines for the use of MRI. Early scans are associated with excess surgery, higher costs for other care, and worse outcomes, including potential harms from prescription opioids.

Factors Influencing Primary Care Providers' Unneeded Lumbar Spine MRI Orders for Acute, Uncomplicated Low-Back Pain: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines suggest that magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine (LS-MRI) is unneeded during the first 6 weeks of acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. Unneeded LS-MRIs do not improve patient outcomes, lead to unnecessary surgeries and procedures, and cost the US healthcare system about $300 million dollars per year. However, why primary care providers (PCPs) order unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To characterize and explain the factors contributing to PCPs ordering unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans Affairs PCPs identified from administrative data as having high or low rates of guideline-concordant LS-MRI ordering in 2016. APPROACH: Providers were interviewed about their use of LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain and factors contributing to their decision-making. Directed content analysis of transcripts was conducted to identify and compare environmental-, patient-, and provider-level factors contributing to unneeded LS-MRI. KEY RESULTS: Fifty-five PCPs participated (8.6% response rate). Both low (n = 33) and high (n = 22) guideline-concordant providers reported that LS-MRIs were required for specialty care referrals, but they differed in how other environmental factors (stringency of radiology utilization review, management of patient travel burden, and time constraints) contributed to LS-MRI ordering patterns. Low- and high-guideline-concordant providers reported similar patient factors (beliefs in value of imaging and pressure on providers). However, provider groups differed in how provider-level factors (guideline familiarity and agreement, the extent to which they acquiesced to patients, and belief in the value of LS-MRI) contributed to LS-MRI ordering patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Results describe how diverse environmental, patient, and provider factors contribute to unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. Prior research using a single intervention to reduce unneeded LS-MRI has been ineffective. Results suggest that multifaceted de-implementation strategies may be required to reduce unneeded LS-MRI.

DicomAnnotator: a Configurable Open-Source Software Program for Efficient DICOM Image Annotation.

Modern, supervised machine learning approaches to medical image classification, image segmentation, and object detection usually require many annotated images. As manual annotation is usually labor-intensive and time-consuming, a well-designed software program can aid and expedite the annotation process. Ideally, this program should be configurable for various annotation tasks, enable efficient placement of several types of annotations on an image or a region of an image, attribute annotations to individual annotators, and be able to display Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM)-formatted images. No current open-source software program fulfills these requirements. To fill this gap, we developed DicomAnnotator, a configurable open-source software program for DICOM image annotation. This program fulfills the above requirements and provides user-friendly features to aid the annotation process. In this paper, we present the design and implementation of DicomAnnotator. Using spine image annotation as a test case, our evaluation showed that annotators with various backgrounds can use DicomAnnotator to annotate DICOM images efficiently. DicomAnnotator is freely available at https://github.com/UW-CLEAR-Center/DICOM-Annotator under the GPLv3 license.

Multi-site Pain Is Associated with Long-term Patient-Reported Outcomes in Older Adults with Persistent Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of co-occurring pain sites among older adults with persistent back pain and associations of multisite pain with longitudinal outcomes. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a cohort study. SETTING: Three integrated health systems in the United States. SUBJECTS: Eight hundred ninety-nine older adults with persistent back pain. METHODS: Participants reported pain in the following sites: stomach, arms/legs/joints, headaches, neck, pelvis/groin, and widespread pain. Over 18 months, we measured back-related disability (Roland Morris, scored 0-24), pain intensity (11-point numerical rating scale), health-related quality of life (EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D], utility from 0-1), and falls in the past three weeks. We used mixed-effects models to test the association of number and type of pain sites with each outcome. RESULTS: Nearly all (N = 839, 93%) respondents reported at least one additional pain site. There were 216 (24%) with one additional site and 623 (69%) with multiple additional sites. The most prevalent comorbid pain site was the arms/legs/joints (N = 801, 89.1%). Adjusted mixed-effects models showed that for every additional pain site, RMDQ worsened by 0.65 points (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.43 to 0.86), back pain intensity increased by 0.14 points (95% CI = 0.07 to 0.22), EQ-5D worsened by 0.012 points (95% CI = -0.018 to -0.006), and the odds of falling increased by 27% (odds ratio = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.43). Some specific pain sites (extremity pain, widespread pain, and pelvis/groin pain) were associated with greater long-term disability. CONCLUSIONS: Multisite pain is common among older adults with persistent back pain. Number of pain sites was associated with all outcomes; individual pain sites were less consistently associated with outcomes.

