-
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Oct 2023Tooth wear (TW) prevalence is high and increasing and has important consequences on the patient's quality of life. Knowledge of risk factors is crucial to promote... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Tooth wear (TW) prevalence is high and increasing and has important consequences on the patient's quality of life. Knowledge of risk factors is crucial to promote diagnosis, prevention strategies and timely interceptive treatment. Many studies have identified TW risk factors.
OBJECTIVE
This scoping review aims to map and describe suspected available factors associated with TW in permanent dentition based on quantitative measurement.
METHODS
The scoping review was conducted using the PRISMA extension of the Scoping Reviews checklist. The search was conducted in October 2022 from the Medline® (PubMed® interface) and Scopus® databases. Two independent reviewers selected and characterised the studies.
RESULTS
2702 articles were identified for assessment of titles and abstracts, and 273 articles were included in the review. The results show a need to standardise TW measurement indices and the study design. The included studies highlighted various factors, classified into nine domains: sociodemographic factors, medical history, drinking habits, eating habits, oral hygiene habits, dental factors, bruxism and temporomandibular disorders, behavioural factors, and stress. Results related to chemical TW (erosion) risk factors underline the importance of eating disorders, gastroesophageal reflux and lifestyle, particularly drinking and eating behaviours, which supports developing public health information campaigns and interventions. Besides chemical, this review identifies evidence of several mechanical TW risk factors, such as toothbrushing and bruxism; the influence of this last factor needs to be further explored.
CONCLUSIONS
TW management and prevention require a multidisciplinary approach. Dentists are in the first line to detect associated diseases such as reflux or eating disorders. Consequently, practitioners' information and guideline diffusion should be promoted, and a TW risk factors checklist (the ToWeR checklist) is proposed to help diagnostic approaches.
Topics: Humans; Bruxism; Dentition, Permanent; Tooth Erosion; Quality of Life; Tooth Wear; Tooth Attrition; Risk Factors; Gastroesophageal Reflux
PubMed: 37147932
DOI: 10.1111/joor.13489 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry May 2024The increasing use of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems has led to the development of resin-ceramic materials that meet the... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The increasing use of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems has led to the development of resin-ceramic materials that meet the requirements of minimally invasive dentistry, including the resin nanoceramic (RNC) and polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN). The wear characteristics of these materials are unclear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the wear resistance of resin-ceramic materials when compared with one another or with lithium disilicate glass-ceramics.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The PubMed, Scopus, and DOSS search engines were used to identify articles published between 2013 and 2021. Two independent researchers conducted the systematic review by following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and by following a combination of keywords.
RESULTS
Of a total of 310 articles, 26 were selected, including only 1 clinical study. Among these, 15 compared resin-ceramic materials with each other, while 11 compared resin-ceramic materials with lithium disilicate ceramics. Two types of wear were used to compare the materials: attrition and abrasion. The most commonly studied materials were 2 RNCs (Lava Ultimate and Cerasmart), 1 PICN (Vita Enamic), and 1 ceramic (IPS e.max CAD). Among the resin-ceramic materials, the PICN (Vita Enamic) showed less wear than the RNCs. Of the RNCs, Cerasmart had less attrition wear and less wear of the opposing teeth.
