Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21516301›Full record

SynthesisJournal of occupational rehabilitation2011

Factors associated with functional capacity test results in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: a systematic review.

Renske van Abbema, Sandra E Lakke, Michiel F Reneman, Cees P van der Schans, Corrien J M van Haastert, Jan H B Geertzen, Harriët Wittink

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Reliability and Construct Validity of the Six-Minute Step Test in Individuals With Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Renske van AbbemaCenter for Applied Research and Innovation in Health Care and in Nursing, Hanze University, University of Applied Sciences, Eyssoniusplein 18, Groningen, The Netherlands. r.van.abbema@pl.hanze.nl
Sandra E Lakke
Michiel F Reneman
Cees P van der Schans
Corrien J M van Haastert
Jan H B Geertzen
Harriët Wittink
University Medical Center Groningen · NLHanze University of Applied Sciences · NLUniversity of Applied Sciences Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFunctional capacity tests are standardized instruments to evaluate patients' capacities to execute work-related activities. Functional capacity test results are associated with biopsychosocial factors, making it unclear what is being measured in capacity testing. An overview of these factors was missing. The objective of this review was to investigate the level of evidence for factors that are associated with functional capacity test results in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain.

methodsA systematic literature review was performed identifying relevant studies from an electronic journal databases search. Candidate studies employed a cross-sectional or RCT design and were published between 1980 and October 2010. The quality of these studies was determined and level of evidence was reported for factors that were associated with capacity results in at least 3 studies.

resultsTwenty-two studies were included. The level of evidence was reported for lifting low, lifting high, carrying, and static lifting capacity. Lifting low test results were associated with self-reported disability and specific self-efficacy but not with pain duration. There was conflicting evidence for associations of lifting low with pain intensity, fear of movement/(re)injury, depression, gender and age. Lifting high was associated with gender and specific self-efficacy, but not with pain intensity or age. There is conflicting evidence for the association of lifting high with the factors self-reported disability, pain duration and depression. Carrying was associated with self-reported disability and not with pain intensity and there is conflicting evidence for associations with specific self-efficacy, gender and age. Static lifting was associated with fear of movement/(re)injury.

conclusionsMuch heterogeneity was observed in investigated capacity tests and candidate associated factors. There was some evidence for biological and psychological factors that are or are not associated with capacity results but there is also much conflicting evidence. High level evidence for social factors was absent.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationWork Capacity EvaluationAge FactorsChronic DiseaseHumansLiftingLow Back PainSex Factors

Identifiers

PMID21516301
OpenAlexW1994446019

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.