Measuring and reporting of vertebral endplate bone marrow lesions as seen on MRI (Modic changes): recommendations from the ISSLS Degenerative Spinal Phenotypes Group.

PURPOSE: The positive association between low back pain and MRI evidence of vertebral endplate bone marrow lesions, often called Modic changes (MC), offers the exciting prospect of diagnosing a specific phenotype of chronic low back pain (LBP). However, imprecision in the reporting of MC has introduced substantial challenges, as variations in both imaging equipment and scanning parameters can impact conspicuity of MC. This review discusses key methodological factors that impact MC classification and recommends guidelines for more consistent MC reporting that will allow for better integration of research into this LBP phenotype. METHODS: Non-systematic literature review. RESULTS: The high diagnostic specificity of MC classification for a painful level contributes to the significant association observed between MC and LBP, whereas low and variable sensitivity underlies the between- and within-study variability in observed associations. Poor sensitivity may be owing to the presence of other pain generators, to the limited MRI resolution, and to the imperfect reliability of MC classification, which lowers diagnostic sensitivity and thus influences the association between MC and LBP. Importantly, magnetic field strength and pulse sequence parameters also impact detection of MC. Advances in pulse sequences may improve reliability and prove valuable for quantifying lesion severity. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of MC data between studies can be problematic. Various methodological factors impact detection and classification of MC, and the lack of reporting guidelines hinders interpretation and comparison of findings. Thus, it is critical to adopt imaging and reporting standards that codify acceptable methodological criteria. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Impact of an Advanced Imaging Utilization Review Program on Downstream Health Care Utilization and Costs for Low Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: Early magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for acute low back pain (LBP) has been associated with increased costs, greater health care utilization, and longer disability duration in workers' compensation claimants. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of a state policy implemented in June 2010 that required prospective utilization review (UR) for early MRI among workers' compensation claimants with LBP. RESEARCH DESIGN: Interrupted time series. SUBJECTS: In total, 76,119 Washington State workers' compensation claimants with LBP between 2006 and 2014. MEASURES: Proportion of workers receiving imaging per month (MRI, computed tomography, radiographs) and lumbosacral injections and surgery; mean total health care costs per worker; mean duration of disability per worker. Measures were aggregated monthly and attributed to injury month. RESULTS: After accounting for secular trends, decreases in early MRI [level change: -5.27 (95% confidence interval, -4.22 to -6.31); trend change: -0.06 (-0.01 to -0.12)], any MRI [-4.34 (-3.01 to -5.67); -0.10 (-0.04 to -0.17)], and injection [trend change: -0.12 (-0.06 to -0.18)] utilization were associated with the policy. Radiograph utilization increased in parallel [level change: 2.46 (1.24-3.67)]. In addition, the policy resulted in significant decreasing changes in mean costs per claim, mean disability duration, and proportion of workers who received disability benefits. The policy had no effect on computed tomography or surgery utilization. CONCLUSIONS: The UR policy had discernable effects on health care utilization, costs, and disability. Integrating evidence-based guidelines with UR can improve quality of care and patient outcomes, while reducing use of low-value health services.

Prioritizing research topics: a comparison of crowdsourcing and patient registry.

