Upright versus recumbent lumbar spine MRI: do findings differ systematically, and which correlates better with pain? A systematic review

IF 4.7 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Spine Journal Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-23 DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2024.12.034
Klaus Doktor DC , Henrik Wulff Christensen PhD , Tue Secher Jensen PhD , Mark J. Hancock PhD , Werner Vach PhD , Jan Hartvigsen PhD
{"title":"Upright versus recumbent lumbar spine MRI: do findings differ systematically, and which correlates better with pain? A systematic review","authors":"Klaus Doktor DC ,&nbsp;Henrik Wulff Christensen PhD ,&nbsp;Tue Secher Jensen PhD ,&nbsp;Mark J. Hancock PhD ,&nbsp;Werner Vach PhD ,&nbsp;Jan Hartvigsen PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.spinee.2024.12.034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>BACKGROUND CONTEXT</h3><div>Recumbent MRI is the most widely used image modality in people with low back pain (LBP), however, it has been proposed that upright (standing) MRI has advantages over recumbent MRI because of its ability to assess the effects of being weight-bearing. It has been suggested that this produces systematic differences in MRI parameters and differences in the correlation between MRI parameters and pain or disability in patients thus, potentially adding clinically helpful information.</div></div><div><h3>PURPOSE</h3><div>This paper aims to review and summarize the available empirical evidence for or against these 2 hypotheses.</div></div><div><h3>STUDY DESIGN/SETTING</h3><div>Systematic review of the literature (PROSPERO ID: CRD42017048318). Studies should be based on paired observations of MRI findings in the upright and recumbent positions.</div></div><div><h3>PATIENT/PARTICIPANT SAMPLE</h3><div>People aged 18 or older with or without low back pain ± radiculopathy. Studies needed a minimum of 15 participants.</div></div><div><h3>OUTCOME MEASURES</h3><div>All continuous, ordinal, and dichotomous parameters based on MRI images. All measures of pain or disability.</div></div><div><h3>METHODS</h3><div>Studies assessing MRI parameters both in upright and recumbent positions on the same individuals measured on continuous, ordinal, or dichotomous scales were included. For each parameter, the expected direction of the difference between recumbent and upright position was specified as an increase, no change, or decrease. Information on the observed distribution of individual differences was extracted from included studies and subjected to meta-analyses if sufficient data was available. Observed differences were then compared with the prespecified expectations. Studies were also screened for information on correlations between patients' pain and/or disability and MRI parameters or differences between patient subgroups defined by patients' pain and/or disability.</div></div><div><h3>RESULTS</h3><div>About 19 studies were identified, including 5,082 participants with LBP (16 studies) and 166 participants without low back pain (5 studies). Twenty-five MRI parameters were measured on a continuous scale, ten parameters were assessed on an ordinal scale, and 15 parameters were reported as dichotomous data. The observed differences between recumbent and upright MRI were mostly consistent with the prespecified expectations. Correlations between patients' pain or disability level and MRI parameters were reported in only 1 study, and three studies reported comparisons of MRI parameters across subgroups of patients defined by pain or disability characteristics. Higher correlations or larger effect sizes when using the upright position were observed in most results reported.</div></div><div><h3>CONCLUSION</h3><div>For most MRI parameters, the direction of the observed difference between assessment in recumbent and upright positions aligned with the prespecified expectation implied by the weight-bearing position. This confirms the existence of a systematic difference between the 2 positions. Performing an MRI upright instead of recumbent position may increase the correlation with pain, but final evidence for this property is still missing. The clinical significance of upright MRI is still unclear, and there is a need to directly investigate the impact of MRI findings on clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49484,"journal":{"name":"Spine Journal","volume":"25 8","pages":"Pages 1719-1750"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1529943025000105","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Recumbent MRI is the most widely used image modality in people with low back pain (LBP), however, it has been proposed that upright (standing) MRI has advantages over recumbent MRI because of its ability to assess the effects of being weight-bearing. It has been suggested that this produces systematic differences in MRI parameters and differences in the correlation between MRI parameters and pain or disability in patients thus, potentially adding clinically helpful information.

PURPOSE

This paper aims to review and summarize the available empirical evidence for or against these 2 hypotheses.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Systematic review of the literature (PROSPERO ID: CRD42017048318). Studies should be based on paired observations of MRI findings in the upright and recumbent positions.

PATIENT/PARTICIPANT SAMPLE

People aged 18 or older with or without low back pain ± radiculopathy. Studies needed a minimum of 15 participants.

OUTCOME MEASURES

All continuous, ordinal, and dichotomous parameters based on MRI images. All measures of pain or disability.

