Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
Research ArticleSPINE

Effects of Diagnostic Information, Per Se, on Patient Outcomes in Acute Radiculopathy and Low Back Pain

L.M. Ash, M.T. Modic, N.A. Obuchowski, J.S. Ross, M.N. Brant-Zawadzki and P.N. Grooff
American Journal of Neuroradiology June 2008, 29 (6) 1098-1103; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A0999
L.M. Ash
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M.T. Modic
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
N.A. Obuchowski
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J.S. Ross
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M.N. Brant-Zawadzki
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
P.N. Grooff
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Fig 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig 1.

    Flow chart of study algorithm. Major stages of the study are highlighted, as well as the number of patients in the blinded and unblinded groups in each stage.

  • Fig 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig 2.

    GH scores of unblinded and blinded patients at baseline; 2, 4, and 6 weeks; and 1 year.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1:

    Comparison of unblinded and blinded patients at baseline

    VariableUnblindedBlindedUnadjusted P
    No. of patients (%)131 (53.3%)115 (46.7%)
    Mean age42.8 (SD = 10.3)43.3 (SD = 10.6).733
    No. of women (%)79 (55.6%)63 (44.4%).382
    No. of people of color (%)40 (54.8%)33 (45.2%).732
    Mean years of education14.5 (SD = 2.9)15.0 (SD = 2.7).087
    Mean no. of sick days2.4 (SD = 4.1)2.4 (SD = 4.2).682
    No. with radiculopathy (%)76 (58.0%)74 (49.3%).310
    Mean Roland score13.9 (SD = 5.2)12.4 (SD = 5.8).054
    Mean VPAS for average pain5.3 (SD = 1.8)5.2 (SD = 2.0).867
    Mean VPAS for worst pain8.8 (SD = 1.4)8.3 (SD = 2.1).180
    Mean self-efficacy pain55.4 (SD = 21.7)59.3 (SD = 22.9).165
    Mean self-efficacy other60.5 (SD = 21.6)64.2 (SD = 21.0).186
    Mean FAQ physical activity17.0 (SD = 5.8)17.4 (SD = 5.5).517
    Mean FAQ work14.4 (SD = 10.9)14.4 (SD = 10.8).975
    Mean SF-36: PF45.3 (SD = 25.1)47.6 (SD = 26.5).517
    Mean SF-36: RP17.4 (SD = 30.7)22.8 (SD = 35.1).287
    Mean SF-36: BP28.9 (SD = 30.7)33.7 (SD = 21.5).093
    Mean SF-36: GH73.4 (SD = 18.3)74.7 (SD = 16.1).723
    Mean SF-36: VT41.5 (SD = 22.0)46.9 (SD = 20.2).032
    Mean SF-36: SF57.4 (SD = 32.5)62.5 (SD = 30.3).252
    Mean SF-36: RE74.9 (SD = 38.7)77.3 (SD = 35.7).904
    Mean SF-36: MH75.7 (SD = 20.4)78.3 (SD = 16.3).698
    • Note:—SD indicates standard deviation; VPAS, visual pain analog scale; FAQ, fear avoidance questionnaire; SF, short form; PF, physical functioning; RP, role-physical; BP, bodily pain; GH, general health; VT, vitality; SF, social functioning; RE, role-emotional; MH, mental health.

    • View popup
    Table 2:

    Comparison of unblinded and blinded patients at 6 weeks

    VariableUnblindedBlindedUnadjusted P
    Mean Roland score6.1 (SD = 5.48)5.1 (SD = 5.50).099
    No. with 50% Roland score improvement (%)55 (60.4%)57 (67.1%).397
    Mean VPAS for average pain3.5 (SD = 2.70)2.96 (SD = 2.71).179
    No. with 50% VPAS improvement (%)43 (48.3%)44 (53.7%).529
    Mean no. of sick days0.6 (SD = 2.2)0.8 (SD = 2.3).743
    No. with 0 sick days (%)12 (14.0%)12 (15.0%).677
    Mean self-efficacy pain72.2 (SD = 21.8)72.5 (SD = 24.1).639
    Mean self-efficacy other73.6 (SD = 19.2)74.8 (SD = 21.3).400
    Mean FAQ physical activity13.8 (SD = 6.4)13.4 (SD = 6.3).698
    Mean FAQ work12.1 (SD = 11.3)10.8 (SD = 10.6).457
    Mean SF-36: PF69.0 (SD = 22.3)76.0 (SD = 24.7).010
    Mean SF-36: RP60.5 (SD = 41.3)70.2 (SD = 39.5).112
    Mean SF-36: BP56.5 (SD = 22.7)65.0 (SD = 24.4).041
    Mean SF-36: GH77.6 (SD = 19.4)80.7 (SD = 15.5).360
    Mean SF-36: VT58.3 (SD = 21.4)63.1 (SD = 20.0).157
    Mean SF-36: SF85.3 (SD = 21.7)86.0 (SD = 20.6).886
    Mean SF-36: RE77.5 (SD = 36.7)84.8 (SD = 29.8).246
    Mean SF-36: MH69.4 (SD = 21.0)78.7 (SD = 20.2).001
    • Note:—SD indicates standard deviation; VPAS, visual pain analog scale; FAQ, fear avoidance questionnaire; SF, short form; PF, physical functioning; RP, role-physical; BP, bodily pain; GH, general health; VT, vitality; SF, social functioning; RE, role-emotional; MH, mental health.

