The use of routine spinal X-rays within chiropractic has a contentious history. Elements of the profession advocate for the need for routine spinal X-rays to improve patient management, whereas other chiropractors advocate using spinal X-rays only when endorsed by current imaging guidelines. This review aims to summarise the current evidence for the use of spinal X-ray in chiropractic practice, with consideration of the related risks and benefits. Current evidence supports the use of spinal X-rays only in the diagnosis of trauma and spondyloarthropathy, and in the assessment of progressive spinal structural deformities such as adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. MRI is indicated to diagnose serious pathology such as cancer or infection, and to assess the need for surgical management in radiculopathy and spinal stenosis. Strong evidence demonstrates risks of imaging such as excessive radiation exposure, overdiagnosis, subsequent low-value investigation and treatment procedures, and increased costs. In most cases the potential benefits from routine imaging, including spinal X-rays, do not outweigh the potential harms. The use of spinal X-rays should not be routinely performed in chiropractic practice, and should be guided by clinical guidelines and clinician judgement.

No abstract

word count: 304 Manuscript word count: 3392 2 ABSTRACT Objectives: To (i) estimate the proportion of patients seeking care for low back pain (LBP) who are imaged, and (ii) explore trends in the proportion of patients who received diagnostic imaging over time. We also examined the effect of study-level factors on estimates of imaging proportion. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Observational designs and controlled trials that reported imaging for patients presenting to primary care or emergency care for LBP. We assessed study quality and calculated pooled proportions by care setting and imaging type, with strength of evidence assessed using the GRADE system. Results: 45 studies were included. They represented 19,451,749 consultations for low back pain that had resulted in 4,343,919 imaging requests/events over 21 years. Primary care: moderate quality evidence that simple imaging proportion was 16.3% (95%CI 12.6 to 21.1) and complex imaging was 9.2% (95%CI 6.2 to 13.5). For any imaging the pooled proportion was 24.8% (95%CI 19.3 to 31.1). Emergency care: moderate quality evidence that simple imaging proportion was 26.1% (95%CI 18.2 to 35.8) and high quality evidence that complex imaging proportion was 8.2% (95%CI 4.4 to 15.6). For any imaging the pooled proportion was 35.6 % (95%CI 29.8 to 41.8). Complex imaging increased from 7.4% (95%CI 5.7 to 9.6) forimaging requested in 1995, to 11.4% (95%CI 9.6 to 13.5) in 2015 (relative increase of 53.5%).Between-study variability in imaging proportions was only partially explained by study-level characteristics; there were insufficient data to comment on some pre-specified study-level factors.Summary/conclusion: One in 4 patients who presented to primary care with low back pain received imaging as did one in 3 who presented to the Emergency department. The rate of