METHODS

Studies assessing MRI parameters both in upright and recumbent positions on the same individuals measured on continuous, ordinal, or dichotomous scales were included. For each parameter, the expected direction of the difference between recumbent and upright position was specified as an increase, no change, or decrease. Information on the observed distribution of individual differences was extracted from included studies and subjected to meta-analyses if sufficient data was available. Observed differences were then compared with the prespecified expectations. Studies were also screened for information on correlations between patients' pain and/or disability and MRI parameters or differences between patient subgroups defined by patients' pain and/or disability.

RESULTS

About 19 studies were identified, including 5,082 participants with LBP (16 studies) and 166 participants without low back pain (5 studies). Twenty-five MRI parameters were measured on a continuous scale, ten parameters were assessed on an ordinal scale, and 15 parameters were reported as dichotomous data. The observed differences between recumbent and upright MRI were mostly consistent with the prespecified expectations. Correlations between patients' pain or disability level and MRI parameters were reported in only 1 study, and three studies reported comparisons of MRI parameters across subgroups of patients defined by pain or disability characteristics. Higher correlations or larger effect sizes when using the upright position were observed in most results reported.

CONCLUSION

For most MRI parameters, the direction of the observed difference between assessment in recumbent and upright positions aligned with the prespecified expectation implied by the weight-bearing position. This confirms the existence of a systematic difference between the 2 positions. Performing an MRI upright instead of recumbent position may increase the correlation with pain, but final evidence for this property is still missing. The clinical significance of upright MRI is still unclear, and there is a need to directly investigate the impact of MRI findings on clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
直立与平卧腰椎MRI:结果是否有系统性差异?哪一种与疼痛更相关?系统回顾。
背景背景:卧位MRI是腰痛(LBP)患者最广泛使用的成像方式,然而,有人提出直立(站立)MRI比卧位MRI有优势,因为它能够评估负重的影响。有人认为,这产生了MRI参数的系统性差异,以及MRI参数与患者疼痛或残疾之间的相关性差异,从而可能增加临床有用的信息。目的:本文旨在回顾和总结现有的经验证据支持或反对这两个假设。研究设计/设置:系统回顾文献(PROSPERO ID: CRD42017048318)。研究应基于对直立和卧位MRI结果的成对观察。研究至少需要15名参与者。患者/参与者样本:年龄在18岁或以上,伴有或不伴有腰痛±神经根病。结果测量:所有基于MRI图像的连续、有序和二分类参数。所有疼痛或残疾的衡量标准。方法:对同一个体在直立和平卧位置的MRI参数进行评估的研究包括连续、有序或二分类量表。对于每个参数,横卧位置与直立位置之差的期望方向被指定为增加、不变或减少。从纳入的研究中提取观察到的个体差异分布信息,如果有足够的数据,则进行荟萃分析。然后将观察到的差异与预先指定的期望进行比较。研究还筛选了患者疼痛和/或残疾与MRI参数之间的相关性信息,或由患者疼痛和/或残疾定义的患者亚组之间的差异。结果:共纳入19项研究,包括5.082例腰痛患者(16项研究)和166例无腰痛患者(5项研究)。以连续量表测量25个MRI参数,以有序量表评估10个参数,并以二分类数据报告15个参数。平卧和直立MRI所观察到的差异与预先设定的预期基本一致。只有一项研究报告了患者疼痛或残疾水平与MRI参数之间的相关性,三项研究报告了以疼痛或残疾特征定义的患者亚组间MRI参数的比较。在大多数报告的结果中,使用直立位置时观察到较高的相关性或较大的效应大小。结论:对于大多数MRI参数,平卧位和直立位评估的差异观察方向与负重位暗示的预设期望一致。这证实了两种立场之间存在着系统性差异。直立位而非平卧位进行MRI检查可能会增加疼痛的相关性,但这一特性的最终证据仍然缺失。直立MRI的临床意义尚不清楚,有必要直接研究MRI结果对临床决策和患者预后的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Spine Journal
Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
680
审稿时长
13.1 weeks
期刊介绍: The Spine Journal, the official journal of the North American Spine Society, is an international and multidisciplinary journal that publishes original, peer-reviewed articles on research and treatment related to the spine and spine care, including basic science and clinical investigations. It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to The Spine Journal have not been published, and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. The Spine Journal also publishes major reviews of specific topics by acknowledged authorities, technical notes, teaching editorials, and other special features, Letters to the Editor-in-Chief are encouraged.
期刊最新文献
The Association between Teaching Hospital Status and Postoperative Outcomes among Adults Undergoing Long-Segment Posterior Lumbar Instrumentation. A dedicated spine team is more efficient and improves perioperative outcomes in idiopathic scoliosis surgery: A propensity score-matched study. Predictors of Insurance Denial with and without Prior Authorization in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: A Year-Long, Single-Center Cohort Analysis. Progression of lumbar disc degeneration: a 26-year follow-up study of healthy individuals from childhood to adulthood. The Association of Operative versus Nonoperative Treatment for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis and Stenosis with Future Metabolic Conditions and Allostatic Burden: An Emulated Target Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1