Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20140153›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of manual & manipulative therapy2009

Inter-tester Reliability in Classifying Acute and Subacute Low Back Pain Patients into Clinical Subgroups: A Comparison of Specialists and Non-Specialists. A Pilot Study.

Markku Paatelma, Eira Karvqnen, Ari Heinqnen

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

3 authors.

Markku Paatelma
Eira Karvqnen
Ari Heinqnen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many systems have been suggested for classifying low back pain (LBP); the most commonly used among physiotherapists involves a pathoanatomical/pathophysiological tissue classification system. Few studies have examined whether this form of classification of LBP disorders can be performed in a reliable manner between specialists with advanced training, or between specialists with advanced training and non-specialists who lack advanced training. The purpose of this paper was to examine the inter-tester reliability of two specialists, and the ability of a specialist and non-specialist to independently classify patients with LBP, utilizing clinical tests and history-based classification methods after a short educational course on the classification system. Subjects were acute or sub-acute patients with LBP who visited their occupational healthcare or municipal healthcare center. Inter-tester reliability between the specialist and non-specialists was at almost the same level: overall Kappa 0.60 (95%CI; 0.40 to 0.85), overall agreement 70%, as between the two specialists: overall Kappa 0.65 (95%CI; 0.33-0.86), overall agreement 77%. The findings suggest that a short educational course can provide rather reliable examination tools to allow non-specialized physiotherapists to classify patients according to tissue origination.

Indexed as

Inter-tester ReliabilityLow Back Pain ClassificationOrthopedic Manual Therapy

Identifiers

PMID20140153
PMCPMC2813502
OpenAlexW2084788340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.