ArticleCureus2018
Emergency Physicians Choose Wisely When Ordering Plain Radiographs for Low Back Pain Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The age-old question: Thematic analysis of focus groups on physician experiences of aging in emergency medicine.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2021Article
- Are Emergency Medicine Provider Characteristics Associated With Diagnostic Imaging for Low Back Pain?Cureus · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives The Choosing Wisely Canada (CWC) Emergency Medicine group recommends avoidance of lumbosacral radiographs for patients with non-traumatic low back pain (LBP) in the absence of red flags. The objective of this study was to evaluate imaging practices of emergency physicians (EPs) in four Calgary emergency departments (EDs) and identify patient, physician, and environmental factors associated with over-ordering of radiographs for low-risk LBP patients. Methods Data was retrospectively collected from patients, ages 18-50 and Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) codes 2-5, who presented with non-traumatic LBP to Calgary EDs from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2016. Patients considered high risk, specifically with partial thromboplastin time (PTT) > 40 seconds or international normalized ratio (INR) > 1.2 seconds, any consult, admission to hospital, and history of cancer, were excluded. The primary outcome was to establish the overall usage of lumbosacral radiographs. The secondary outcome was to identify factors that influenced lumbosacral spine imaging. Results Data from 2128 low-risk patients showed that 14.8% of the patients received lumbosacral radiographs. Variation among 132 physicians in X-ray ordering ranged from 0% to 90.9%. There were site-specific differences in ordering patterns [Rockyview General Hospital (RGH) = 21.6% > South Health Campus (SHC) = 15.6% > Peter Lougheed Centre (PLC) = 13.1% > Foothills Medical Centre (FMC) = 9.7%, p < 0.001]. Canadian College of Family Physicians-Emergency Medicine (CCFP-EM) licensed physicians ordered more X-rays compared to Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada (FRCPC) licensed physicians (16.6% vs. 11.1%, p < 0.001). Older physicians and physicians with more experience ordered more X-rays than their younger and less experienced colleagues. Conclusion Considerable variation exists in the ordering practices of Calgary EPs. Overall, EPs seem to be choosing wisely in terms of ordering plain radiographs for non-traumatic LBP.
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.