ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Pertinence of magnetic resonance imaging in lumbar pain: a prospective surgeon-based evaluation of diagnostic concordance and therapeutic impact.
Article 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, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is integral in diagnosing spinal disorders, yet it is often over-utilized, contributing to rising healthcare costs. The diagnostic match between surgeon’s assessment and MRI is unclear objectively.
methodsThree spine surgeons prospectively evaluated 460 patients with lumbar axial/radicular pain, who required a MRI. Before MRI, each surgeon recorded the predicted need for MRI and its expected usefulness for treatment. After MRI, clinical and MRI diagnoses were compared and the factors correlating with correct clinical diagnosis and MRIs’ influence on treatment were analysed.
resultsThe mean age of patients was 47.9 ± 16.3 years. Red flags were present in 52.2% and yellow flags in 12.8%. Surgeons expected the MRI to be definitely beneficial, and treatment not possible without MRI in 79.2%. Clinical and MRI diagnoses matched in 70.4% of cases (k = 0.432, p = 0.001). Combined axial & radicular pain (p = 0.041), symptoms > 6 months (p = 0.05), absence of other joint pain (p = 0.005), and red flags (p = 0.059) correlated significantly with clinical-MRI concordance. MRI influenced treatment decisions in 70.5% of cases, especially when surgeons expected a structural spinal disease (p = 0.009), when surgeons predicted MRI as “definitely beneficial” (p = 0.001), predominant radiculopathy (p = 0.008), absence of other joint pains (p = 0.000) and multiple comorbidities (p = 0.025).
conclusionA comprehensive clinical assessment can effectively guide surgeons in ordering MRI scans with more than 70% usefulness in diagnosing diseases and planning treatment. Surgeons’ pre-MRI judgment based on symptoms, other joint pains, red flags significantly predicts MRI yield and clinical impact in lumbar spine disorders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41318871What 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.