ArticleBMJ open2016
Current and future perspectives on lumbar degenerative disc disease: a UK survey exploring specialist multidisciplinary clinical opinion.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of bone graft products used in lumbar interbody fusion procedures for degenerative disc disease.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Review
- Orthobiologic Management Options for Degenerative Disc Disease.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
- Symptomatic individuals with Lumbar Disc Degeneration use different anticipatory and compensatory kinematic strategies to asymptomatic controls in response to postural perturbation.Gait & posture · 2022Observational
- Non-Specific Low Back Pain and Lumbar Radiculopathy: Comparison of Morphologic and Compositional MRI as Assessed by gagCEST Imaging at 3T.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Reliability and minimal detectable change of the 'Imperial Spine' marker set for the evaluation of spinal and lower limb kinematics in adults.BMC research notes · 2020Article
- Aberrant intervertebral motion in patients with treatment-resistant nonspecific low back pain: a retrospective cohort study and control comparison.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 · 2018Article
- Anti-directional cervical intervertebral motion: could it have gone any other way?Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2018Article
- Effects of spaceflight on cartilage: implications on spinal physiology.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDespite lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD) being significantly associated with non-specific low back pain and effective treatment remaining elusive, specialist multidisciplinary clinical stakeholder opinion remains unexplored. The present study examines the views of such experts.
designA reliable and valid electronic survey was designed to establish trends using theoretical constructs relating to current assessment and management practices. Clinicians from the Society of Back Pain Research (SBPR) UK were invited to take part. Quantitative data were collated and coded using Bristol Online Surveys (BOS) software, and content analysis was used to systematically code and categorise qualitative data.
settingSpecialist multidisciplinary spinal interest group in the UK.
participants38/141 clinically active, multidisciplinary SBPR members with specialist spinal interest participated. Among them, 84% had >9 years postgraduate clinical experience.
interventionsNone. OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency distributions were used to establish general trends in quantitative data. Qualitative responses were coded and categorised in relation to each theme and percentage responses were calculated.
resultsLDDD symptom recurrence, in the absence of psychosocial influence, was associated with physical signs of joint stiffness (26%), weakness (17%) and joint hypermobility (6%), while physical factors (21%) and the ability to adapt (11%) were postulated as reasons why some experience pain and others do not. No one management strategy was supported exclusively or with consensus. Regarding effective modalities, there was no significant difference between allied health professional and medic responses (p=0.1-0.8). The future of LDDD care was expressed in terms of improvements in patient communication (35%), patient education (38%) and treatment stratification (24%).
conclusionsResults suggest that multidisciplinary expert spinal clinicians appear to follow UK-based assessment guidelines with regard to recurrent LDDD; there are, however, inconsistencies in the management approaches supported. This reflects the current literature and the lack of specific, formalised guidance. LDDD treatment stratification and further research are explicitly supported.
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.