PURPOSE: A cornerstone of patient-centered outcome research is direct patient involvement throughout the research process. Identifying and prioritizing research topics is a critical but often overlooked point for involvement, as it guides what research questions are asked. We assess the feasibility of involving individuals with low back pain in identifying and prioritizing research topics using two approaches: an existing patient registry and an online crowdsourcing platform. We compare and contrast the diversity of participants recruited, their responses, and resources involved. METHODS: Eligible participants completed a survey ranking their five highest priority topics from an existing list and supplying additional topics not previously identified. We analyzed their responses using descriptive statistics and content analysis. RESULTS: The patient registry yielded older (mean age 72.4), mostly White (70%), and well-educated (95% high school diploma or higher) participants; crowdsourcing yielded younger (mean age 36.6 years), mostly White (82%), and well-educated (98% high school diploma or higher) participants. The two approaches resulted in similar research priorities by frequency. Both provided open-ended responses that were useful, in that they illuminate additional and nuanced research topics. Overall, both approaches suggest a preference towards topics related to diagnosis and treatment over other topics. CONCLUSION: Using a patient registry and crowdsourcing are both feasible recruitment approaches for engagement. Researchers should consider their approach, community, and resources when choosing their recruitment approach, as each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses. These approaches are likely most appropriate to supplement or to complement in-person and ongoing engagement strategies.

Using Natural Language Processing of Free-Text Radiology Reports to Identify Type 1 Modic Endplate Changes.

Electronic medical record (EMR) systems provide easy access to radiology reports and offer great potential to support quality improvement efforts and clinical research. Harnessing the full potential of the EMR requires scalable approaches such as natural language processing (NLP) to convert text into variables used for evaluation or analysis. Our goal was to determine the feasibility of using NLP to identify patients with Type 1 Modic endplate changes using clinical reports of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging examinations of the spine. Identifying patients with Type 1 Modic change who may be eligible for clinical trials is important as these findings may be important targets for intervention. Four annotators identified all reports that contained Type 1 Modic change, using N = 458 randomly selected lumbar spine MR reports. We then implemented a rule-based NLP algorithm in Java using regular expressions. The prevalence of Type 1 Modic change in the annotated dataset was 10%. Results were recall (sensitivity) 35/50 = 0.70 (95% confidence interval (C.I.) 0.52-0.82), specificity 404/408 = 0.99 (0.97-1.0), precision (positive predictive value) 35/39 = 0.90 (0.75-0.97), negative predictive value 404/419 = 0.96 (0.94-0.98), and F1-score 0.79 (0.43-1.0). Our evaluation shows the efficacy of rule-based NLP approach for identifying patients with Type 1 Modic change if the emphasis is on identifying only relevant cases with low concern regarding false negatives. As expected, our results show that specificity is higher than recall. This is due to the inherent difficulty of eliciting all possible keywords given the enormous variability of lumbar spine reporting, which decreases recall, while availability of good negation algorithms improves specificity.

A randomized trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Epidural glucocorticoid injections are widely used to treat symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis, a common cause of pain and disability in older adults. However, rigorous data are lacking regarding the effectiveness and safety of these injections. METHODS: In a double-blind, multisite trial, we randomly assigned 400 patients who had lumbar central spinal stenosis and moderate-to-severe leg pain and disability to receive epidural injections of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine or lidocaine alone. The patients received one or two injections before the primary outcome evaluation, performed 6 weeks after randomization and the first injection. The primary outcomes were the score on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ, in which scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater physical disability) and the rating of the intensity of leg pain (on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating "pain as bad as you can imagine"). RESULTS: At 6 weeks, there were no significant between-group differences in the RMDQ score (adjusted difference in the average treatment effect between the glucocorticoid-lidocaine group and the lidocaine-alone group, -1.0 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.1 to 0.1; P=0.07) or the intensity of leg pain (adjusted difference in the average treatment effect, -0.2 points; 95% CI, -0.8 to 0.4; P=0.48). A prespecified secondary subgroup analysis with stratification according to type of injection (interlaminar vs. transforaminal) likewise showed no significant differences at 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, epidural injection of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine offered minimal or no short-term benefit as compared with epidural injection of lidocaine alone. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01238536.).

Pragmatic clinical trials embedded in healthcare systems: generalizable lessons from the NIH Collaboratory.

