Observational studyBMC musculoskeletal disorders2017
Identifying subgroups of patients using latent class analysis: should we use a single-stage or a two-stage approach? A methodological study using a cohort of patients with low back pain.
Observational study in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variation of disability courses in Danish chiropractic patients with low back pain: a one-year cohort study with four follow-ups.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Pain Phenotypes in Endometriosis: A Population-Based Study Using Latent Class Analysis.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025Article
- Evaluating sensitivity to classification uncertainty in latent subgroup effect analyses.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Latent classes of posttraumatic stress disorder among survivors of the Bam Earthquake after 17 years.BMC psychiatry · 2022Article
- Subgroups of Long-Term Sick-Listed Based on Prognostic Return to Work Factors Across Diagnoses: A Cross-Sectional Latent Class Analysis.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2021Article
- Impact of Multimorbidity Subgroups on the Health Care Use and Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Tuberculosis: A Population-Based Cohort Analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2021Observational
- A Step Towards a Better Understanding of Pain Phenotypes: Latent Class Analysis in Chronic Pain Patients Receiving Multimodal Inpatient Treatment.Journal of pain research · 2020Article
- Latent class analysis derived subgroups of low back pain patients - do they have prognostic capacity?BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeterogeneity in patients with low back pain (LBP) is well recognised and different approaches to subgrouping have been proposed. Latent Class Analysis (LCA) is a statistical technique that is increasingly being used to identify subgroups based on patient characteristics. However, as LBP is a complex multi-domain condition, the optimal approach when using LCA is unknown. Therefore, this paper describes the exploration of two approaches to LCA that may help improve the identification of clinically relevant and interpretable LBP subgroups.
methodsFrom 928 LBP patients consulting a chiropractor, baseline data were used as input to the statistical subgrouping. In a single-stage LCA, all variables were modelled simultaneously to identify patient subgroups. In a two-stage LCA, we used the latent class membership from our previously published LCA within each of six domains of health (activity, contextual factors, pain, participation, physical impairment and psychology) (first stage) as the variables entered into the second stage of the two-stage LCA to identify patient subgroups. The description of the results of the single-stage and two-stage LCA was based on a combination of statistical performance measures, qualitative evaluation of clinical interpretability (face validity) and a subgroup membership comparison.
resultsFor the single-stage LCA, a model solution with seven patient subgroups was preferred, and for the two-stage LCA, a nine patient subgroup model. Both approaches identified similar, but not identical, patient subgroups characterised by (i) mild intermittent LBP, (ii) recent severe LBP and activity limitations, (iii) very recent severe LBP with both activity and participation limitations, (iv) work-related LBP, (v) LBP and several negative consequences and (vi) LBP with nerve root involvement.
conclusionsBoth approaches identified clinically interpretable patient subgroups. The potential importance of these subgroups needs to be investigated by exploring whether they can be identified in other cohorts and by examining their possible association with patient outcomes. This may inform the selection of a preferred LCA approach.
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.