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

Table 3 CEM-weighted outcomes in exposure (imaging) and non-exposure (no imaging) groups: including matched participants only

Outcome measure	Matched sample size	Unadjusted model	Adjusted model	Sensitivity analysis^{^}
Outcome measure	Imaged (N)/Not imaged (N)	Effect size (95% CI)	Effect size (95% CI)	Effect size (95% CI)
Primary outcomes:
Low back pain intensity 3 months*	185/535	0.2 (− 0.2, 0.5)	0.1 (− 0.2, 0.4)	0.1 (− 0.2, 0.5)
Disability 3 months^#	189/542	0.2 (− 4.4, 4.8)	0.8 (− 3.2, 4.8)	0.8 (− 3.1, 4.7)
Secondary outcomes:
Low back pain intensity 2 weeks*	198/553	0.5 (0.2, 0.8)	0.4 (0.1, 0.8)	0.5 (0.1, 0.8)
Disability 2 weeks^#	224/627	4.2 (− 1.1, 9.5)	5.7 (1.4, 10.0)	5.9 (1.4, 10.4)
Low back pain intensity 1 year*	152/415	0.5 (0.1, 0.9)	0.4 (0.0, 0.7)	0.4 (0.1, 0.7)
Disability 1 year^#	160/468	− 2.9 (− 6.8, 1.0)	− 2.1 (− 5.7, 1.5)	− 2.4 (− 6.0, 1.2)
Global perceived effect 2 weeks^†	150/369	0.8 (0.5, 1.4)	0.8 (0.5, 1.3)	0.8 (0.5, 1.3)
Satisfaction with care 2 weeks^†	150/369	0.9 (0.5, 1.6)	0.9 (0.5, 1.7)	0.9 (0.5, 1.7)

^*Low back pain intensity numerical rating scale measured out of 10. A positive coefficient indicates higher pain in the exposure group. Adjusted for baseline low back pain and duration of pain
^#Low back disability RMDQ measured out of 100. A positive coefficient indicates higher disability in the exposure group. Adjusted for baseline low back disability and duration of pain
^†Global perceived effect and satisfaction with care dichotomised. An odds ratio greater than one indicates higher improvement or satisfaction in the exposure group. Adjusted for baseline low back pain, disability, and duration of pain
^{^}Sensitivity analysis additionally adjusted for covariates that did not obtain perfect balance: age, leg pain intensity

ISSN: 2045-709X