ArticleBMJ open2016
Differences among primary care patients with different mechanical patterns of low back pain: a cross-sectional investigation.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Misbeliefs about non-specific low back pain and attitudes towards treatment by primary care providers in Spain: a qualitative study.BMC primary care · 2022Trial
- Quantitative Global Survey Results of Acute Back Pain Sufferers Across Four Countries.Patient related outcome measures · 2023Article
- Association of presurgical circulating MicroRNAs with 1-year postsurgical pain reduction in spine facet osteoarthritis patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2022Article
- The influence of an educational internet-based intervention in the beliefs and attitudes of primary care professionals on non-specific chronic low back pain: study protocol of a mixed methods approach.BMC family practice · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo characterise and compare a persistent low back pain (LBP) population based on 4 clinical pain patterns.
designCross-sectional analysis of patient-reported data.
settingPatients from 220 primary care practitioners in 3 cities in Ontario, Canada.
participants1020 individuals seeking LBP care. INCLUSION CRITERIA: LBP symptoms lasting 1½-12 months, or unmanageable recurrent symptoms; ages 18+years. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: pregnant/1-year postpartum; involved in active litigation or motor vehicle injury; emergent spinal presentations; pain disorder diagnosis; work injury claim; or constant symptoms persisting >12 months postonset.
main outcome measureHall pain pattern subgroups: back dominant pain aggravated by flexion (P1) or extension (P2), or leg dominant constant (P3) or intermittent (P4) pain (multinomial logistic outcome; referent: P1).
resultsGroups P1 and P2 had the highest proportion of women. P2 and P4 had higher mean ages and comorbidity counts. P3 and P4 had higher proportions of overweight/obese individuals and lower general health scores. Adjusted models: being male and overweight/obese was associated with increased odds of being in P3 (OR 1.64 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.46), and OR 1.74 (1.13 to 2.68), respectively) and P4 (OR 1.87 (1.11 to 3.15) and OR 1.91 (1.06 to 3.42), respectively), and increasing age with increased odds of being in P2 (OR 1.02 (1.01 to 1.03)) and P4 (OR 1.06 (1.04 to 1.08)). Increasing comorbidity count was associated with increased odds of being in P2 (OR 1.14 (1.0 to 1.3)), and better general health scores with decreased odds of being in P3 (OR 0.40 (0.18 to 0.93)).
conclusionsThis is the first study to examine the 'Hall system' in a non-rehab primary care population. Subgroups classified according to this system appear to have distinct profiles. Further research is needed to better characterise and determine the prognostic implication of these clinically derived subgroups.
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.