ArticleBMJ open2021
Consumer understanding of terms used in imaging reports requested for low back pain: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of different radiology report formats on patient information processing: a systematic review.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Prediction, pain, and the power of context: toward a contemporary identity for the chiropractic profession.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Review
- What is the prevalence of extra-articular and intra-articular magnetic resonance imaging findings in football players with and without hip and/or groin pain? A cross-sectional study of 166 football players.Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy · 2026Article
- Nociplastic pain: an introduction.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2025Article
- Australian General Practitioners' Use of Diagnostic Lumbar Spine Imaging for Patients With Acute Low Back Pain: A Qualitative Study.Musculoskeletal care · 2025Article
- Evaluating musculoskeletal imaging communication interventions using behavioural science: a scoping review using the COM-B model.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Negative expectations and related nocebo effects in shoulder pain: a perspective for clinicians and researchers.Pain management · 2025Review
- Chiropractors' perceptions on the use of spinal radiographs in clinical practice: a qualitative study.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2024Article
- Article
- Using medical storytelling to communicate problems and solutions in the low back pain conundrum: an evidence-based tale of twins.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2023Article
- Radiology's "Smart New Deal".Journal of digital imaging · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate (1) self-reported societal comprehension of common and usually non-serious terms found in lumbar spine imaging reports and (2) its relationship to perceived seriousness, likely persistence of low back pain (LBP), fear of movement, back beliefs and history and intensity of LBP.
designCross-sectional online survey of the general public.
settingFive English-speaking countries: UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
participantsAdults (age >18 years) with or without a history of LBP recruited in April 2019 with quotas for country, age and gender. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported understanding of 14 terms (annular fissure, disc bulge, disc degeneration, disc extrusion, disc height loss, disc protrusion, disc signal loss, facet joint degeneration, high intensity zone, mild canal stenosis, Modic changes, nerve root contact, spondylolisthesis and spondylosis) commonly found in lumbar spine imaging reports. For each term, we also elicited worry about its seriousness, and whether its presence would indicate pain persistence and prompt fear of movement.
resultsFrom 774 responses, we included 677 (87.5%) with complete and valid responses. 577 (85%) participants had a current or past history of LBP of whom 251 (44%) had received lumbar spine imaging. Self-reported understanding of all terms was poor. At best, 235 (35%) reported understanding the term 'disc degeneration', while only 71 (10.5%) reported understanding the term 'Modic changes'. For all terms, a moderate to large proportion of participants (range 59%-71%), considered they indicated a serious back problem, that pain might persist (range 52%-71%) and they would be fearful of movement (range 42%-57%).
conclusionCommon and usually non-serious terms in lumbar spine imaging reports are poorly understood by the general population and may contribute to the burden of LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12619000545167.
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.