    • View popup
    Table 3:

    Comparison of unblinded and blinded patients at 1 year

    VariableUnblindedBlindedUnadjusted P
    Mean Roland score4.9 (SD = 5.3)4.2 (SD = 5.3).386
    Mean VPAS for average pain2.9 (SD = 2.4)2.8 (SD = 2.8).407
    Mean VPAS for worst pain4.5 (SD = 3.1)3.9 (SD = 3.3).221
    Mean no. of sick days0.27 (SD = 0.85)0.34 (SD = 3.3).493
    Mean self-efficacy pain72.0 (SD = 23.6)73.9 (SD = 21.8).749
    Mean self-efficacy other75.7 (SD = 21.6)76.9 (SD = 9.9).810
    Mean FAQ physical activity13.3 (SD = 7.0)13.9 (SD = 6.5).589
    Mean FAQ work11.2 (SD = 10.5)11.7 (SD = 9.9).770
    Mean SF-36: PF75.0 (SD = 25.4)75.7 (SD = 24.2).903
    Mean SF-36: RP72.5 (SD = 38.3)73.5 (SD = 40.8).607
    Mean SF-36: BP64.1 (SD = 26.5)64.7 (SD = 26.8).888
    Mean SF-36: GH70.2 (SD = 24.7)75.2 (SD = 18.2).461
    Mean SF-36: VT58.9 (SD = 22.1)62.4 (SD = 21.7).362
    Mean SF-36: SF85.9 (SD = 24.9)86.7 (SD = 22.8).980
    Mean SF-36: RE83.1 (SD = 33.1)87.4 (SD = 28.0).665
    Mean SF-36: MH74.3 (SD = 20.2)81.0 (SD = 16.7).032*
    • Note:—SD indicates standard deviation; VPAS, visual pain analog scale; FAQ, fear avoidance questionnaire; SF, short form; PF, physical functioning; RP, role-physical; BP, bodily pain; GH, general health; VT, vitality; SF, social functioning; RE, role-emotional; MH, mental health.

    • * The P value for mental health, after adjusting for the multiple comparisons, was >.05, not statistically significant.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 29 (6)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 29, Issue 6
June 2008
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effects of Diagnostic Information, Per Se, on Patient Outcomes in Acute Radiculopathy and Low Back Pain
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Effects of Diagnostic Information, Per Se, on Patient Outcomes in Acute Radiculopathy and Low Back Pain
L.M. Ash, M.T. Modic, N.A. Obuchowski, J.S. Ross, M.N. Brant-Zawadzki, P.N. Grooff
American Journal of Neuroradiology Jun 2008, 29 (6) 1098-1103; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A0999

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Effects of Diagnostic Information, Per Se, on Patient Outcomes in Acute Radiculopathy and Low Back Pain
L.M. Ash, M.T. Modic, N.A. Obuchowski, J.S. Ross, M.N. Brant-Zawadzki, P.N. Grooff
American Journal of Neuroradiology Jun 2008, 29 (6) 1098-1103; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A0999
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods and Materials
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • 'My hip is damaged: a qualitative investigation of people seeking care for persistent hip pain
  • Temporal trends in use of tests in UK primary care, 2000-15: retrospective analysis of 250 million tests
  • Can ultrasound imaging predict the development of Achilles and patellar tendinopathy? A systematic review and meta-analysis
  • Effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce the use of imaging for low-back pain: a systematic review
  • Low back pain in primary care
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Conebeam CT as an Adjunct to Digital Subtraction Myelography for Detection of CSF-Venous Fistulas
  • Postoperative Lumbar Fusion Bone Morphogenic Protein–Related Epidural Cyst Formation
  • Modified Dynamic CT Myelography for Type 1 and 2 CSF Leaks: A Procedural Approach
Show more SPINE

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2022 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2023 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire