Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19134184›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2009

Research priorities for non-pharmacological therapies for common musculoskeletal problems: nationally and internationally agreed recommendations.

Nadine E Foster, Krysia S Dziedzic, Danielle A W M van der Windt, Julie M Fritz, Elaine M Hay

Open access · goldAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
42.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Cost-effectiveness of general practice care for low back pain: a systematic review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2011
    Pooled it
  7. Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011
    Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Nadine E Foster
Krysia S Dziedzic
Danielle A W M van der Windt
Julie M Fritz
Elaine M Hay
Keele University · GBUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

Arthritis Research UK 18139Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10386
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMusculoskeletal problems such as low back pain, neck, knee and shoulder pain are leading causes of disability and activity limitation in adults and are most frequently managed within primary care. There is a clear trend towards large, high quality trials testing the effectiveness of common non-pharmacological interventions for these conditions showing, at best, small to moderate benefits. This paper summarises the main lessons learnt from recent trials of the effectiveness of non-pharmacological therapies for common musculoskeletal conditions in primary care and provides agreed research priorities for future clinical trials.

methodsConsensus development using nominal group techniques through national (UK) and international workshops. During a national Clinical Trials Thinktank workshop in April 2007 in the UK, a group of 30 senior researchers experienced in clinical trials for musculoskeletal conditions and 2 patient representatives debated the possible explanations for the findings of recent high quality trials of non-pharmacological interventions. Using the qualitative method of nominal group technique, these experts developed and ranked a set of priorities for future research, guided by the evidence from recent trials of treatments for common musculoskeletal problems. The recommendations from the national workshop were presented and further ranked at an international symposium (hosted in Canada) in June 2007.

results22 recommended research priorities were developed, of which 12 reached consensus as priorities for future research from the UK workshop. The 12 recommendations were reduced to 7 agreed priorities at the international symposium. These were: to increase the focus on implementation (research into practice); to develop national musculoskeletal research networks in which large trials can be sited and smaller trials supported; to use more innovative trial designs such as those based on stepped care and subgrouping for targeted treatment models; to routinely incorporate health economic analysis into future trials; to include more patient-centred outcome measures; to develop a core set of outcomes for new trials of interventions for musculoskeletal problems; and to focus on studies that advance methodological approaches for clinical trials in this field.

conclusionA set of research priorities for future trials of non-pharmacological therapies for common musculoskeletal conditions has been developed and agreed through national (UK) and international consensus processes. These priorities provide useful direction for researchers and research funders alike and impetus for improvement in the quality and methodology of clinical trials in this field.

Indexed as

Global HealthBiomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicHealth Care CostsHumansInternational CooperationMusculoskeletal DiseasesMusculoskeletal SystemOutcome Assessment, Health CareResearchUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID19134184
PMCPMC2631495
OpenAlexW2059975365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.