INTERQUAL IMAGING CRITERIA BIBLIOGRAPHY: SPINE

Transcription

1 INTERQUAL IMAGING CRITERIA BIBLIOGRAPHY: SPINE BIB-1

2 BIB-2

3 InterQual IMAGING Criteria: SPINE McKesson Clinical Evidence Classification References cited in the clinical content are classified according to the type of evidence presented. The class ratings, I through V, are intended to provide a classification of the evidence but are not necessarily hierarchical. Classifications appear in parentheses at the end of each reference. References followed by an (NC) are not classified; examples include pre-published research or information from government, manufacturer, laboratory, or patient education websites. Classification Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V Type of Evidence Meta-analysis or systematic review Well-designed controlled clinical trial or experimental study Well-designed observational or epidemiologic study Evidence-based guideline Expert opinion, panel consensus, literature review, text or reference book, descriptive study, case report, or case series Class I A meta-analysis is an analysis of the results from multiple trials. A systematic review is a qualitative means of summarizing multiple trials on the same intervention. Class I studies can show a statistically significant difference in support of an intervention when smaller studies could not. A meta-analysis or systematic review that finds insufficient evidence to support or refute an intervention (due to a lack of properly designed trials) is inconclusive. A potential weakness of Class I studies is that they may only assess published studies. Since studies demonstrating significant differences are more likely to be published than those that do not, publication bias is of concern. Class II A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental study design in which subjects are randomly assigned to an intervention or a control group. An RCT is the gold standard for testing cause and effect relationships. Intention-to-treat analysis should be performed to account for missing data points. Class III Observational or epidemiologic studies can suggest an association between events or findings. These associations cannot be used to establish causality. Cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies are all used to identify possible risk factors. Cross-sectional studies are also used to determine the prevalence of a condition. Cohort studies are used to study incidence, the natural history of a condition, prognosis after a specific exposure, and associated harms. Nonrandomized controlled trials are sometimes used when randomization is impossible or unethical. Class IV Evidence-based guidelines are systematically developed recommendations for clinical practice. Evidence-based guidelines identify the methodology used to gather the evidence on which the recommendations are based. Usually, a grading system for both the quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations is provided. Guidelines that are evidence-based may also contain consensus recommendations in areas where evidence is lacking, but these recommendations are clearly identified and appropriately graded. Class V Class V references may be the best information in the absence of other evidence. Expert opinion, panel consensus, literature reviews, and descriptive studies (case reports or case series) are subject to significant bias. A case series with comparison to historical controls can be plagued with missing data, and data extraction inconsistencies are common. The use of historical controls does not address how the diagnosis of disease or its treatment has evolved over time with newer technologies or medication. Text book information may be out of date by the time the book is BIB-3

4 BIB-4 InterQual IMAGING Criteria: SPINE published. Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) "Comparative effectiveness research is the conduct and synthesis of research comparing the benefits and harms of different interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat and monitor health conditions in 'real world' settings." (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to the President and the Congress on Comparative Effectiveness Research; Available from: [cited Apr ]) Bibliography Ali and Buckle. Neuroimaging in multiple sclerosis. Neurol Clin (1): , ix. (V) Bagley. Imaging of spinal trauma. Radiol Clin North Am (1):1-12, vii. (V) Bakshi et al. MRI in multiple sclerosis: current status and future prospects. Lancet Neurol (7): (V) Bakshi et al. The use of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and long-term management of multiple sclerosis. Neurology (11 Suppl 5):S3-11. (V) Birnbaum. Making the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Adv Neurol : (V) Bluman et al. Spinal epidural abscess in adults. J Am Acad Orthop Surg (3): (V) Bot et al. Spinal cord abnormalities in recently diagnosed MS patients: added value of spinal MRI examination. Neurology (2): (III) Braddom Randall L, Buschbacher Ralph M. Physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2nd ed ed. Philadelphia, Pa. ; London: Saunders; xxiii, 1435 p. : ill. ; 1429 cm. p. Calabresi. Diagnosis and management of multiple sclerosis. Am Fam Physician (10): (V) Carragee et al. A gold standard evaluation of the "discogenic pain" diagnosis as determined by provocative discography. Spine (18): (III) Chin. Spine imaging. Semin Neurol (2): (V) Chou and Huffman. Medications for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med (7): (IV) Courtney et al. Multiple sclerosis. Med Clin North Am (2): (V) Daffner and Hackney. ACR Appropriateness Criteria on suspected spine trauma. J Am Coll Radiol (11): (IV) Diaz et al. Are five-view plain films of the cervical spine unreliable? A prospective evaluation in blunt trauma patients with altered mental status. J Trauma (4): ; discussion (III) Douglass and Bope. Evaluation and treatment of posterior neck pain in family practice. J Am Board Fam Pract Suppl:S (V) El-Khoury et al. Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal Imaging. Metastatic bone disease. American College of Radiology (ACR); (IV) Emery. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: diagnosis and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg (6): Fazekas et al. MRI to monitor treatment efficacy in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimaging Suppl 1:50S-55S. (V) Filippi et al. EFNS guidelines on the use of neuroimaging in the management of multiple sclerosis. Eur J Neurol (4): (V) Grogan et al. Cervical spine evaluation in urban trauma centers: lowering institutional costs and complications through helical CT scan. J Am Coll Surg (2): (V) Guyer and Ohnmeiss. Lumbar discography. Spine J (3 Suppl):11S-27S. (IV) Hammouri et al. The utility of dynamic flexion-extension radiographs in the initial evaluation of the degenerative lumbar spine. Spine (21): (III) Hancock et al. Systematic review of tests to identify the disc, SIJ or facet joint as the source of low back pain. Eur Spine J (10): (I)

