ReviewArthritis research & therapy2012
Taking responsibility for the early assessment and treatment of patients with musculoskeletal pain: a review and critical analysis.
Review in Arthritis research & therapy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 3 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
42 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Barriers and facilitators experienced by osteopaths in implementing a biopsychosocial (BPS) framework of care when managing people with musculoskeletal pain - a mixed methods systematic review.BMC health services research · 2021Pooled it
- Evidence-based treatment recommendations for neck and low back pain across Europe: A systematic review of guidelines.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Prevention of sickness absence through early identification and rehabilitation of at-risk patients with musculoskeletal disorders (PREVSAM): 12-month follow-up of a randomised controlled trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Stratified primary care versus non-stratified care for musculoskeletal pain: findings from the STarT MSK feasibility and pilot cluster randomized controlled trial.BMC family practice · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Frequency and Indications of Non-Musculoskeletal Examinations: A Cross-Sectional Survey of South African Chiropractors.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Factors that influence the use of direct access to allied health professionals in the Netherlands.Primary health care research & development · 2025Article
- Barriers to the use of direct access according to allied health professionals; an exploration among Dutch physiotherapists, dietitians, and health insurers.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- The journey of patients with musculoskeletal complaints in Europe: a cross-sectional European survey.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- The chiropractors' dilemma in caring for older patients with musculoskeletal complaints: Collaborate, integrate, coexist, or separate?PloS one · 2024Article
- Current use of patient-reported outcome measures by musculoskeletal physiotherapists in Portugal.Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Osteopathy Referrals to and from General Practitioners: Secondary Analysis of Practitioner Characteristics from an Australian Practice-Based Research Network.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Creating and testing a questionnaire to predict immediate and strong positive responders to spinal manipulative therapy for non-specific low back pain. A pilot study.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2023Article
- Changes to consultations and diagnosis of osteoarthritis in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic.Osteoarthritis and cartilage · 2023Article
- Appropriateness of specialized care referrals for LBP: a cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Musculoskeletal pain is common across all populations and costly in terms of impact on the individual and, more generally, on society. In most health-care systems, the first person to see the patient with a musculoskeletal problem such as back pain is the general practitioner, and access to other professionals such as physiotherapists, chiropractors, or osteopaths is still either largely controlled by a traditional medical model of referral or left to self-referral by the patient. In this paper, we examine the arguments for the general practitioner-led model and consider the arguments, and underpinning evidence, for reconsidering who should take responsibility for the early assessment and treatment of patients with musculoskeletal problems.
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.