Evaluation of guideline-endorsed red flags to screen for fracture in patients presenting with low back pain

Patricia C. S. Parreira, Christopher G. Maher, Adrian C. Traeger, Mark J. Hancock, Aron Downie, Bart W. Koes, Manuela L. Ferreira

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Objectives: (1) Describe the evolution of guideline-endorsed red flags for fracture in patients presenting with low back pain; (2) evaluate agreement between guidelines; and (3) evaluate the extent to which recommendations are accompanied by information on diagnostic accuracy of endorsed red flags. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: MEDLINE and PubMed, PEDro, CINAHL and EMBASE electronic databases. We also searched in guideline databases, including the National Guideline Clearinghouse and Canadian Medical Association Infobase. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Data extraction: Two review authors independently extracted the following data: health professional association or society producing guideline, year of publication, the precise wording of endorsed red flag for vertebral fracture, recommendations for diagnostic workup if fracture is suspected, if the guidelines substantiate the recommendation with citation to a primary diagnostic study or diagnostic review, if the guideline provides any diagnostic accuracy data. Results: 78 guidelines from 28 countries were included. A total of 12 discrete red flags were reported. The most commonly recommended red flags were older age, use of steroids, trauma and osteoporosis. Regarding the evolution of red flags, older age, trauma and osteoporosis were the first red flags endorsed (in 1994); and previous fracture was the last red flag endorsed (in 2003). Agreement between guidelines in endorsing red flags was only fair; kappa=0.32. Only 9 of the 78 guidelines substantiated their red flag recommendations by research and only nine provided information on diagnostic accuracy. Summary/conclusion: The number of red flags endorsed in guidelines to screen for fracture has risen over time; most guidelines do not endorse the same set of red flags and most recommendations are not supported by research or accompanied by diagnostic accuracy data.

LanguageEnglish
Article numbere099525
Pages1-8
Number of pages8
JournalBritish Journal of Sports Medicine
Volume53
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2019

Fingerprint

Low Back Pain
Guidelines
Osteoporosis
Databases
Evidence-Based Practice
Information Storage and Retrieval
Wounds and Injuries
Practice Guidelines
Research
PubMed
MEDLINE
Publications
Steroids

Cite this

Parreira, Patricia C. S. ; Maher, Christopher G. ; Traeger, Adrian C. ; Hancock, Mark J. ; Downie, Aron ; Koes, Bart W. ; Ferreira, Manuela L. / Evaluation of guideline-endorsed red flags to screen for fracture in patients presenting with low back pain. In: British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2019 ; Vol. 53, No. 10. pp. 1-8.
@article{a5ff9630fc57429988b57d4b34cb1c68,
title = "Evaluation of guideline-endorsed red flags to screen for fracture in patients presenting with low back pain",
abstract = "Objectives: (1) Describe the evolution of guideline-endorsed red flags for fracture in patients presenting with low back pain; (2) evaluate agreement between guidelines; and (3) evaluate the extent to which recommendations are accompanied by information on diagnostic accuracy of endorsed red flags. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: MEDLINE and PubMed, PEDro, CINAHL and EMBASE electronic databases. We also searched in guideline databases, including the National Guideline Clearinghouse and Canadian Medical Association Infobase. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Data extraction: Two review authors independently extracted the following data: health professional association or society producing guideline, year of publication, the precise wording of endorsed red flag for vertebral fracture, recommendations for diagnostic workup if fracture is suspected, if the guidelines substantiate the recommendation with citation to a primary diagnostic study or diagnostic review, if the guideline provides any diagnostic accuracy data. Results: 78 guidelines from 28 countries were included. A total of 12 discrete red flags were reported. The most commonly recommended red flags were older age, use of steroids, trauma and osteoporosis. Regarding the evolution of red flags, older age, trauma and osteoporosis were the first red flags endorsed (in 1994); and previous fracture was the last red flag endorsed (in 2003). Agreement between guidelines in endorsing red flags was only fair; kappa=0.32. Only 9 of the 78 guidelines substantiated their red flag recommendations by research and only nine provided information on diagnostic accuracy. Summary/conclusion: The number of red flags endorsed in guidelines to screen for fracture has risen over time; most guidelines do not endorse the same set of red flags and most recommendations are not supported by research or accompanied by diagnostic accuracy data.",
keywords = "back, fracture, review",
author = "Parreira, {Patricia C. S.} and Maher, {Christopher G.} and Traeger, {Adrian C.} and Hancock, {Mark J.} and Aron Downie and Koes, {Bart W.} and Ferreira, {Manuela L.}",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bjsports-2018-099525",
language = "English",
volume = "53",
pages = "1--8",
journal = "British Journal of Sports Medicine",
issn = "0306-3674",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "10",

}

Evaluation of guideline-endorsed red flags to screen for fracture in patients presenting with low back pain. / Parreira, Patricia C. S.; Maher, Christopher G.; Traeger, Adrian C.; Hancock, Mark J.; Downie, Aron; Koes, Bart W.; Ferreira, Manuela L.

