ArticleMusculoskeletal care2025
Australian General Practitioners' Use of Diagnostic Lumbar Spine Imaging for Patients With Acute Low Back Pain: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Musculoskeletal care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) use of imaging for acute low back pain (LBP) is above guideline recommendations, and the reasons for this remain under-researched. We examined the perspectives, expectations and information needs of Australian GPs requesting lumbar spine diagnostic imaging for patients presenting with acute LBP.
methodsWe completed semi-structured interviews with 12 GPs practising in Victoria, Australia. Transcripts were thematically analysed, and themes compared according to whether or not GPs reported they regularly requested imaging for LBP.
resultsWe identified four themes. (1) Besides responding to 'red flags', GPs' experiences of uncovering unexpected but serious findings on imaging for LBP as well as perceived external pressures motivated their defensive imaging practices. (2) While most were reluctant to request imaging for LBP, once requested, GPs escalated through imaging modalities and focused on the diagnostic benefit of their findings. (3) GPs supported the inclusion of epidemiological data on imaging reports, but (4) largely opposed imaging reports being written in plain language, believing reports to be clinician-to-clinician communications that patients would misunderstand. All GPs were aware of the limited utility of imaging for diagnosing LBP, and themes were similar between GPs who regularly requested imaging and those who did not. Factors other than knowledge of imaging efficacy for LBP seemed to play an important role in imaging requests.
conclusionsOur study identified key drivers of imaging use for LBP in primary care. The findings underscore that interventions targeting GPs addressing the overuse of imaging for LBP should transcend knowledge deficit models.
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.