SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013
Red flags to screen for malignancy in patients with low-back pain.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
40 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Standardized Definition of Red Flags in Musculoskeletal Care: A Comprehensive Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- Non-pharmacological and non-surgical treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting with low-back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Screening for Referral of Serious Pathology by Physical Examination Tests in Patients with Back or Chest Pain: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Defining and measuring imaging appropriateness in low back pain studies: a scoping review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2020Pooled it
- Red flags to screen for malignancy and fracture in patients with low back pain: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2013Pooled it
- Trial
- PREPARE: Pre-surgery physiotherapy for patients with degenerative lumbar spine disorder: a randomized controlled trial protocol.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2016Trial
- Prevalence of non-spinal pathology and red flag diagnoses associated with care seeking for low back pain in the Military Health System.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Utility of Red Flags for Detecting Spinal Malignancies in Patients with Low Back Pain: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Diagnostic and management concordance between chiropractors and neurosurgeons for patients with low back pain.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Mixed pain: clinical practice recommendations.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- A scoping review of unexpected weight loss and cancer: risk, guidelines, and recommendations for follow-up in primary care.BJGP open · 2024Article
- Extravertebral low back pain: a scoping review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Assessing Serious Spinal Pathology Using Bayesian Network Decision Support: Development and Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- The use of red flags during the referral chain of patients surgically treated for symptomatic spinal metastases.Neuro-oncology practice · 2023Article
- Diagnosis Value of Patient Evaluation Components Applicable in Primary Care Settings for the Diagnosis of Low Back Pain: A Scoping Review of Systematic Reviews.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Headache neuroimaging: A survey of current practice, barriers, and facilitators to optimal use.Headache · 2022Article
- Expert Consensus on the Contraindications and Cautions of Foam Rolling-An International Delphi Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- [Treatment strategies for pathological fractures of the spine].Der Unfallchirurg · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe identification of serious pathologies, such as spinal malignancy, is one of the primary purposes of the clinical assessment of patients with low-back pain (LBP). Clinical guidelines recommend awareness of "red flag" features from the patient's clinical history and physical examination to achieve this. However, there are limited empirical data on the diagnostic accuracy of these features and there remains very little information on how best to use them in clinical practice.
objectivesTo assess the diagnostic performance of clinical characteristics identified by taking a clinical history and conducting a physical examination ("red flags") to screen for spinal malignancy in patients presenting with LBP. SEARCH
methodsWe searched electronic databases for primary studies (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL) and systematic reviews (PubMed and Medion) from the earliest date until 1 April 2012. Forward and backward citation searching of eligible articles was also performed. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered studies if they compared the results of history taking and physical examination on patients with LBP with those of diagnostic imaging (magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, myelography). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the quality of each included study with the QUality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool and extracted details on patient characteristics, study design, index tests, and reference standard. Diagnostic accuracy data were presented as sensitivities and specificities with 95% confidence intervals for all index tests. MAIN
resultsWe included eight cohort studies of which six were performed in primary care (total number of patients; n = 6622), one study was from an accident and emergency setting (n = 482), and one study was from a secondary care setting (n = 257). In the six primary care studies, the prevalence of spinal malignancy ranged from 0% to 0.66%. Overall, data from 20 index tests were extracted and presented, however only seven of these were evaluated by more than one study. Because of the limited number of studies and clinical heterogeneity, statistical pooling of diagnostic accuracy data was not performed.There was some evidence from individual studies that having a previous history of cancer meaningfully increases the probability of malignancy. Most "red flags" such as insidious onset, age > 50, and failure to improve after one month have high false positive rates.All of the tests were evaluated in isolation and no study presented data on a combination of positive tests to identify spinal malignancy. AUTHORS'
conclusionsFor 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.