Red flags to screen for malignancy and fracture in patients with low back pain: systematic review

Aron Downie, Christopher M. Williams, Nicholas Henschke, Mark J. Hancock, Raymond W J G Ostelo, Henrica C W De Vet, Petra Macaskill, Les Irwig, Maurits W. Van Tulder, Bart W. Koes, Christopher G. Maher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Objective: To review the evidence on diagnostic accuracy of red flag signs and symptoms to screen for fracture or malignancy in patients presenting with low back pain to primary, secondary, or tertiary care. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: Medline, OldMedline, Embase, and CINAHL from earliest available up to 1 October 2013. Inclusion criteria: Primary diagnostic studies comparing red flags for fracture or malignancy to an acceptable reference standard, published in any language. Review methods: Assessment of study quality and extraction of data was conducted by three independent assessors. Diagnostic accuracy statistics and post-test probabilities were generated for each red flag. Results: We included 14 studies (eight from primary care, two from secondary care, four from tertiary care) evaluating 53 red flags; only five studies evaluated combinations of red flags. Pooling of data was not possible because of index test heterogeneity. Many red flags in current guidelines provide virtually no change in probability of fracture or malignancy or have untested diagnostic accuracy. The red flags with the highest post-test probability for detection of fracture were older age (9%, 95% confidence interval 3% to 25%), prolonged use of corticosteroid drugs (33%, 10% to 67%), severe trauma (11%, 8% to 16%), and presence of a contusion or abrasion (62%, 49% to 74%). Probability of spinal fracture was higher when multiple red flags were present (90%, 34% to 99%). The red flag with the highest post-test probability for detection of spinal malignancy was history of malignancy (33%, 22% to 46%). Conclusions: While several red flags are endorsed in guidelines to screen for fracture or malignancy, only a small subset of these have evidence that they are indeed informative. These findings suggest a need for revision of many current guidelines.

LanguageEnglish
Article numberf7095
Number of pages9
JournalBMJ (Online)
Volume347
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 11 Dec 2013

Fingerprint

Low Back Pain
Secondary Care
Neoplasms
Guidelines
Tertiary Healthcare
Primary Health Care
Spinal Fractures
Contusions
Information Storage and Retrieval
Signs and Symptoms
Meta-Analysis
Adrenal Cortex Hormones
Language
Confidence Intervals
Wounds and Injuries
Pharmaceutical Preparations

Bibliographical note

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.

Corrections exists for this article and can be found in BMJ 2014;348:g7, doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7

Cite this

Downie, A., Williams, C. M., Henschke, N., Hancock, M. J., Ostelo, R. W. J. G., De Vet, H. C. W., ... Maher, C. G. (2013). Red flags to screen for malignancy and fracture in patients with low back pain: systematic review. BMJ (Online), 347, [f7095]. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f7095
Downie, Aron ; Williams, Christopher M. ; Henschke, Nicholas ; Hancock, Mark J. ; Ostelo, Raymond W J G ; De Vet, Henrica C W ; Macaskill, Petra ; Irwig, Les ; Van Tulder, Maurits W. ; Koes, Bart W. ; Maher, Christopher G. / Red flags to screen for malignancy and fracture in patients with low back pain : systematic review. In: BMJ (Online). 2013 ; Vol. 347.
@article{40f393b963414cc7a7747adea499bb72,
title = "Red flags to screen for malignancy and fracture in patients with low back pain: systematic review",
abstract = "Objective: To review the evidence on diagnostic accuracy of red flag signs and symptoms to screen for fracture or malignancy in patients presenting with low back pain to primary, secondary, or tertiary care. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: Medline, OldMedline, Embase, and CINAHL from earliest available up to 1 October 2013. Inclusion criteria: Primary diagnostic studies comparing red flags for fracture or malignancy to an acceptable reference standard, published in any language. Review methods: Assessment of study quality and extraction of data was conducted by three independent assessors. Diagnostic accuracy statistics and post-test probabilities were generated for each red flag. Results: We included 14 studies (eight from primary care, two from secondary care, four from tertiary care) evaluating 53 red flags; only five studies evaluated combinations of red flags. Pooling of data was not possible because of index test heterogeneity. Many red flags in current guidelines provide virtually no change in probability of fracture or malignancy or have untested diagnostic accuracy. The red flags with the highest post-test probability for detection of fracture were older age (9{\%}, 95{\%} confidence interval 3{\%} to 25{\%}), prolonged use of corticosteroid drugs (33{\%}, 10{\%} to 67{\%}), severe trauma (11{\%}, 8{\%} to 16{\%}), and presence of a contusion or abrasion (62{\%}, 49{\%} to 74{\%}). Probability of spinal fracture was higher when multiple red flags were present (90{\%}, 34{\%} to 99{\%}). The red flag with the highest post-test probability for detection of spinal malignancy was history of malignancy (33{\%}, 22{\%} to 46{\%}). Conclusions: While several red flags are endorsed in guidelines to screen for fracture or malignancy, only a small subset of these have evidence that they are indeed informative. These findings suggest a need for revision of many current guidelines.",
author = "Aron Downie and Williams, {Christopher M.} and Nicholas Henschke and Hancock, {Mark J.} and Ostelo, {Raymond W J G} and {De Vet}, {Henrica C W} and Petra Macaskill and Les Irwig and {Van Tulder}, {Maurits W.} and Koes, {Bart W.} and Maher, {Christopher G.}",
note = "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. Corrections exists for this article and can be found in BMJ 2014;348:g7, doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7",
year = "2013",
month = "12",
day = "11",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.f7095",
language = "English",
volume = "347",
journal = "BMJ (Online)",
issn = "0959-8138",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

