SynthesisPloS one2016
A Systematic Review of Outcome Measures Use, Analytical Approaches, Reporting Methods, and Publication Volume by Year in Low Back Pain Trials Published between 1980 and 2012: Respice, adspice, et prospice.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Functional Tests Predicting Return to Work of Workers with Non-Specific Low Back Pain: Are There Any Validated and Usable Functional Tests for Occupational Health Services in Everyday Practice? A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Pooled it
- "How to measure the outcome in the surgical treatment of vertebral compression fractures? A systematic literature review of highly cited level-I studies".BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Registry-Based Studies of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review.Current diabetes reports · 2019Pooled it
- Primary outcome measures used in interventional trials for ankle fractures: a systematic review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2019Pooled it
- Trial
- Assessment properties of the Visual Analogue scale, Numeric Rating Scale, Face Pain Scale, and Pain Intensity Subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory in Albanian population with low back pain.Annals of medicine · 2025Observational
- Article
- Improving Methodological Quality in Meta-Analyses of Athlete Pain Interventions: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Pain when it "counts": hurdle analysis of clinical pain ratings improves data model performance.Pain reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Predicting the time to get back to work using statistical models and machine learning approaches.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Prediction of Back Disability Using Clinical, Functional, and Biomechanical Variables in Adults with Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The Observable Movement Quality scale for patients with low back pain (OMQ-LBP): validity and reliability in a primary care setting of physical therapy.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Efficacy and safety of acupuncture for pregnancy-related low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Dynamic Rod Constructs as the Preventive Strategy against Adjacent Segment Disease in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Disorders: A Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2023Article
- Safety and efficacy of 650 nm invasive laser acupuncture on non-specific chronic low back pain: A protocol for a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- What can we learn from long-term studies on chronic low back pain? A scoping review.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 · 2022Article
- Relative Performance of Machine Learning and Linear Regression in Predicting Quality of Life and Academic Performance of School Children in Norway: Data Analysis of a Quasi-Experimental Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreasing patient-reported outcome measures in the 1980s and 1990s led to the development of recommendations at the turn of the millennium for standardising outcome measures in non-specific low back pain (LBP) trials. Whether these recommendations impacted use is unclear. Previous work has examined citation counts, but actual use and change over time, has not been explored. Since 2011, there has been some consensus on the optimal methods for reporting back pain trial outcomes. We explored reporting practice, outcome measure use, and publications over time.
methodsWe performed a systematic review of LBP trials, searching the European Guidelines for the management of LBP, extending the search to 2012. We abstracted data on publications by year, outcome measure use, analytical approach, and approaches taken to reporting trials outcomes. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and regression analyses.
resultsWe included 401 trials. The number of published trials per year has increased by a factor of 4.5 from 5.4 (1980-1999) to 24.4 (2000-2012). The most commonly used outcome measures have been the Visual Analogue Scale for pain intensity, which has slowly increased in use since 1980/81 from 20% to 60% of trials by 2012, and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, which rose to 55% in 2002/2003, and then fell back to 28% by 2012. Most trialists (85%) report between-group mean differences. Few (8%) report individual improvements, and some (4%) report only within-group analyses. Student's t test, ANOVA, and ANCOVA regression, or mixed models, were the most common approaches to analysis.
conclusionsRecommendations for standardising outcomes may have had a limited or inconsistent effect on practice. Since the research community is again considering outcome measures and modifying recommendations, groups offering recommendations should be cognisant that better ways of generating trialist buy-in may be required in order for their recommendations to have impact.
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.