Diagnostic Imaging Guideline for Musculoskeletal Complaints in Adults - An Evidence-Based Approach - Part 2: Upper Extremity Disorders
André E. Bussières, DC; Cynthia Peterson, DC, RN, MMedEd; John A. M. Taylor, DC
Purpose: To develop evidence-based diagnostic imaging practice guidelines to assist chiropractors and other primary care providers in decision-making for the appropriate use of diagnostic imaging for upper extremity disorders.
Methods: A comprehensive search of the English and French language literature was conducted using a combination of subject headings and keywords. The quality of the citations was assessed using the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS), the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE), and the Stroke Prevention and Educational Awareness Diffusion (SPREAD) evaluation tools. The Referral Guidelines for Imaging (radiation protection 118) coordinated by the European Commission served as the initial template. The first draft was sent for an external review. A Delphi panel composed of international experts on the topic of musculoskeletal disorders in chiropractic radiology, clinical sciences, and research was invited to review and propose recommendations on the indications for diagnostic imaging. The guidelines were pilot tested and peer-reviewed by practicing chiropractors and by chiropractic and medical specialists. Recommendations were graded according to the strength of the evidence. Dissemination and implementation strategies are discussed.
Results: Recommendations for diagnostic imaging guidelines of adult upper extremity disorders are provided, supported by more than 126 primary and secondary citations. The overall quality of available literature is low, however. On average, 44 Delphi panelists completed 1 of 2 rounds, reaching over 88 percent agreement on all 32 recommendations. Peer review by specialists reflected high levels of agreement and perceived ease of use of guidelines and implementation feasibility.
Conclusions:The guidelines are intended to be used in conjunction with sound clinical judgment and experience and should be updated regularly. Future research is needed to validate their content.
Diagnostic Imaging Practice Guidelines for Musculoskeletal Complaints in Adults -- An Evidence-Based Approach -- Part 3: Spinal Disorders
André E. Bussières, DC; John A.M. Taylor, DC; Cynthia Peterson, DC, RN, MMedEd
Purpose: To develop evidence-based diagnostic imaging practice guidelines to assist chiropractors and other primary care providers in decision-making for the appropriate use of diagnostic imaging for spinal disorders.
Methods: A comprehensive search of the English and French language literature was conducted using a combination of subject headings and keywords. The quality of the citations was assessed using the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS), the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE), and the Stroke Prevention and Educational Awareness Diffusion (SPREAD) evaluation tools. The Referral Guidelines for Imaging (radiation protection 118) coordinated by the European Commission served as the initial template. The first draft was sent for an external review. A Delphi panel composed of international experts on the topic of musculoskeletal disorders in chiropractic radiology, clinical sciences, and research were invited to review and propose recommendations on the indications for diagnostic imaging. The guidelines were pilot tested and peer reviewed by practicing chiropractors, and by chiropractic and medical specialists. Recommendations were graded according to the strength of the evidence.
Results: Recommendations for diagnostic imaging guidelines of adult spine disorders are provided, supported by more than 385 primary and secondary citations. The overall quality of available literature is low, however. On average, 45 Delphi panelists completed 1 of 2 rounds, reaching more than 85 percent agreement on all 55 recommendations. Peer review by specialists reflected high levels of agreement, perceived ease of use of guidelines, and implementation feasibility. Dissemination and implementation strategies are discussed.
Conclusions:The guidelines are intended to be used in conjunction with sound clinical judgment and experience and should be updated regularly. Future research is needed to validate their content.
