ArticleSpine2011
Acute low back pain and primary care: how to define recovery and chronification?
Article in Spine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- How is recovery defined and measured in patients with low back pain? A mixed study systematic review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- The clinical course of acute, subacute and persistent low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024Pooled it
- Epidural steroid compared to placebo injection in sciatica: a systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2021Pooled it
- Can screening instruments accurately determine poor outcome risk in adults with recent onset low back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2017Pooled it
- The effect of shared decision-making on recovery from non-chronic aspecific low back pain in primary care; a post-hoc analysis from the patient, physician and observer perspectives.BMC primary care · 2022Trial
- Development and internal validation of a machine learning prediction model for low back pain non-recovery in patients with an acute episode consulting a physiotherapist in primary care.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- How is recovery defined and measured in patients with low back pain? Protocol for a mixed study systematic review.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Persistent lumbar radicular and low back pain; impact of genetic variability versus emotional distress.BMC research notes · 2019Article
- Early Return to Work Has Benefits for Relief of Back Pain and Functional Recovery After Controlling for Multiple Confounds.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2018Article
- The added prognostic value of MRI findings for recovery in patients with low back pain in primary care: a 1-year follow-up cohort study.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 · 2016Observational
- Clinical decision rule for primary care patient with acute low back pain at risk of developing chronic pain.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2015Article
- Can a back pain screening tool help classify patients with acute pain into risk levels for chronic pain?European journal of pain (London, England) · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designA prospective cohort study.
objectiveTo establish outcome measures for recovery and chronic pain for studies with patients who present with recent-onset acute low back pain (LBP) in primary care. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Among back pain researchers, no consensus exists about outcome definitions or how to identify primary-care patients as not-recovered from an episode of LBP. Cut points for outcome scales have mostly been arbitrarily chosen. Theoretical models for establishing minimal important change values in studies of patients with LBP have been proposed and need to be applied to real data.
methodsA sample of 521 patients who presented with acute LBP (<4 weeks) in primary care clinics were observed for 6 months and scores for pain and disability were compared with ratings on a Global Perceived Effect Scale. Using multiple potential "gold standards" as anchors (reference standards), the receiver operating characteristic method was used to determine optimal cut points for different ways of defining nonrecovery from acute LBP.
resultsMinimal important change values and upper limits for pain and disability scores as well as minimal important percentage changes are presented for five different definitions of recovery. A previously suggested 30% change from baseline scores does not accurately discriminate between recovered patients and nonrecovered patients in patients presenting with acute LBP in primary care.
conclusionOutcome definitions that combine ratings from perceived recovery scales with pain and disability measures provide the highest accuracy in discriminating recovered patients from nonrecovered patients.
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.