CONCLUSIONS
Lithium disilicate glass-ceramics have a higher wear resistance than resin-ceramic materials, but they cause more wear of the opposing teeth.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Ceramics; Humans; Dental Porcelain; Dental Restoration Wear; Dental Materials; Resins, Synthetic
PubMed: 35459543
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.01.027 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Despite potential analgesic benefits from topical ophthalmic amides and esters, their outpatient use has become of concern because of the potential for abuse and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite potential analgesic benefits from topical ophthalmic amides and esters, their outpatient use has become of concern because of the potential for abuse and ophthalmic complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of topical ophthalmic anesthetics compared with placebo or other treatments in persons with corneal abrasions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; Embase.com; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), without restriction on language or year of publication. The search was performed on 10 February 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of topical ophthalmic anesthetics alone or in combination with another treatment (e.g. nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)) versus a non-anesthetic control group (e.g. placebo, non-treatment, or alternative treatment). We included trials that enrolled participants of all ages who had corneal abrasions within 48 hours of presentation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine parallel-group RCTs with a total of 556 participants (median number of participants per study: 45, interquartile range (IQR) 44 to 74), conducted in eight countries: Australia, Canada, France, South Korea, Turkey, New Zealand, UK, and USA. Study characteristics and risk of bias Four RCTs (314 participants) investigated post-traumatic corneal abrasions diagnosed in the emergency department setting. Five trials described 242 participants from ophthalmology surgery centers with post-surgical corneal defects: four from photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and one from pterygium surgery. Study duration ranged from two days to six months, the most common being one week (four RCTs). Treatment duration ranged from three hours to one week (nine RCTs); the majority were between 24 and 48 hours (five RCTs). The age of participants was reported in eight studies, ranging from 17 to 74 years of age. Only one participant in one trial was under 18 years of age. Of four studies that reported funding sources, none was industry-sponsored. We judged a high risk of bias in one trial with respect to the outcome pain control by 48 hours, and in five of seven trials with respect to the outcome complications at the furthest time point. The domain for which we assessed studies to be at the highest risk of bias was missing or selective reporting of outcome data. Findings The treatments investigated included topical anesthetics compared with placebo, topical anesthetic compared with NSAID (post-surgical cases), and topical anesthetics plus NSAID compared with placebo (post-surgical cases). Pain control by 24 hours In all studies, self-reported pain outcomes were on a 10-point scale, where lower numbers represent less pain. In post-surgical trials, topical anesthetics provided a moderate reduction in self-reported pain at 24 hours compared with placebo of 1.28 points on a 10-point scale (mean difference (MD) -1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.76 to -0.80; 3 RCTs, 119 participants). In the post-trauma participants, there may be little or no difference in effect (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.02; 1 RCT, 76 participants). Compared with NSAID in post-surgical participants, topical anesthetics resulted in a slight increase in pain at 24 hours (MD 0.82, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.63; 1 RCT, 74 participants). One RCT compared topical anesthetics plus NSAID to placebo. There may be a large reduction in pain at 24 hours with topical anesthetics plus NSAID in post-surgical participants, but the evidence to support this large effect is very uncertain (MD -5.72, 95% CI -7.35 to -4.09; 1 RCT, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pain control by 48 hours Compared with placebo, topical anesthetics reduced post-trauma pain substantially by 48 hours (MD -5.68, 95% CI -6.38 to -4.98; 1 RCT, 111 participants) but had little to no effect on post-surgical pain (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 44 participants), although the evidence is very uncertain. Pain control by 72 hours One post-surgical RCT showed little or no effect of topical anesthetics compared with placebo by 72 hours (MD 0.49, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.04; 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Proportion of participants with unresolved epithelial defects When compared with placebo or NSAID, topical anesthetics increased the number of participants without complete resolution of defects in trials of post-trauma participants (risk ratio (RR) 1.37, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.42; 3 RCTs, 221 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The proportion of placebo-treated post-surgical participants with unresolved epithelial defects at 24 to 72 hours was lower when compared with those assigned to topical anesthetics (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.55; 1 RCT, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or topical anesthetics plus NSAID (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.85; 1 RCT, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Proportion of participants with complications at the longest follow-up When compared with placebo or NSAID, topical anesthetics resulted in a higher proportion of post-trauma participants with complications at up to two weeks (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.23 to 5.46; 3 RCTs, 242 participants) and post-surgical participants with complications at up to one week (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.38 to 128.02; 1 RCT, 44 participants). When topical anesthetic plus NSAID was compared with placebo, no complications were reported in either treatment arm up to one week post-surgery (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.12; 1 RCT, 30 participants). The evidence is very uncertain for safety outcomes. Quality of life None of the included trials assessed quality of life outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite topical anesthetics providing excellent pain control in the intraoperative setting, the currently available evidence provides little or no certainty about their efficacy for reducing ocular pain in the initial 24 to 72 hours after a corneal abrasion, whether from unintentional trauma or surgery. We have very low confidence in this evidence as a basis to recommend topical anesthetics as an efficacious treatment modality to relieve pain from corneal abrasions. We also found no evidence of a substantial effect on epithelial healing up to 72 hours or a reduction in ocular complications when we compared anesthetics alone or with NSAIDs versus placebo.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Young Adult; Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; Anesthetics, Local; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Analgesics; Corneal Injuries; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37555621
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015091.pub2 -
PloS One 2023Mountain biking and hiking continue to grow in popularity. With new participants to these sports, it is likely the number of injuries will increase. To assist medical...
