Abstract
Objective
To determine if there is a greater yield of pathological findings identified on MRI scans of patients referred by chiropractors as compared to those referred by allopathic providers.
Methods
MRI reports authored by medical radiologists from two independent MRI centers in the Denver metropolitan area were analyzed retrospectively for pathological data related to the spinal regions studied. A pathological report data sheet was used to record pathological findings in 22 different categories. A total of 150 reports from each provider group were reviewed.
Results
Of the 22 pathological conditions studied, a statistically significant difference between doctor of chiropractic and medical doctor referrers was identified in 4 categories: central spinal canal stenosis, lateral stenosis, facet arthrosis, and negative report. The most common primary diagnoses given for MRI referral were low back pain/sciatica, neck pain, and extremity pain. Seventy-four percent of the reports evaluated were performed on patients referred with a diagnosis of pain. In 3 of the 22 categories (14%), the medical doctors had a statistically higher pathological yield than the chiropractors. However, in 4 of the 22 categories (18%), the chiropractors had a statistically higher pathological yield. In 18 of the 22 categories (82%), there was no statistical difference between the two provider groups.
Conclusion
The data presented in this study suggests chiropractic and medical providers are compeer at ordering MRI for suspected pathological findings.
Key Indexing Terms: Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Utilization
Footnotes
Sources of support: The author received funding from the Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research and the National Chiropractic Mutual Insurance Company to conduct this study.
References
- 1.Anderson GF, Reinardt UE, Hussy PS, Petrosyan V. It's the prices, stupid: why the United States is so different from other countries. Health Aff. 2003;22:89–105. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.22.3.89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Livstone BJ, Parker L, Levin DC. Trends in the utilization of MR angiography and body MR imaging in the US Medicare population:1993–1998. Radiology. 2002;222:615–618. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2223010460. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Mitchell DG, Parker L, Sunshine JH, Levin DC. Body MR imaging and CT volume: variation and trends based on an analysis of Medicare and fee-for-service health insurance databases. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:27–31. doi: 10.2214/ajr.179.1.1790027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Maitino AJ, Levin DC, Parker L, Rao VM, Sunshine JH. Nationwide trends in rates of utilization of noninvasive diagnostic imaging among the Medicare population between 1993 and 1999. Radiology. 2003;227:113–117. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2272020617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Collie DA, Sellar RJ, Steyn JP, Cull RE. The diagnostic yield of MRI of the brain and spine requested by general practitioners: comparison with hospital clinicians. Br J Gen Pract. 1999;49:559–561. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Jordan JE, Ramirez GF, Bradley WG, Chen DY, Lightfoote JB, Song A. Economic and outcomes assessment of MRI in the evaluation of headache. J Nat Med Assoc. 2000;92:573–578. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Schroth WS, Schectman JM, Elinsky EG, Panagides JC. Utilization of medical services for the treatment of acute low back pain: conformance with clinical guidelines. J Gen Intern Med. 1992;7:486–491. doi: 10.1007/BF02599449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Mustard CA, McClarty BM, MacEwan DW. The influence of referral protocols on the utilization of magnetic resonance imaging: evidence from Manitoba. Can Assoc Radiol J. 1994;45:117–123. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Baldor RA, Quirk ME, Dohan D. Magnetic resonance imaging use by primary care physicians. J Fam Pract. 1993;36:281–285. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Saal JA. Natural history and nonoperative treatment of lumbar disc heriation. Spine. 1996;21(24 Suppl):2S–9S. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199612151-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Taylor VM, Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Dreuter W. Low back pain hospitalization: recent U.S. trends and regional variation. Spine. 1994;19:1207–1212. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199405310-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Boden SD, McCowin PR, Davis DO, Dina TS, Mark AS, Wiesel S. Abnormal magnetic resonance scans of the cervical spine in asymptomatic subjects: a prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:1178–1184. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Wood KB, Garvey TA, Gundry C, Heithoff KB. Magnetic resonance imaging of the thoracic spine. Evaluation of asymptomatic individuals. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77:1631–1638. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199511000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Obuchowski N, Modic MT, Malkasian D, Ross JS. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:69–73. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199407143310201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Kilmer SE. Chiropractic utilization of lumbar magnetic resonance imaging: how accurate are we compared with other specialties? J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1998;21:173–176. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]