Leandro M. Diniz, Ítalo R. Lemes, Ana P. C. F. Freire, Ana F. Guimarães, Lucas A. C. Ferreira, Marcia R. Franco, Arianne P. Verhagen, Guy Simoneau, Rafael Z. Pinto
Abstract
Patients with low back pain may play an active role in the prescription of excessive spine imaging.
To determine the proportion of patients with low back pain who have beliefs not aligned with current evidence regarding the use of imaging and to identify factors associated with these beliefs.
Secondary analysis of baseline data of a previously published randomized clinical trial.
Outpatient physical therapy clinic in a middle-income country.
Individuals with non-specific low back pain.
Outcome variables were two statements assessing the extent of patient agreement on the need for imaging in the management of low back pain. The predictor variables were age, educational level, duration of symptoms, disability level, pain intensity in the last 24 hours, beliefs about inevitable consequences of low back pain (assessed using the Back Belief Questionnaire), and having received imaging previously. Multivariable logistic models were used for data analysis.
Level of agreement with Statement 1: X-rays or scans are necessary to get the best medical care for low back pain and Statement 2: Everyone with low back pain should have spine imaging.
A total of 159 patients were included. Of these, 88.1% believed that imaging was necessary for the best medical care for low back pain and 62.9% believed that everyone with low back pain should obtain imaging. Lower scores on the Back Belief Questionnaire were associated with beliefs that imaging was necessary (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81, 0.99) and low education level was associated with the belief that everyone with low back pain should obtain imaging (OR = 3.03, 95% CI: 1.38, 6.61), after controlling for potential confounders.
Nearly 90% of patients believe that spine imaging is necessary for the management of low back pain. Beliefs about the inevitable consequences of low back pain and low education level may be factors that need to be considered when developing new interventions.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 August 2024.
All research outputs
#3,504,453
of 26,493,631 outputs
Outputs from PM&R
#294
of 1,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,175
of 187,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PM&R
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,493,631 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,793 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 187,852 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.