BACKGROUND
Mountain biking and hiking continue to grow in popularity. With new participants to these sports, it is likely the number of injuries will increase. To assist medical personnel in the management of these patients we attempted to quantify the types and locations of injuries sustained by mountain bikers and hikers. Objective The objective of this systematic review is to identify the type and anatomical location of injuries for both mountain bikers and hikers.
METHODS
A systematic search was undertaken using CINAHL, Cochrane, ProQuest, PubMed and Scopus databases. Reviewers assessed the eligibility of articles by a title/abstract review and final full-text review. Studies were included if the types of injuries were reported by medical personnel and contained anatomical locations. Studies were excluded if it did not take place on a trail or if the injuries were self-reported. Risk of bias was assessed utilising the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists for study quality. No meta-analysis or comparison between mountain bikers and hikers was possible due to the high heterogeneity of the definition of injury.
RESULTS
A total of 24 studies met the inclusion criteria, 17 covering mountain biking and 7 hiking. This represented 220,935 injured mountain bikers and 17,757 injured hikers. The most common type of injuries sustained by mountain bikers included contusions, abrasions and minor lacerations, which made up between 45-74% of reported injuries in studies on competitive racing and 8-67% in non-competitive studies. Fractures represented between 1.5-43% of all reported injuries. The most injured region was the upper limbs reported in 10 of 17 studies. For hikers the most common injuries included blisters and ankle sprains with blisters representing 8-33% of all reported injuries. The most common body location to be injured by hikers was a lower limb in all 7 studies.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first systematic review to report on the injury epidemiology of the two most common trail users; mountain bikers and hikers. For participants in both activities the majority of injuries were of minor severity. Despite this, the high proportions of upper limb fractures in mountain bikers and ankle sprains in hikers cannot be ignored.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Registration: This systematic review was prospectively registered with the University of York PROSPERO database on the 12/4/2021 (CRD42021229623) https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021229623.
Topics: Humans; Blister; Contusions; Fractures, Bone; Lacerations; Ankle Injuries
PubMed: 37647303
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285614 -
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) Jan 2024A corneal abrasion is a flaw in the cornea's epithelial surface, which is located in the front of the eye. It causes recurrent erosions, corneal inflammation, and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A corneal abrasion is a flaw in the cornea's epithelial surface, which is located in the front of the eye. It causes recurrent erosions, corneal inflammation, and chronic corneal defects. In a context with limited resources, the goal of this review was to provide an evidence-based procedure for perioperative risk stratification, prevention, and management of corneal abrasion during non-ocular surgery.
METHODS
A medical search engines of PUBMED, GOOGLE SCHOLAR, COCHRANE REVIEW, and PUBMED CENTERAL to get access for current and updated evidence on procedures on risk stratification, prevention and management of corneal abrasion for non-ocular surgery. The authors formulate the key questions, scope, and articles written in English language, human study focuses on corneal abrasion, articles in the last 20 year was implemented to identify or filter high-level evidences were included. Reports contain corneal abrasion due to ocular surgery were excluded. All the research articles, which were identified from searches of electronic databases, were imported into Endnote software, duplicate were removed advanced search strategy of electronic sources from databases and websites was conducted using Boolean operators (cornea AND (abrasion OR injury OR laceration)) AND ("Perioperative Period" OR "general anesthesia"). Screening of literatures was conducted with proper appraisal checklist. This review was reported in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement.