No abstract

BackgroundChiropractors have been shown to refer for lumbar radiography in clinical scenarios inconsistent with the current clinical guidelines for low back pain. It is unknown whether this is due to lack of adherence with known guidelines or a lack of awareness of relevant guidelines. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine Australian chiropractors’ awareness of, and reported adherence to, radiographic guidelines for low back pain. Demographic, chiropractic practice and radiographic usage characteristics will be investigated for association with poor guideline adherence.MethodsAn online survey was distributed to Australian chiropractors from July to September, 2014. Survey questions assessed demographic, chiropractic practice and radiographic usage characteristics, awareness of radiographic guidelines for low back pain and the level of agreement with current guidelines. Results were analysed with descriptive statistics and logistic regression analysis.ResultsThere were 480 surveys completed online. Only 49.6 % (95 % confidence interval (95 % CI): 44.9, 54.4) reported awareness of radiographic guidelines for low back pain. Chiropractors reported a likelihood of referring for radiographs for low back pain: in new patients (47.6 % (95 % CI: 42.9, 52.3)); to confirm biomechanical pathologies (69.0 % (95 % CI: 64.5, 73.1)); to perform biomechanical analysis (37.5 % (95 % CI: 33.1, 42.0)); or to screen for contraindications (39.4 % (95 % CI: 35.0, 44.0)). Chiropractors agreed that radiographs for low back pain could be useful for: acute low back pain (54.0 % (95 % CI: 49.2, 58.7)); screening for contraindications (55.8 % (95 % CI: 51.0, 60.5)); or to confirm diagnosis and direct treatment (61.3 % (95 % CI: 56.5, 65.9)). Poorer adherence to current guidelines was seen if the chiropractor referred to in-house radiographic facilities, practiced a technique other than diversified technique or was unaware or unsure of current radiographic guidelines for low back pain.ConclusionOnly 50 % of Australian chiropractors report awareness of current radiographic guidelines for low back pain. A poorer awareness of guidelines is associated with an increase in the reported likelihood of use, and the perceived usefulness of radiographs for low back pain, in clinical situations that fall outside of current guidelines. Therefore, education strategies may help to increase guideline knowledge and compliance.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12998-016-0118-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundImaging is overused in the management of low back pain (LBP). Interventions designed to decrease non-indicated imaging have predominantly targeted practitioner education alone; however, these are typically ineffective. Barriers to reducing imaging have been identified for both patients and practitioners. Interventions aimed at addressing barriers in both these groups concurrently may be more effective. The Behaviour Change Wheel provides a structured framework for developing implementation interventions to facilitate behavioural change. The aim of this study was to develop an implementation intervention aiming to reduce non-indicated imaging for LBP, by targeting both general medical practitioner (GP) and patient barriers concurrently.MethodsThe Behaviour Change Wheel was used to identify the behaviours requiring change, and guide initial development of an implementation intervention. Preliminary testing of the intervention was performed with: 1) content review by experts in the field; and 2) qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 10 GPs and 10 healthcare consumers, to determine barriers and facilitators to successful implementation of the intervention in clinical practice. Results informed further development of the implementation intervention.ResultsPatient pressure on the GP to order imaging, and the inability of the GP to manage a clinical consult for LBP without imaging, were determined to be the primary behaviours leading to referral for non-indicated imaging. The developed implementation intervention consisted of a purpose-developed clinical resource for GPs to use with patients during a LBP consult, and a GP training session. The implementation intervention was designed to provide GP and patient education, remind GPs of preferred behaviour, provide clinical decision support, and facilitate GP-patient communication. Preliminary testing found experts, GPs, and healthcare consumers were supportive of most aspects of the developed resource, and thought use would likely decrease non-indicated imaging for LBP. Suggestions for improvement of the implementation intervention were incorporated into a final version.ConclusionsThe developed implementation intervention, aiming to reduce non-indicated imaging for LBP, was informed by behaviour change theory and preliminary testing. Further testing is required to assess feasibility of use in clinical practice, and the effectiveness of the implementation intervention in reducing imaging for LBP, before large-scale implementation can be considered.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3526-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Approximately, half of all patients presenting to a medical doctor consider low back imaging to be necessary. This may have important implications for overutilization of low back imaging investigations. Knowledge of the factors associated with the patient's belief that imaging is necessary may be helpful in designing appropriate interventions to reduce unnecessary imaging for LBP.

BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is the number one cause of disability globally. LBP is a symptom associated with biological, psychological and social factors, and serious causes for pain are very rare. Unhelpful beliefs about LBP and inappropriate imaging are common. Practitioners report pressure from patients to provide inappropriate imaging. A recently developed patient education and management booklet, ‘Understanding low back pain’, was designed to target previously identified barriers for reducing inappropriate imaging. The booklet includes evidence-based information on LBP and supports communication between patients and practitioners. Our aim was to 1) describe the translation process into Finnish and 2) study patients’ and practitioners’ attitudes to the booklet and to evaluate if it improved patients’ understanding of LBP and practitioners’ ability to follow imaging guidelines.MethodsWe translated the booklet from English to Finnish. Preliminary evaluation of the booklet was obtained from LBP patients (n = 136) and practitioners (n = 32) using web-based questionnaires. Open-ended questions were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsApproximately half of the patients reported that reading the booklet helped them to understand LBP, while a third thought it encouraged them to perform physical activity and decreased LBP-related fear. Eighty percent of practitioners reported that the booklet helped them to follow imaging guidelines. In addition, practitioners reported that they found the booklet helpful and that it decreased the need for imaging.ConclusionsThe booklet seemed to be helpful in LBP management and in decreasing the need for LBP imaging according to patients and practitioners. Further research on the clinical effectiveness of the booklet in controlled study settings is needed.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN14389368, Registered 4 April 2019 - Retrospectively registered; ISRCTN11875357, Registered 22 April 2019 - Retrospectively registered.