首页> 外文期刊>European spine journal >Red flags presented in current low back pain guidelines: a review
【24h】

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

机译:当前下腰痛指南中出现的危险信号:综述

获取原文
           

摘要

ObjectiveThe 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.MethodWe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionA 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...
机译:目的本研究的目的是识别和描述性比较指南中认可的危险信号,以检测下背痛至初级保健患者的严重病理状况。方法我们搜索了数据库,万维网并联系专家,旨在寻找多学科的初级保健中腰背痛的临床指南,并根据每个国家/地区选择了最新的指南。我们提取了有关危险信号的数量和类型的数据,以识别发生严重病理的可能性更高的患者。此外,我们提取了有关是否显示准确性数据(敏感性/特异性,预测值等)以支持对特定危险信号的认可的数据。结果我们找到了2000年至2015年之间发布的21项离散准则。在每个国家/地区选择一项指南后,我们在分析中纳入了来自15个不同国家/地区的16条指南,其中一项针对整个欧洲。所有指南都集中在基层医疗或多学科护理环境下的腰痛患者的管理上。五个指南总体上带有危险信号,即与任何特定疾病无关。总体而言,我们发现了与严重病理的四个主要类别相关的46个离散危险信号:恶性肿瘤,骨折,马尾综合征和感染。大多数指南提出了两个骨折危险信号(“严重或重大创伤”和“使用类固醇或免疫抑制剂”)和两个恶性肿瘤(“癌症病史”和“意外体重减轻”)。大多数情况下,晚上或休息时的疼痛也被认为是各种潜在病理的危险信号。八项准则基于共识或先前准则来选择危险信号;其中五项没有提供任何支持红旗选择的参考,三项指南通常提供了参考,并且很少提供诊断准确性的数据。结论腰背痛指南中提供了多种红旗,缺乏指南之间应达成共识,以认可哪些危险信号。缺乏推荐的红旗准确性的证据。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号