Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20091583›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010

Interventions for improving the appropriate use of imaging in people with musculoskeletal conditions.

Simon D French, Sally Green, Rachelle Buchbinder, Hayley Barnes

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce the use of imaging for low-back pain: a systematic review.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2015
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Simon D FrenchMonash Institute of Health Services Research, Monash University, 43 - 51 Kanooka Grove, Monash Medical Centre, Locked Bag 29, Clayton, VIC, Australia, 3168.
Sally Green
Rachelle Buchbinder
Hayley Barnes
Cabrini Hospital · AUMonash Institute of Medical Research · AUMonash Medical Centre · AUMonash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImaging is commonly performed for musculoskeletal conditions. Identifying interventions to improve the appropriate use of imaging for musculoskeletal conditions could potentially result in improved health outcomes for patients and reduced health care costs.

objectivesTo determine the effects of interventions that aim to improve the appropriate use of imaging for people with musculoskeletal conditions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Specialised Register (June 2007), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2007), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2007) and CINAHL (January 1982 to June 2007). We also searched reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We undertook citation searches of all included studies, contacted authors of included studies, and contacted other experts in the field of effective professional practice. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled clinical trials and interrupted time-series analyses that evaluated interventions designed to improve the use of imaging for musculoskeletal symptoms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN

resultsTwenty eight studies met our inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies were for the management of osteoporosis or low back pain, and most evaluated interventions aimed at health professionals. To improve the use of imaging in the management of osteoporosis, the effect of any type of intervention compared to no-intervention controls was modest (absolute improvement in bone mineral density test ordering +10%, IQR 0.0 to +27.7). Patient mediated, reminder, and organisational interventions appeared to have most potential for improving imaging use in osteoporosis. For low back pain studies, the most common intervention evaluated was distribution of educational materials and this showed varying effects. Other interventions in low back pain studies also showed variable effects. For other musculoskeletal conditions, distribution of educational materials, educational meetings and audit and feedback were not shown to be effective for changing imaging ordering behaviour. Across all conditions, increasing the number of intervention components did not increase effect. AUTHORS'

conclusionsFor improving the use of imaging in osteoporosis, most professional interventions demonstrated benefit, and patient mediated, reminder, and organisational interventions appeared to have most potential for benefit. For low back pain studies interventions showed varying effects. For other musculoskeletal conditions, no firm conclusions can be drawn.

Indexed as

Bone DensityDiagnostic ImagingHealth PersonnelHumansKnee JointLow Back PainMusculoskeletal DiseasesOsteoporosisPainRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID20091583
PMCPMC7390432
OpenAlexW1775128233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.