Dear Editor,
Studies such as the one that is the subject of this letter to the editor [1] are important, and I commend the authors for their efforts. Their conclusions were that diagnostic imaging did not result in better outcomes. However, as described in the article, the findings from the paper support a more limited conclusion, such as "imaging did not appear to improve outcomes when used in an unspecified manner." We are left to make assumptions regarding how imaging was used to influence treatment, if at all.
Anzeige
The primary purpose of imaging, as described, was apparently to rule out red flags, which is also supported by the 24% referral rate for imaging. Imaging alone cannot be expected to produce different outcomes between those that received imaging and those that didn't.
This study did not control or describe treatment specifically or address how and to what extent imaging was used to inform treatment decisions. The patients in both the imaging group and the non-imaging group may or may not have been treated similarly. We cannot, therefore, suggest from this study that the lack of difference in outcomes between groups was due to the lack of additional benefits of treatment informed by imaging.
I hope others continue such studies, but there is a need to describe how imaging was used to inform treatment in order to determine whether or not imaging is useful for biomechanical or other assessments prior to treatment if imaging is to be used beyond red-flag purposes.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Anzeige
Author’s information
Mark A. Lopes Volunteer Chair of the Research Committee of the Gonstead Clinical Studies Society; private practice 40 years full time; co-author and main author of several peer-reviewed publications and co-editor and major contributing author of a chiropractic textbook.
Declarations
Ethical approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.