Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23450586›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Red flags to screen for malignancy in patients with low-back pain.

Nicholas Henschke, Christopher G Maher, Raymond W J G Ostelo, Henrica C W de Vet, Petra Macaskill, Les Irwig

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. 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 · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Extravertebral low back pain: a scoping review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  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

6 authors.

Nicholas HenschkeInstitute of Public Health, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. nhenschke@georgeinstitute.org.au.
Christopher G Maher
Raymond W J G Ostelo
Henrica C W de Vet
Petra Macaskill
Les Irwig

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Physical ExaminationCohort StudiesConfidence IntervalsHumansLow Back PainMedical History TakingMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificitySpinal Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID23450586
PMCPMC10631455

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.