↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic accuracy of diagnostic imaging for lumbar disc herniation in adults with low back pain or sciatica is unknown; a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
67 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
240 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic accuracy of diagnostic imaging for lumbar disc herniation in adults with low back pain or sciatica is unknown; a systematic review
Published in
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12998-018-0207-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jung-Ha Kim, Rogier M. van Rijn, Maurits W. van Tulder, Bart W. Koes, Michiel R. de Boer, Abida Z. Ginai, Raymond W. G. J. Ostelo, Danielle A. M. W. van der Windt, Arianne P. Verhagen

Abstract

We aim to summarize the available evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of imaging (index test) compared to surgery (reference test) for identifying lumbar disc herniation (LDH) in adult patients.For this systematic review we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (June 2017) for studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of imaging for LDH in adult patients with low back pain and surgery as the reference standard. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity using bivariate analysis, generated linked ROC plots in case of direct comparison of diagnostic imaging tests and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE-approach.We found 14 studies, all but one done before 1995, including 940 patients. Nine studies investigated Computed Tomography (CT), eight myelography and six Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). The prior probability of LDH varied from 48.6 to 98.7%. The summary estimates for MRI and myelography were comparable with CT (sensitivity: 81.3% (95%CI 72.3-87.7%) and specificity: 77.1% (95%CI 61.9-87.5%)). The quality of evidence was moderate to very low. The diagnostic accuracy of CT, myelography and MRI of today is unknown, as we found no studies evaluating today's more advanced imaging techniques. Concerning the older techniques we found moderate diagnostic accuracy for all CT, myelography and MRI, indicating a large proportion of false positives and negatives.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 67 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 240 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 29 12%
Other 28 12%
Student > Master 25 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 5%
Other 32 13%
Unknown 102 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 15%
Sports and Recreations 10 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Neuroscience 5 2%
Other 18 8%
Unknown 107 45%