5 InterQual IMAGING Criteria: SPINE Jacobs et al. Imaging in neurooncology. NeuroRx (2): (V) Jarvik and Deyo. Diagnostic evaluation of low back pain with emphasis on imaging. Ann Intern Med (7): (V) Jinkins et al. Upright, weight-bearing, dynamic-kinetic MRI of the spine: initial results. Eur Radiol (9): (V) Krupp et al. Consensus definitions proposed for pediatric multiple sclerosis and related disorders. Neurology (16 Suppl 2):S7-12. (V) Lublin. Clinical features and diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Neurol Clin (1):1-15. (V) Miller et al. Differential diagnosis of suspected multiple sclerosis: a consensus approach. Mult Scler (9): (V) Nikkanen HE, Brown DF, Nadel ES. Low back pain. J Emerg Med 2002; 22(3): Patel. Surgical disorders of the thoracic and lumbar spine: a guide for neurologists. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Suppl 1:i (V) Ratliff and Cooper. Metastatic spine tumors. South Med J (3): (V) Rovira and Leon. MR in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple sclerosis: an overview. Eur J Radiol (3): (V) Royal College of Physicians. Multiple Sclerosis. National clinical guideline for diagnosis and management in primary and secondary care. London: NICE; (IV) Runge et al. Central nervous system: review of clinical use of contrast media. Top Magn Reson Imaging (4): (V) Ryan et al. Are T1 weighted images helpful in MRI of cervical radiculopathy? Br J Radiol (915): (II) Saboeiro. Lumbar discography. Radiol Clin North Am (3): (V) Sengupta and Herkowitz. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Treatment strategies and indications for surgery. Orthop Clin North Am (2): (V) Simon. Update on multiple sclerosis. Radiol Clin North Am (1): (V) Simon. Update on multiple sclerosis. Radiol Clin North Am (1):79-100, viii. (V) Sormani et al. Magnetic resonance imaging as a potential surrogate for relapses in multiple sclerosis: a meta-analytic approach. Ann Neurol (3): (I) Stabler A, Reiser MF. Imaging of spinal infection. Radiol Clin North Am 2001; 39(1): Takhtani and Melhem. MR imaging in cervical spine trauma. Clin Sports Med (1): (V) Tay BK, Deckey J, Hu SS. Spinal infections. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2002; 10(3): Tehranzadeh and Tao. Advances in MR imaging of vertebral collapse. Semin Ultrasound CT MR (6): (V) Thrower. Clinically isolated syndromes: predicting and delaying multiple sclerosis. Neurology (24 Suppl 4):S (V) Vanichkachorn and Vaccaro. Thoracic disk disease: diagnosis and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg (3): (V) Watters et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J (2): (IV) Winters et al. Back pain emergencies. Med Clin North Am (3): (V) Zivadinov et al. The place of conventional MRI and newly emerging MRI techniques in monitoring different aspects of treatment outcome. J Neurol Suppl 1: (V) Zou et al. Missed lumbar disc herniations diagnosed with kinetic magnetic resonance imaging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) (5):E (III) BIB-5