Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33748882›Full record

Trial reportEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2021

The catastrophization effects of an MRI report on the patient and surgeon and the benefits of 'clinical reporting': results from an RCT and blinded trials.

S Rajasekaran, S Dilip Chand Raja, Bhari Thippeswamy Pushpa, Kumar Behera Ananda, Shetty Ajoy Prasad, Mugesh Kanna Rishi

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in 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, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S RajasekaranDepartment of Orthopaedics and Spine Surgery, Ganga Hospital, 313, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore, India. rajasekaran.orth@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-6043-006X
S Dilip Chand RajaDepartment of Orthopaedics and Spine Surgery, Ganga Hospital, 313, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore, India.
Bhari Thippeswamy PushpaDepartment of Radiology, Ganga Hospital, 313, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore, India.
Kumar Behera AnandaDepartment of Orthopaedics and Spine Surgery, Ganga Hospital, 313, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore, India.
Shetty Ajoy PrasadDepartment of Orthopaedics and Spine Surgery, Ganga Hospital, 313, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore, India.
Mugesh Kanna RishiDepartment of Orthopaedics and Spine Surgery, Ganga Hospital, 313, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore, India.
Ganga Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeInappropriate use of MRI leads to increasing interventions and surgeries for low back pain (LBP). We probed the potential effects of a routine MRI report on the patient's perception of his spine and functional outcome of treatment. An alternate 'clinical reporting' was developed and tested for benefits on LBP perception.

methodsIn Phase-I, 44 LBP patients were randomized to Group A who had a factual explanation of their MRI report or Group B, who were reassured that the MRI findings showed normal changes. The outcome was compared at 6 weeks by VAS, PSEQ-2, and SF-12. In Phase-II, clinical reporting was developed, avoiding potential catastrophizing terminologies. In Phase-III, 20 MRIs were reported by both routine and clinical methods. The effects of the two methods were tested on four categories of health care professionals (HCP) who read them blinded on their assessment of severity of disease, possible treatment required, and the probability of surgery.

resultsBoth groups were comparable initial by demographics and pain. After 6 weeks of treatment, Group A had a more negative perception of their spinal condition, increased catastrophization, decreased pain improvement, and poorer functional status(p = significant for all). The alternate method of clinical reporting had significant benefits in assessment of lesser severity of the disease, shift to lesser severity of intervention and surgery in three groups of HCPs.

conclusionRoutine MRI reports produce a negative perception and poor functional outcomes in LBP. Focussed clinical reporting had significant benefits, which calls for the need for 'clinical reporting' rather than 'Image reporting'.

Indexed as

Low Back PainSurgeonsCatastrophizationHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingResearch DesignCatastrophizationClinical reportingLow back painMRI reportsNocebo effect

Identifiers

PMID33748882
OpenAlexW3138023331

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.