The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prevalence of and screening for serious spinal pathology in patients presenting to primary care settings with acute low back pain
Abstract
Objective: To determine the prevalence of serious pathology in patients presenting to primary care settings with acute low back pain, and to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of recommended “red flag” screening questions. Methods: An inception cohort of 1,172 consecutive patients receiving primary care for acute low back pain was recruited from primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia. At the initial consultation, clinicians recorded responses to 25 red flag questions and then provided an initial diagnosis. The reference standard was a 12‐month followup supplemented with a specialist review of a random subsample of participants. Results: There were 11 cases (0.9%) of serious pathology, including 8 cases of fracture. Despite the low prevalence of serious pathology, most patients (80.4%) had at least 1 red flag (median 2, interquartile range 1–3). Only 3 of the red flags for fracture recommended for use in clinical guidelines were informative: prolonged use of corticosteroids, age >70 years, and significant trauma. Clinicians identified 5 of the 11 cases of serious pathology at the initial consultation and made 6 false‐positive diagnoses. The status of a diagnostic prediction rule containing 4 features (female sex, age >70 years, significant trauma, and prolonged use of corticosteroids) was moderately associated with the presence of fracture (the area under the curve for the rule score was 0.834 [95% confidence interval 0.654–1.014]; P = 0.001). Conclusion: In patients presenting to a primary care provider with back pain, previously undiagnosed serious pathology is rare. The most common serious pathology observed was vertebral fracture. Approximately half of the cases of serious pathology were identified at the initial consultation. Some red flags have very high false‐positive rates, indicating that, when used in isolation, they have little diagnostic value in the primary care setting.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group
van Tulder, M., Furlan, A., Bombardier, C., & Bouter, L. (2003) · Spine · doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000065484.95996.af · Cited by 2,180
Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
Lijmer, J. G. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 · Cited by 1,861
Deyo, R. A., & Weinstein, J. N. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200102013440508 · Cited by 1,675
Cited by
What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention
Hartvigsen, J., Hancock, M. J., Kongsted, A., Louw, Q., Ferreira, M. L., Genevay, S., Hoy, D., Karppinen, J., Pransky, G., Sieper, J., et al. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30480-x · Cited by 4,652
Self-citationMaher, C., Underwood, M., & Buchbinder, R. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30970-9 · Cited by 2,535
Self-citationVlaeyen, J. W. S., Maher, C. G., Wiech, K., Van Zundert, J., Meloto, C. B., Diatchenko, L., Battié, M. C., Goossens, M., Koes, B., & Linton, S. J. (2018) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-018-0052-1 · Cited by 497
Self-citationAshar, Y. K., Gordon, A., Schubiner, H., Uipi, C., Knight, K., Anderson, Z., Carlisle, J., Polisky, L., Geuter, S., Flood, T. F., et al. (2022) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.2669 · Cited by 331
“A lot 5 (10) 3 (6) 2 (4) a Race and ethnicity were collected in accord with National Institutes of Health guidelines by multiple choice self-report.”
MethodCostal, L. D. C. M., Maherl, C. G., McAuleyl, J. H., Hancockl, M. J., & Smeetsl, R. J. E. M. (2011) · European Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2010.06.014 · Cited by 312
Metadata
- Authors
- Henschke, N., Maher, C. G., Refshauge, K. M., Herbert, R. D., Cumming, R. G., Bleasel, J., York, J., Das, A., & McAuley, J. H.
- Venue
- Arthritis & Rheumatism
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-09-29
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 3072-3080
- ISSN
- 0004-3591 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-0131
- OpenAlex
- W2166240555
- Cited by
- 456
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 13.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prevalence of and screening for serious spinal pathology in patients presenting to primary care settings with acute low back pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/art.24853
- The paper
- Henschke, N., Maher, C. G., Refshauge, K. M., Herbert, R. D., Cumming, R. G., Bleasel, J., York, J., Das, A., & McAuley, J. H. (2009). Prevalence of and screening for serious spinal pathology in patients presenting to primary care settings with acute low back pain. Arthritis & Rheumatism. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.24853
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.