Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25687654›Full record

Observational studyJournal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association2015

Japanese orthopaedic association back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ) as an outcome measure for patients with low back pain: reference values in healthy volunteers.

Hiroshi Hashizume, Shin-ichi Konno, Katsushi Takeshita, Mitsuru Fukui, Kazuhisa Takahashi, Kazuhiro Chiba, Masabumi Miyamoto, Morio Matsumoto, Yuichi Kasai, Masahiko Kanamori and 8 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Cerebrospinal fluid signal loss sign: assessment of a new radiological sign in lumbar spinal stenosis.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 · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
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

18 authors at 16 institutions in 1 country.

Hiroshi HashizumeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, 811-1 Kimiidera, Wakayama, 641-8510, Japan, hashizum@wakayama-med.ac.jp.
Shin-ichi Konno
Katsushi Takeshita
Mitsuru Fukui
Kazuhisa Takahashi
Kazuhiro Chiba
Masabumi Miyamoto
Morio Matsumoto
Yuichi Kasai
Masahiko Kanamori
Shunji Matsunaga
Noboru Hosono
Tsukasa Kanchiku
Hiroshi Taneichi
Nobuhiro Tanaka
Masahiro Kanayama
Takachika Shimizu
Mamoru Kawakami
Wakayama Medical University · JPChiba University · JPDokkyo Medical University · JPFukushima Medical University · JPHakodate Central General Hospital · JPHiroshima University · JPImakiire General Hospital · JPKeio University · JPKitasato University · JPMie University · JPNippon Medical School · JPOsaka City University · JPOsaka Kaisei Hospital · JPUniversity of Tokyo Hospital · JPUniversity of Toyama · JPYamaguchi University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2007, the Japanese orthopaedic association back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ) was established to overcome the limitations of the original JOA scoring system developed in 1986. Although this new self-administered questionnaire is a more accurate outcome measure for evaluating patients with low back pain, physicians were unable to as certain the exact status of a patient at a single time point because of a lack of reference values. This study aimed to establish the reference values of JOABPEQ in different age and gender groups using data obtained from healthy volunteers.

methodsThis study was conducted in 21 university hospitals and affiliated hospitals from October 2012 to July 2013. The JOABPEQ includes 25 questions that yield five domains to evaluate individuals with low back pain from five different perspectives. A total of 1,456 healthy volunteers (719 men, 737 women; age range, 20-89 years) answered the questionnaire. The differences in scores according to age and gender were examined by non-parametric tests.

resultsThe JOABPEQ scores significantly decreased with age in the domains of lumbar spine dysfunction, gait disturbance, and social life dysfunction. In these three domains, the median scores approached the 100 possible points in individuals aged 20-70 for both genders. However, the median scores for lumbar spine dysfunction and social life dysfunction decreased to 83.0 and 65.0-78.0 points, respectively, in individuals in their 80 s and 70-80 s, respectively; and the scores for gait disturbance decreased to 93.0 and 71.0 points for males and females in their 80 s. Overall, the median scores for pain-related and psychological disorders were 100 and 60.0-72.0 points, respectively.

conclusionThe reference values for JOABPEQ according to age and gender were established herein. Patients with low back pain should be evaluated with this new self-administered questionnaire taking these reference values into account.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBack PainCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansJapanLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedOrthopedicsReference ValuesSocieties, Medical

Identifiers

PMID25687654
PMCPMC4366551
OpenAlexW1978437038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.