ArticleTurkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation2017
The use of diagnostic imaging in low back or leg pain.
Article in Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study is to evaluate the imaging method preferences of physicians working in different clinics and departments for the patients suffering from low back and/or leg pain. PATIENTS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, the radiological imaging types of 900 patients (301 males, 599 females; mean age 46.8±17.1 years; range 2 to 89 years) with low back and/or radicular leg pain who were admitted for the first time to the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PMR), Orthopedics and Traumatology (OT), and Neurosurgery (NS) clinics in our hospital between July 2013 and August 2014 were reviewed. Age, sex, and radiological methods applied were recorded. The correlation between radiological methods and differences in terms of age and sex and how the radiological method preferences differed according to the departments were evaluated.
resultsOf the patients, 22%, 35% and 34.7% were evaluated without using any imaging methods in the OT, PMR, and NS outpatient clinics, respectively. A total of 32.7%, 48.7%, and 8.7% of the patients were evaluated using lumbar X-ray in the OT, PMR, and NS outpatient clinics, respectively. A total of 19.3%, 11.7%, and 54.3% of the patients were evaluated using the lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the OT, PMR, and NS outpatient clinics, respectively. There were no statistically significant correlations between the age, sex, and imaging modality used.
conclusionOur study results showed that the most common imaging tool which is used by the physicians in the PMR and OT clinics is lumbar X-ray, while the lumbar MRI is the most common tool in the NS clinics. However, we recommend that not only the medical, but ethical aspects and cost-effectiveness of the imaging modality to be selected should be considered.
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.