ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2009
[Communication and exchange of clinical findings for low back pain between general practitioners and orthopaedic surgeons: a retrospective observational study].
Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLow back pain is a frequent reason for consultation in general practice. Many patients are treated in cooperation with an orthopaedic surgeon which requires an effective exchange of information. The aim of this study was to investigate the level of communication between general practitioners (GPs) and orthopaedic surgeons. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this retrospective observational study referrals from GPs and corresponding response letters from orthopaedic surgeons were analyzed. GPs were asked to provide reasons for referral and to rate the quality of the response letters.
resultsA total of 12 out of 82 GPs from the teaching network of the Medical School of Göttingen participated in the study. Of 911 referrals to ambulatory orthopaedic surgeons within 3 months, 34% (n=312) were referred for low back pain. GPs provided little information beyond a diagnosis on the referral contrary to their self-perception. Most referrals (61%) were initiated by patients and most of them were considered at risk for chronification (72%) by the referring GP. Despite a formal obligation to report back, GPs received a response letter for only one-third (114/312) of the patients. GPs rated most of them as satisfactory, however, 59% were unsatisfied with the treatment recommendations. Only 10% of the letters contained psychosocial details. The information provided in the orthopaedic response letters was heterogeneous and only partly fulfilled the criteria set by the Interdisciplinary Society for Orthopaedic Pain Management.
conclusionIncomplete and scant information on referral forms from GPs and a high non-response rate from orthopaedic surgeons suggest that current health care system and referral forms do not promote effective communication about the patient. This might explain the satisfaction of GPs with the orthopaedic response letters despite the lack of information. The GPs dissatisfaction with the treatment recommendations reflects the limited treatment options for chronic low back pain in ambulatory care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.