ArticleActa orthopaedica2015
A proposed set of metrics for standardized outcome reporting in the management of low back pain.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 6 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
86 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 163 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials of spinal disorders: a methodological quality assessment and recommendations for future research.EFORT open reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Core outcome sets for spinal and associated limb, trunk, abdomen or pelvic pain: A systematic review.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Psychological interventions for chronic, non-specific low back pain: systematic review with network meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic review of randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Study-protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing clinical and radiological results after three different posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: the Spinal Stenosis Trial (SST) (part of the NORDSTEN Study).BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2017Trial
- Toward a Candidate Endoscopic Spine Surgery Registry Framework: Lessons From Global Spine Registry Models.Neurospine · 2026Article
- Article
- Sex difference in outcomes and risk factors for lumbar decompressive surgery.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 · 2026Article
- Article
- Factors associated with preoperative health-related quality of life in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery: a multi-ethnic Asian cohort.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Length of stay after lumbar decompressive surgery: prediction model, clinical reasons for prolonged stay, and association of prolonged stay with outcomes.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 · 2026Article
- Loss to follow-up after lumbar decompressive surgery: effect of collection method and perioperative factors on patient-reported outcome measures.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 · 2026Article
- Study on multi-modal feature fusion machine learning classification model of Chinese and Western medicine for depressive symptoms in middle-aged and older patients with chronic low back pain.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Social factors contributing to the development of chronic low back pain: a scoping review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- A data-driven analysis of lumbar steroid injection satisfaction in patients with chronic low back pain.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- External validation of a prediction model for disability and pain after lumbar disc herniation surgery: a prospective international registry-based cohort study.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
26 authors at 20 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeOutcome measurement has been shown to improve performance in several fields of healthcare. This understanding has driven a growing interest in value-based healthcare, where value is defined as outcomes achieved per money spent. While low back pain (LBP) constitutes an enormous burden of disease, no universal set of metrics has yet been accepted to measure and compare outcomes. Here, we aim to define such a set. PATIENTS AND
methodsAn international group of 22 specialists in several disciplines of spine care was assembled to review literature and select LBP outcome metrics through a 6-round modified Delphi process. The scope of the outcome set was degenerative lumbar conditions.
resultsPatient-reported metrics include numerical pain scales, lumbar-related function using the Oswestry disability index, health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, and questions assessing work status and analgesic use. Specific common and serious complications are included. Recommended follow-up intervals include 6, 12, and 24 months after initiating treatment, with optional follow-up at 3 months and 5 years. Metrics for risk stratification are selected based on pre-existing tools.
interpretationThe outcome measures recommended here are structured around specific etiologies of LBP, span a patient's entire cycle of care, and allow for risk adjustment. Thus, when implemented, this set can be expected to facilitate meaningful comparisons and ultimately provide a continuous feedback loop, enabling ongoing improvements in quality of care. Much work lies ahead in implementation, revision, and validation of this set, but it is an essential first step toward establishing a community of LBP providers focused on maximizing the value of the care we deliver.
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.