Skip to main content

Table 1 Baseline variables stratified for those receiving or not receiving an imaging referral

From: What are the effects of diagnostic imaging on clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care: a matched observational study

Baseline variable

Imaging referral N = 522

No imaging referral N = 1640

Standardised difference in means

Observed#

CEM-weighted†

Female* (N, %)

226 (43.3)

648 (39.5)

0.1

0.0

Age* (mean, SD)

49.4 (14.6)

41.4 (12.4)

0.6

0.1

Back pain intensity* (mean, SD)

6.7 (2.0)

6.7 (2.1)

0.0

0.0

Leg pain intensity* (mean, SD)

3.7 (3.2)

2.5 (2.7)

0.4

0.1

Disability* (mean, SD)

55.1 (23.2)

54.2 (24.3)

0.0

0.0

Pain duration*

  

0.6

0.0

 Less than 2 weeks (N, %)

220 (42.1)

1131 (69.0)

  

 2 weeks to 3 months (N, %)

144 (27.6)

350 (21.3)

  

 Over 3 months (N, %)

158 (30.3)

159 (9.7)

  

Expectation of imaging referral (N, %)

207 (39.7)

341 (20.8)

  

STarT back risk*

  

0.3

0.0

 Low (N, %)

191 (36.6)

759 (46.3)

  

 Medium (N, %)

186 (35.6)

586 (35.7)

  

 High (N, %)

145 (27.8)

295 (18.0)

  

Previous imaging* (N, %)

143 (27.4)

434 (26.5)

0.0

0.0

Previous surgery* (N, %)

16 (3.1)

35 (2.1)

0.1

0.0

Previous treatment* (N, %)

330 (63.2)

1013 (61.8)

0.0

0.0

Presence of any comorbidity (N, %)

237 (45.4)

579 (35.3)

  

Presence of lumbar spine comorbidity (N, %)

94 (18.0)

146 (9.5)

  

Suspicion of serious pathology* (N, %)

24 (4.6)

7 (0.4)

0.4

0.0

Intention to use manipulation* (N, %)

488 (93.5)

1596 (97.3)

− 0.2

0.0

  1. *Baseline variables used in CEM matching
  2. #Standardised difference in means of the whole (unmatched) population
  3. †Standardised difference in means of the CEM-weighted (matched) population