In: British Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 53, No. 10, e099525, 01.05.2019, p. 1-8.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of guideline-endorsed red flags to screen for fracture in patients presenting with low back pain

AU - Parreira,Patricia C. S.

AU - Maher,Christopher G.

AU - Traeger,Adrian C.

AU - Hancock,Mark J.

AU - Downie,Aron

AU - Koes,Bart W.

AU - Ferreira,Manuela L.

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - Objectives: (1) Describe the evolution of guideline-endorsed red flags for fracture in patients presenting with low back pain; (2) evaluate agreement between guidelines; and (3) evaluate the extent to which recommendations are accompanied by information on diagnostic accuracy of endorsed red flags. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: MEDLINE and PubMed, PEDro, CINAHL and EMBASE electronic databases. We also searched in guideline databases, including the National Guideline Clearinghouse and Canadian Medical Association Infobase. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Data extraction: Two review authors independently extracted the following data: health professional association or society producing guideline, year of publication, the precise wording of endorsed red flag for vertebral fracture, recommendations for diagnostic workup if fracture is suspected, if the guidelines substantiate the recommendation with citation to a primary diagnostic study or diagnostic review, if the guideline provides any diagnostic accuracy data. Results: 78 guidelines from 28 countries were included. A total of 12 discrete red flags were reported. The most commonly recommended red flags were older age, use of steroids, trauma and osteoporosis. Regarding the evolution of red flags, older age, trauma and osteoporosis were the first red flags endorsed (in 1994); and previous fracture was the last red flag endorsed (in 2003). Agreement between guidelines in endorsing red flags was only fair; kappa=0.32. Only 9 of the 78 guidelines substantiated their red flag recommendations by research and only nine provided information on diagnostic accuracy. Summary/conclusion: The number of red flags endorsed in guidelines to screen for fracture has risen over time; most guidelines do not endorse the same set of red flags and most recommendations are not supported by research or accompanied by diagnostic accuracy data.

AB - Objectives: (1) Describe the evolution of guideline-endorsed red flags for fracture in patients presenting with low back pain; (2) evaluate agreement between guidelines; and (3) evaluate the extent to which recommendations are accompanied by information on diagnostic accuracy of endorsed red flags. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: MEDLINE and PubMed, PEDro, CINAHL and EMBASE electronic databases. We also searched in guideline databases, including the National Guideline Clearinghouse and Canadian Medical Association Infobase. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Data extraction: Two review authors independently extracted the following data: health professional association or society producing guideline, year of publication, the precise wording of endorsed red flag for vertebral fracture, recommendations for diagnostic workup if fracture is suspected, if the guidelines substantiate the recommendation with citation to a primary diagnostic study or diagnostic review, if the guideline provides any diagnostic accuracy data. Results: 78 guidelines from 28 countries were included. A total of 12 discrete red flags were reported. The most commonly recommended red flags were older age, use of steroids, trauma and osteoporosis. Regarding the evolution of red flags, older age, trauma and osteoporosis were the first red flags endorsed (in 1994); and previous fracture was the last red flag endorsed (in 2003). Agreement between guidelines in endorsing red flags was only fair; kappa=0.32. Only 9 of the 78 guidelines substantiated their red flag recommendations by research and only nine provided information on diagnostic accuracy. Summary/conclusion: The number of red flags endorsed in guidelines to screen for fracture has risen over time; most guidelines do not endorse the same set of red flags and most recommendations are not supported by research or accompanied by diagnostic accuracy data.

KW - back

KW - fracture

KW - review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055154946&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099525

DO - 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099525

M3 - Article

VL - 53

SP - 1

EP - 8

JO - British Journal of Sports Medicine

T2 - British Journal of Sports Medicine

JF - British Journal of Sports Medicine

SN - 0306-3674

IS - 10

M1 - e099525

ER -