}

Downie, A, Williams, CM, Henschke, N, Hancock, MJ, Ostelo, RWJG, De Vet, HCW, Macaskill, P, Irwig, L, Van Tulder, MW, Koes, BW & Maher, CG 2013, 'Red flags to screen for malignancy and fracture in patients with low back pain: systematic review', BMJ (Online), vol. 347, f7095. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f7095

Red flags to screen for malignancy and fracture in patients with low back pain : systematic review. / Downie, Aron; Williams, Christopher M.; Henschke, Nicholas; Hancock, Mark J.; Ostelo, Raymond W J G; De Vet, Henrica C W; Macaskill, Petra; Irwig, Les; Van Tulder, Maurits W.; Koes, Bart W.; Maher, Christopher G.

In: BMJ (Online), Vol. 347, f7095, 11.12.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Red flags to screen for malignancy and fracture in patients with low back pain

T2 - BMJ (Online)

AU - Downie, Aron

AU - Williams, Christopher M.

AU - Henschke, Nicholas

AU - Hancock, Mark J.

AU - Ostelo, Raymond W J G

AU - De Vet, Henrica C W

AU - Macaskill, Petra

AU - Irwig, Les

AU - Van Tulder, Maurits W.

AU - Koes, Bart W.

AU - Maher, Christopher G.

N1 - 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. Corrections exists for this article and can be found in BMJ 2014;348:g7, doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7

PY - 2013/12/11

Y1 - 2013/12/11

N2 - Objective: To review the evidence on diagnostic accuracy of red flag signs and symptoms to screen for fracture or malignancy in patients presenting with low back pain to primary, secondary, or tertiary care. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: Medline, OldMedline, Embase, and CINAHL from earliest available up to 1 October 2013. Inclusion criteria: Primary diagnostic studies comparing red flags for fracture or malignancy to an acceptable reference standard, published in any language. Review methods: Assessment of study quality and extraction of data was conducted by three independent assessors. Diagnostic accuracy statistics and post-test probabilities were generated for each red flag. Results: We included 14 studies (eight from primary care, two from secondary care, four from tertiary care) evaluating 53 red flags; only five studies evaluated combinations of red flags. Pooling of data was not possible because of index test heterogeneity. Many red flags in current guidelines provide virtually no change in probability of fracture or malignancy or have untested diagnostic accuracy. The red flags with the highest post-test probability for detection of fracture were older age (9%, 95% confidence interval 3% to 25%), prolonged use of corticosteroid drugs (33%, 10% to 67%), severe trauma (11%, 8% to 16%), and presence of a contusion or abrasion (62%, 49% to 74%). Probability of spinal fracture was higher when multiple red flags were present (90%, 34% to 99%). The red flag with the highest post-test probability for detection of spinal malignancy was history of malignancy (33%, 22% to 46%). Conclusions: While several red flags are endorsed in guidelines to screen for fracture or malignancy, only a small subset of these have evidence that they are indeed informative. These findings suggest a need for revision of many current guidelines.

AB - Objective: To review the evidence on diagnostic accuracy of red flag signs and symptoms to screen for fracture or malignancy in patients presenting with low back pain to primary, secondary, or tertiary care. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: Medline, OldMedline, Embase, and CINAHL from earliest available up to 1 October 2013. Inclusion criteria: Primary diagnostic studies comparing red flags for fracture or malignancy to an acceptable reference standard, published in any language. Review methods: Assessment of study quality and extraction of data was conducted by three independent assessors. Diagnostic accuracy statistics and post-test probabilities were generated for each red flag. Results: We included 14 studies (eight from primary care, two from secondary care, four from tertiary care) evaluating 53 red flags; only five studies evaluated combinations of red flags. Pooling of data was not possible because of index test heterogeneity. Many red flags in current guidelines provide virtually no change in probability of fracture or malignancy or have untested diagnostic accuracy. The red flags with the highest post-test probability for detection of fracture were older age (9%, 95% confidence interval 3% to 25%), prolonged use of corticosteroid drugs (33%, 10% to 67%), severe trauma (11%, 8% to 16%), and presence of a contusion or abrasion (62%, 49% to 74%). Probability of spinal fracture was higher when multiple red flags were present (90%, 34% to 99%). The red flag with the highest post-test probability for detection of spinal malignancy was history of malignancy (33%, 22% to 46%). Conclusions: While several red flags are endorsed in guidelines to screen for fracture or malignancy, only a small subset of these have evidence that they are indeed informative. These findings suggest a need for revision of many current guidelines.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84890037399&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.f7095

DO - 10.1136/bmj.f7095

M3 - Article

VL - 347

JO - BMJ (Online)

JF - BMJ (Online)

SN - 0959-8138

M1 - f7095

ER -