Red flags presented in current low back pain guidelines: a review

Arianne P. Verhagen, Aron Downie, Nahid Popal, Chris Maher, Bart W. Koes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify and descriptively compare the red flags endorsed in guidelines for the detection of serious pathology in patients presenting with low back pain to primary care. Method: We searched databases, the World Wide Web and contacted experts aiming to find the multidisciplinary clinical guideline in low back pain in primary care, and selected the most recent one per country. We extracted data on the number and type of red flags for identifying patients with higher likelihood of serious pathology. Furthermore, we extracted data on whether or not accuracy data (sensitivity/specificity, predictive values, etc.) were presented to support the endorsement of specific red flags. Results: We found 21 discrete guidelines all published between 2000 and 2015. One guideline could not be retrieved and after selecting one guideline per country we included 16 guidelines in our analysis from 15 different countries and one for Europe as a whole. All guidelines focused on the management of patients with low back pain in a primary care or multidisciplinary care setting. Five guidelines presented red flags in general, i.e., not related to any specific disease. Overall, we found 46 discrete red flags related to the four main categories of serious pathology: malignancy, fracture, cauda equina syndrome and infection. The majority of guidelines presented two red flags for fracture (‘major or significant trauma’ and ‘use of steroids or immunosuppressors’) and two for malignancy (‘history of cancer’ and ‘unintentional weight loss’). Most often pain at night or at rest was also considered as a red flag for various underlying pathologies. Eight guidelines based their choice of red flags on consensus or previous guidelines; five did not provide any reference to support the choice of red flags, three guidelines presented a reference in general, and data on diagnostic accuracy was rarely provided. Conclusion: A wide variety of red flags was presented in guidelines for low back pain, with a lack of consensus between guidelines for which red flags to endorse. Evidence for the accuracy of recommended red flags was lacking.

LanguageEnglish
Pages2788-2802
Number of pages15
JournalEuropean Spine Journal
Volume25
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2016

Fingerprint

Low Back Pain
Guidelines
Pathology
Primary Health Care
Consensus
Polyradiculopathy
Neoplasms
Internet
Weight Loss
Steroids

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2016. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Keywords

  • Low back pain
  • Practice guidelines/clinical guidelines

Cite this

Verhagen, Arianne P. ; Downie, Aron ; Popal, Nahid ; Maher, Chris ; Koes, Bart W. / Red flags presented in current low back pain guidelines : a review. In: European Spine Journal. 2016 ; Vol. 25, No. 9. pp. 2788-2802.
@article{ffa3b7aae85f46aba188b9d1aa502cd6,
title = "Red flags presented in current low back pain guidelines: a review",
abstract = "Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify and descriptively compare the red flags endorsed in guidelines for the detection of serious pathology in patients presenting with low back pain to primary care. Method: We searched databases, the World Wide Web and contacted experts aiming to find the multidisciplinary clinical guideline in low back pain in primary care, and selected the most recent one per country. We extracted data on the number and type of red flags for identifying patients with higher likelihood of serious pathology. Furthermore, we extracted data on whether or not accuracy data (sensitivity/specificity, predictive values, etc.) were presented to support the endorsement of specific red flags. Results: We found 21 discrete guidelines all published between 2000 and 2015. One guideline could not be retrieved and after selecting one guideline per country we included 16 guidelines in our analysis from 15 different countries and one for Europe as a whole. All guidelines focused on the management of patients with low back pain in a primary care or multidisciplinary care setting. Five guidelines presented red flags in general, i.e., not related to any specific disease. Overall, we found 46 discrete red flags related to the four main categories of serious pathology: malignancy, fracture, cauda equina syndrome and infection. The majority of guidelines presented two red flags for fracture (‘major or significant trauma’ and ‘use of steroids or immunosuppressors’) and two for malignancy (‘history of cancer’ and ‘unintentional weight loss’). Most often pain at night or at rest was also considered as a red flag for various underlying pathologies. Eight guidelines based their choice of red flags on consensus or previous guidelines; five did not provide any reference to support the choice of red flags, three guidelines presented a reference in general, and data on diagnostic accuracy was rarely provided. Conclusion: A wide variety of red flags was presented in guidelines for low back pain, with a lack of consensus between guidelines for which red flags to endorse. Evidence for the accuracy of recommended red flags was lacking.",
keywords = "Low back pain, Practice guidelines/clinical guidelines",
author = "Verhagen, {Arianne P.} and Aron Downie and Nahid Popal and Chris Maher and Koes, {Bart W.}",
note = "Copyright the Author(s) 2016. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00586-016-4684-0",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "2788--2802",
journal = "European Spine Journal",
issn = "0940-6719",
publisher = "Springer, Springer Nature",
number = "9",

}

Red flags presented in current low back pain guidelines : a review. / Verhagen, Arianne P.; Downie, Aron; Popal, Nahid; Maher, Chris; Koes, Bart W.