RESULTS
From 8767 identified articles, two hundred articles were removed for duplication and 7720 studies were excluded, 1205 articles were retrieved and evaluated for eligibility. Finally, 24 were included in this systematic review. Advanced age, Prominent eyes, exophthalmus, ocular surface abnormalities (dry eye), expected duration of surgery (>1 h), the favourable position of the surgery, prone,Trendelenburg and lateral, risk of bleeding, surgical site of the surgery(head /neck) and diabetes mellitus were risk for corneal abrasion. The use of appropriate intervention with pharmacological and Non-pharmacological strategies minimizes the occurrence of perioperative corneal abrasion was crucial for the quality of care.
CONCLUSION
Preventing and managing corneal abrasion improves patients' quality of life. However, there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions, and high-quality trials of multimodal interventions matched to risk stratification and prevention of corneal abrasion needed to provide robust evidence to guide prevention and management of perioperative corneal abrasion.
PubMed: 38222698
DOI: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000001566 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Aug 2023Brushing with dentifrice is the most commonly used denture cleaning method. However, it can result in the mass loss of acrylic resin and an increase in surface... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Brushing with dentifrice is the most commonly used denture cleaning method. However, it can result in the mass loss of acrylic resin and an increase in surface roughness, which favors the adherence of microorganisms.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies was to assess the influence of simulated brushing by using dentifrices and water on surface roughness and the mass loss of acrylic resins.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Lilacs, Embase, Open Gray, and Google Scholar databases in September 2022. The study selection process, data extraction, and risk of bias analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The protocol of this systematic review was registered in the Open Science Framework (DOI number 10.17605/OSF.IO/QD4GH). Meta-analysis was performed by using a random effects model (α=.05) in the RevMan (Cochrane Collaboration) software program.
RESULTS
A total of 14 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and 2 studies in the quantitative synthesis. The manual toothbrush was the most analyzed (n=9), followed by the electric toothbrush (n=5) and denture brush (n=1). Denture base resin (n=8) was evaluated more than acrylic resin for the abrasiveness of toothpaste (n=6). Most studies used conventional toothpaste (n=12), whereas 6 used specific dentifrices. The period of brushing corresponding to 1 year was the most predominant (n=6). Surface roughness (n=13) was evaluated more than mass loss (n=4). In general, dentifrices resulted in greater surface roughness than water. According to meta-analysis results, brushing by using dentifrices reported higher mass loss values than brushing with distilled water (P<.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Brushing acrylic resins with dentifrice was more abrasive than brushing with water.
PubMed: 37612194
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.06.027 -
The Japanese Dental Science Review Dec 2024This review examined the efficacy of surface treatments and adhesive monomers for enhancing zirconia-resin bond strength. A comprehensive literature search in PubMed,... (Review)
Review
This review examined the efficacy of surface treatments and adhesive monomers for enhancing zirconia-resin bond strength. A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library yielded relevant in vitro studies. Employing pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses, 77 articles meeting inclusion criteria were analyzed. Gas plasma was found to be ineffective, while treatments including air abrasion, silica coating, laser, selective infiltration etching, hot etching showed varied effectiveness. Air abrasion with finer particles (25-53 µm) showed higher immediate bond strength than larger particles (110-150 µm), with no significant difference post-aging. The Rocatec silica coating system outperformed the CoJet system in both immediate and long-term bond strength. Adhesives containing 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (10-MDP) were superior to other acidic monomers. The application of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate and silane did not improve bonding performance. Notably, 91.2 % of bonds weakened after aging, but this effect was less pronounced with air abrasion or silica coating. The findings highlight the effectiveness of air abrasion, silica coating, selective infiltration etching, hot etching, and laser treatment in improving bond strength, with 10-MDP in bonding agents enhancing zirconia bonding efficacy.
