Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
The catastrophization effects of an MRI report on the patient and surgeon and the benefits of ‘clinical reporting’: results from an RCT and blinded trials
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
The catastrophization effects of an MRI report on the patient and surgeon and the benefits of ‘clinical reporting’: results from an RCT and blinded trials
Do you wish to request the book?
The catastrophization effects of an MRI report on the patient and surgeon and the benefits of ‘clinical reporting’: results from an RCT and blinded trials
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
The catastrophization effects of an MRI report on the patient and surgeon and the benefits of ‘clinical reporting’: results from an RCT and blinded trials
2021
Overview
PurposeInappropriate use of MRI leads to increasing interventions and surgeries for low back pain (LBP). We probed the potential effects of a routine MRI report on the patient’s perception of his spine and functional outcome of treatment. An alternate ‘clinical reporting’ was developed and tested for benefits on LBP perception.MethodsIn Phase-I, 44 LBP patients were randomized to Group A who had a factual explanation of their MRI report or Group B, who were reassured that the MRI findings showed normal changes. The outcome was compared at 6 weeks by VAS, PSEQ-2, and SF-12. In Phase-II, clinical reporting was developed, avoiding potential catastrophizing terminologies. In Phase-III, 20 MRIs were reported by both routine and clinical methods. The effects of the two methods were tested on four categories of health care professionals (HCP) who read them blinded on their assessment of severity of disease, possible treatment required, and the probability of surgery.ResultsBoth groups were comparable initial by demographics and pain. After 6 weeks of treatment, Group A had a more negative perception of their spinal condition, increased catastrophization, decreased pain improvement, and poorer functional status(p = significant for all). The alternate method of clinical reporting had significant benefits in assessment of lesser severity of the disease, shift to lesser severity of intervention and surgery in three groups of HCPs.ConclusionRoutine MRI reports produce a negative perception and poor functional outcomes in LBP. Focussed clinical reporting had significant benefits, which calls for the need for ‘clinical reporting’ rather than ‘Image reporting’.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