In: European Spine Journal, Vol. 25, No. 9, 01.09.2016, p. 2788-2802.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Red flags presented in current low back pain guidelines

T2 - European Spine Journal

AU - Verhagen, Arianne P.

AU - Downie, Aron

AU - Popal, Nahid

AU - Maher, Chris

AU - Koes, Bart W.

N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2016. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify and descriptively compare the red flags endorsed in guidelines for the detection of serious pathology in patients presenting with low back pain to primary care. Method: We searched databases, the World Wide Web and contacted experts aiming to find the multidisciplinary clinical guideline in low back pain in primary care, and selected the most recent one per country. We extracted data on the number and type of red flags for identifying patients with higher likelihood of serious pathology. Furthermore, we extracted data on whether or not accuracy data (sensitivity/specificity, predictive values, etc.) were presented to support the endorsement of specific red flags. Results: We found 21 discrete guidelines all published between 2000 and 2015. One guideline could not be retrieved and after selecting one guideline per country we included 16 guidelines in our analysis from 15 different countries and one for Europe as a whole. All guidelines focused on the management of patients with low back pain in a primary care or multidisciplinary care setting. Five guidelines presented red flags in general, i.e., not related to any specific disease. Overall, we found 46 discrete red flags related to the four main categories of serious pathology: malignancy, fracture, cauda equina syndrome and infection. The majority of guidelines presented two red flags for fracture (‘major or significant trauma’ and ‘use of steroids or immunosuppressors’) and two for malignancy (‘history of cancer’ and ‘unintentional weight loss’). Most often pain at night or at rest was also considered as a red flag for various underlying pathologies. Eight guidelines based their choice of red flags on consensus or previous guidelines; five did not provide any reference to support the choice of red flags, three guidelines presented a reference in general, and data on diagnostic accuracy was rarely provided. Conclusion: A wide variety of red flags was presented in guidelines for low back pain, with a lack of consensus between guidelines for which red flags to endorse. Evidence for the accuracy of recommended red flags was lacking.

AB - Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify and descriptively compare the red flags endorsed in guidelines for the detection of serious pathology in patients presenting with low back pain to primary care. Method: We searched databases, the World Wide Web and contacted experts aiming to find the multidisciplinary clinical guideline in low back pain in primary care, and selected the most recent one per country. We extracted data on the number and type of red flags for identifying patients with higher likelihood of serious pathology. Furthermore, we extracted data on whether or not accuracy data (sensitivity/specificity, predictive values, etc.) were presented to support the endorsement of specific red flags. Results: We found 21 discrete guidelines all published between 2000 and 2015. One guideline could not be retrieved and after selecting one guideline per country we included 16 guidelines in our analysis from 15 different countries and one for Europe as a whole. All guidelines focused on the management of patients with low back pain in a primary care or multidisciplinary care setting. Five guidelines presented red flags in general, i.e., not related to any specific disease. Overall, we found 46 discrete red flags related to the four main categories of serious pathology: malignancy, fracture, cauda equina syndrome and infection. The majority of guidelines presented two red flags for fracture (‘major or significant trauma’ and ‘use of steroids or immunosuppressors’) and two for malignancy (‘history of cancer’ and ‘unintentional weight loss’). Most often pain at night or at rest was also considered as a red flag for various underlying pathologies. Eight guidelines based their choice of red flags on consensus or previous guidelines; five did not provide any reference to support the choice of red flags, three guidelines presented a reference in general, and data on diagnostic accuracy was rarely provided. Conclusion: A wide variety of red flags was presented in guidelines for low back pain, with a lack of consensus between guidelines for which red flags to endorse. Evidence for the accuracy of recommended red flags was lacking.

KW - Low back pain

KW - Practice guidelines/clinical guidelines

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84976870870&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00586-016-4684-0

DO - 10.1007/s00586-016-4684-0

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 2788

EP - 2802

JO - European Spine Journal

JF - European Spine Journal

SN - 0940-6719

IS - 9

ER -