PubMed: 38938474
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2024.05.004 -
Journal of Robotic Surgery Jan 2024This study aims to review ophthalmic injuries sustained during of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). A search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane and grey... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aims to review ophthalmic injuries sustained during of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). A search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane and grey literature was performed using methods registered a priori. Eligible studies were published 01/01/2010-01/05/2023 in English and reported ophthalmic complications in cohorts of > 100 men undergoing RALP. The primary outcome was injury incidence. Secondary outcomes were type and permanency of ophthalmic complications, treatments, risk factors and preventative measures. Nine eligible studies were identified, representing 100,872 men. Six studies reported rates of corneal abrasion and were adequately homogenous for meta-analysis, with a weighted pooled rate of 5 injuries per 1000 procedures (95% confidence interval 3-7). Three studies each reported different outcomes of xerophthalmia, retinal vascular occlusion, and ophthalmic complications unspecified in 8, 5 and 2 men per 1000 procedures respectively. Amongst identified studies, there were no reports of permanent ophthalmic complications. Injury management was poorly reported. No significant risk factors were reported, while one study found African-American ethnicity protective against corneal abrasion (0.4 vs. 3.9 per 1000). Variables proposed (but not proven) to increase risk for corneal abrasion included steep Trendelenburg position, high pneumoperitoneum pressure, prolonged operative time and surgical inexperience. Compared with standard of care, occlusive eyelid dressings (23 vs. 0 per 1000) and foam goggles (20 vs. 1.3 per 1000) were found to reduce rates of corneal abrasion. RALP carries low rates of ophthalmic injury. Urologists should counsel the patient regarding this potential complication and pro-actively implement preventative strategies.
Topics: Male; Humans; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Prostatectomy; Laparoscopy; Corneal Injuries
PubMed: 38240959
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-023-01771-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2023See https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD014461.pub2/full for a more recent review that covers this topic and has superseded this review. (Review)
Review
EDITORIAL NOTE
See https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD014461.pub2/full for a more recent review that covers this topic and has superseded this review.
BACKGROUND
Low-back pain (LBP) is a common condition seen in primary care. A principal aim during a clinical examination is to identify patients with a higher likelihood of underlying serious pathology, such as vertebral fracture, who may require additional investigation and specific treatment. All 'evidence-based' clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of red flags to screen for serious causes of back pain. However, it remains unclear if the diagnostic accuracy of red flags is sufficient to support this recommendation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags obtained in a clinical history or physical examination to screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting with LBP.
SEARCH METHODS
Electronic databases were searched for primary studies between the earliest date and 7 March 2012. Forward and backward citation searching of eligible studies was also conducted.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were considered if they compared the results of any aspect of the history or test conducted in the physical examination of patients presenting for LBP or examination of the lumbar spine, with a reference standard (diagnostic imaging). The selection criteria were independently applied by two review authors.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently conducted 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed using the 11-item QUADAS tool. Characteristics of studies, patients, index tests and reference standards were extracted. Where available, raw data were used to calculate sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Due to the heterogeneity of studies and tests, statistical pooling was not appropriate and the analysis for the review was descriptive only. Likelihood ratios for each test were calculated and used as an indication of clinical usefulness.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight studies set in primary (four), secondary (one) and tertiary care (accident and emergency = three) were included in the review. Overall, the risk of bias of studies was moderate with high risk of selection and verification bias the predominant flaws. Reporting of index and reference tests was poor. The prevalence of vertebral fracture in accident and emergency settings ranged from 6.5% to 11% and in primary care from 0.7% to 4.5%. There were 29 groups of index tests investigated however, only two featured in more than two studies. Descriptive analyses revealed that three red flags in primary care were potentially useful with meaningful positive likelihood ratios (LR+) but mostly imprecise estimates (significant trauma, older age, corticosteroid use; LR+ point estimate ranging 3.42 to 12.85, 3.69 to 9.39, 3.97 to 48.50 respectively). One red flag in tertiary care appeared informative (contusion/abrasion; LR+ 31.09, 95% CI 18.25 to 52.96). The results of combined tests appeared more informative than individual red flags with LR+ estimates generally greater in magnitude and precision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence does not support the use of many red flags to specifically screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting for LBP. Based on evidence from single studies, few individual red flags appear informative as most have poor diagnostic accuracy as indicated by imprecise estimates of likelihood ratios. When combinations of red flags were used the performance appeared to improve. From the limited evidence, the findings give rise to a weak recommendation that a combination of a small subset of red flags may be useful to screen for vertebral fracture. It should also be noted that many red flags have high false positive rates; and if acted upon uncritically there would be consequences for the cost of management and outcomes of patients with LBP. Further research should focus on appropriate sets of red flags and adequate reporting of both index and reference tests.
