Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33162393›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Patient and general practitioner views of tools to delay diagnostic imaging for low back pain: a qualitative study.

Adrian C Traeger, Juliet Checketts, Elise Tcharkhedian, Denise A O'Connor, Christiane Klinner, Sweekriti Sharma, Parima Vyas, Loai Albarqouni, Kirsten McCaffery

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Why Most Australians Consider It Valuable to Find Harmless Abnormalities with Diagnostic Tests: A Mixed-Methods Study.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. "I would not go to him": Focus groups exploring community responses to a public health campaign aimed at reducing unnecessary diagnostic imaging of low back pain.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Adrian C TraegerInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia adrian.traeger@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-1646-1907
Juliet CheckettsAustralian Government Department of Health, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Elise TcharkhedianDepartment of Physiotherapy, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia.
Denise A O'ConnorMonash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Institute, Malvern, Victoria, Australia.
Christiane KlinnerInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sweekriti SharmaInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0919-8813
Parima VyasAustralian Government Department of Health, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Loai AlbarqouniInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Kirsten McCafferySchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2696-5006
The University of Sydney · AUAustralian Government · AUBond University · AUCabrini Hospital · AULiverpool Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDelayed prescribing is a promising strategy to manage patient requests for unnecessary tests and treatments. The purpose of this study was to explore general practitioner (GP) and patient views of three communication tools (Overdiagnosis Leaflet, Dialogue Sheet and 'Wait-and-see' Note) to support delayed prescribing of diagnostic imaging.

designQualitative study.

settingPrimary and emergency care in Sydney, Australia.

participants16 GPs and 14 patients with recent episode of low back pain. OUTCOME: Views on the tools to delay diagnostic imaging for low back pain. Data were collected using a combination of focus groups and individual interviews. ANALYSIS: Two researchers independently performed a thematic analysis, and the author team reviewed and refined the analysis.

resultsGP participants responded positively to the Overdiagnosis Leaflet. The Dialogue Sheet and 'Wait-and-see' Note raised several concerns about patient pushback, adding to time pressure and being overwhelmed with hard-to-find paper resources. GPs preferred to communicate verbally the reasons to delay an imaging test. For patients, the reactions to the tools were more positive. Patients valued written information and a signed agreement to delay the test. However, patients expressed that a strong desire for diagnostic imaging would likely over-ride any effect of written advice to delay the test. The term 'false alarm' to describe overdiagnosis was poorly understood by patients.

conclusionsGPs and patients agreed that a leaflet about overdiagnosis could support a delayed prescribing approach to imaging for low back pain. The Dialogue Sheet and 'Wait-and-see' Note were acceptable to patients but not to GPs.

Indexed as

General PractitionersLow Back PainAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaDiagnostic ImagingHumansQualitative Researchback paindiagnostic radiologyinternal medicinequality in health carerehabilitation medicine

Identifiers

PMID33162393
PMCPMC7651716
OpenAlexW3102657093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.