BACKGROUND: The clinical research enterprise is not producing the evidence decision makers arguably need in a timely and cost effective manner; research currently involves the use of labor-intensive parallel systems that are separate from clinical care. The emergence of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) poses a possible solution: these large-scale trials are embedded within routine clinical care and often involve cluster randomization of hospitals, clinics, primary care providers, etc. Interventions can be implemented by health system personnel through usual communication channels and quality improvement infrastructure, and data collected as part of routine clinical care. However, experience with these trials is nascent and best practices regarding design operational, analytic, and reporting methodologies are undeveloped. METHODS: To strengthen the national capacity to implement cost-effective, large-scale PCTs, the Common Fund of the National Institutes of Health created the Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory (Collaboratory) to support the design, execution, and dissemination of a series of demonstration projects using a pragmatic research design. RESULTS: In this article, we will describe the Collaboratory, highlight some of the challenges encountered and solutions developed thus far, and discuss remaining barriers and opportunities for large-scale evidence generation using PCTs. CONCLUSION: A planning phase is critical, and even with careful planning, new challenges arise during execution; comparisons between arms can be complicated by unanticipated changes. Early and ongoing engagement with both health care system leaders and front-line clinicians is critical for success. There is also marked uncertainty when applying existing ethical and regulatory frameworks to PCTS, and using existing electronic health records for data capture adds complexity.

Predictors of Persistent Disability and Back Pain in Older Adults with a New Episode of Care for Back Pain.

Objective: To identify predictors of persistent disability and back pain in older adults. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Back pain outcomes using longitudinal data registry. Subjects: Five thousand two hundred twenty adults age 65 years and older with a new primary care visit for back pain. Methods: Baseline measurements included: demographics, health, and back pain characteristics. We abstracted imaging findings from 348 radiology reports. The primary outcomes were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and back pain intensity. We defined persistent disability as RMDQ of 4/24 or higher at both six and 12 months and persistent back pain as pain 3/10 or higher at both six and 12 months. Results: There were 2,498 of 4,143 (60.3%) participants with persistent disability, and 2,099 of 4,144 (50.7%) had persistent back pain. Adjusted analyses showed the following characteristics most strongly predictive of persistent disability and persistent back pain: sex, race, worse baseline clinical characteristics of back pain, leg pain, back-related disability and duration of symptoms, smoking, anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, a history of falls, greater number of comorbidities, knee osteoarthritis, wide-spread pain syndromes, and an index diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Within the imaging data subset, central spinal stenosis was not associated with disability or pain. Conclusion: We found that many predictors in older adults were similar to those for younger populations.

Effect of Comorbid Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis on Longitudinal Clinical and Health Care Use Outcomes in Older Adults With New Visits for Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To examine if a comorbid diagnosis of knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) in older adults with new back pain visits is associated with long-term patient-reported outcomes and back-related health care use. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Three integrated health systems forming the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data cohort. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (N=5155) were older adults (≥65y) with a new visit for back pain and a complete electronic health record data. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable; we obtained OA diagnoses using diagnostic codes in the electronic health record 12 months prior to the new back pain visit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) and the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) were key patient-reported outcomes. Health care use, measured by relative-value units (RVUs), was summed for the 12 months after the initial visit. We used linear mixed-effects models to model patient-reported outcomes. We also used generalized linear models to test the association between comorbid knee or hip OA and total back-related RVUs. RESULTS: Of the 5155 participants, 368 (7.1%) had a comorbid knee OA diagnosis, and 94 (1.8%) had a hip OA diagnosis. Of the participants, 4711 (91.4%) had neither knee nor hip OA. In adjusted models, the 12-month RDQ score was 1.23 points higher (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.74) for patients with knee OA and 1.26 points higher (95% CI, 0.24-2.27) for those with hip OA than those without knee or hip OA, respectively. A lower EQ-5D score was found among participants with knee OA (.02 lower; 95% CI, -.04 to -.01) and hip OA diagnoses (.03 lower; 95% CI, -.05 to -.01) compared with those without knee or hip OA, respectively. Comorbid knee or hip OA was not significantly associated with total 12-month back-related resource use. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid knee or hip OA in older adults with a new back pain visit was associated with modestly worse long-term disability and health-related quality of life.