Topics: Humans; Spinal Fractures; Low Back Pain; Physical Examination; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 38014846
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008643.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Low back pain is a common presentation across different healthcare settings. Clinicians need to confidently be able to screen and identify people presenting with low... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Low back pain is a common presentation across different healthcare settings. Clinicians need to confidently be able to screen and identify people presenting with low back pain with a high suspicion of serious or specific pathology (e.g. vertebral fracture). Patients identified with an increased likelihood of having a serious pathology will likely require additional investigations and specific treatment. Guidelines recommend a thorough history and clinical assessment to screen for serious pathology as a cause of low back pain. However, the diagnostic accuracy of recommended red flags (e.g. older age, trauma, corticosteroid use) remains unclear, particularly those used to screen for vertebral fracture.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags used to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. Where possible, we reported results of red flags separately for different types of vertebral fracture (i.e. acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, vertebral traumatic fracture, vertebral stress fracture, unspecified vertebral fracture).
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 July 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered primary diagnostic studies if they compared results of history taking or physical examination (or both) findings (index test) with a reference standard test (e.g. X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), single-photon emission computerised tomography (SPECT)) for the identification of vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. We included index tests that were presented individually or as part of a combination of tests.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data for diagnostic two-by-two tables from the publications or reconstructed them using information from relevant parameters to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive (+LR) and negative (-LR) likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We extracted aspects of study design, characteristics of the population, index test, reference standard, and type of vertebral fracture. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of studies and index tests, therefore the analysis was descriptive. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and LRs for each test and used these as an indication of clinical usefulness. Two review authors independently conducted risk of bias and applicability assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool.
MAIN RESULTS
This review is an update of a previous Cochrane Review of red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. We included 14 studies in this review, six based in primary care, five in secondary care, and three in tertiary care. Four studies reported on 'osteoporotic vertebral fractures', two studies reported on 'vertebral compression fracture', one study reported on 'osteoporotic and traumatic vertebral fracture', two studies reported on 'vertebral stress fracture', and five studies reported on 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. Risk of bias was only rated as low in one study for the domains reference standard and flow and timing. The domain patient selection had three studies and the domain index test had six studies rated at low risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of the data. Results from single studies suggest only a small number of the red flags investigated may be informative. In the primary healthcare setting, results from single studies suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs (range: 1.93 to 12.85) for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 6.42, 95% CI 2.94 to 14.02). Results from single studies suggest 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for studies in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 70 years: 11.19, 95% CI 5.33 to 23.51). Results from single studies suggest 'corticosteroid use' may be an informative red flag in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR range: 3.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 79.15 to 48.50, 95% CI 11.48 to 204.98) and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.46, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.34); however, diagnostic values varied and CIs were imprecise. Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and female gender' in primary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (16.17, 95% CI 4.47 to 58.43). In the secondary healthcare setting, results from a single study suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.18, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.54) and 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 75 years: 2.51, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.27). Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and trauma' in secondary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 4.35, 95% CI 2.92 to 6.48). Results from a single study suggest when '4 of 5 tests' were positive in secondary care, they demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 9.62, 95% CI 5.88 to 15.73). In the tertiary care setting, results from a single study suggest 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture' (+LR: 31.09, 95% CI 18.25 to 52.96).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence suggests that only a few red flags are potentially useful in guiding clinical decisions to further investigate people suspected to have a vertebral fracture. Most red flags were not useful as screening tools to identify vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. In primary care, 'older age' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture', and 'trauma' and 'corticosteroid use' were both informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture'. In secondary care, 'older age' was informative for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' and 'trauma' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. In tertiary care, 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture'. Combinations of red flags were also informative and may be more useful than individual tests alone. Unfortunately, the challenge to provide clear guidance on which red flags should be used routinely in clinical practice remains. Further research with primary studies is needed to improve and consolidate our current recommendations for screening for vertebral fractures to guide clinical care.
Topics: Aged; Female; Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Contusions; Fractures, Compression; Fractures, Stress; Low Back Pain; Spinal Fractures
PubMed: 37615643
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014461.pub2