Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29392237›Full record

ArticlePain reports2017

Development of a risk stratification and prevention index for stratified care in chronic low back pain. Focus: yellow flags (MiSpEx network).

Pia-Maria Wippert, Anne-Katrin Puschmann, David Drießlein, Adamantios Arampatzis, Winfried Banzer, Heidrun Beck, Marcus Schiltenwolf, Hendrik Schmidt, Christian Schneider, Frank Mayer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. [Screening instruments: more light than shade].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Pia-Maria WippertSociology of Health and Physical Activity, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Anne-Katrin PuschmannSociology of Health and Physical Activity, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
David DrießleinDepartment of Statistics, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.
Adamantios ArampatzisDepartment of Training and Movement Sciences, Humboldt-University Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Winfried BanzerDepartment of Sports Medicine, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Heidrun BeckUniversity Hospital Carl Gustav Carus at Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Marcus SchiltenwolfDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Hendrik SchmidtJulius Wolff Institute, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Christian SchneiderInstitute of Sports Orthopaedics, Schön Klinik München Harlaching, Munich, Germany.
Frank MayerUniversity Outpatient Clinic, Centre of Sports Medicine, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
University of Potsdam · DEBerlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEGoethe University Frankfurt · DEHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEParacelsus Medical University · ATUniversity Hospital Carl Gustav Carus · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionChronic low back pain (LBP) is a major cause of disability; early diagnosis and stratification of care remain challenges.

objectivesThis article describes the development of a screening tool for the 1-year prognosis of patients with high chronic LBP risk (risk stratification index) and for treatment allocation according to treatment-modifiable yellow flag indicators (risk prevention indices, RPI-S).

methodsScreening tools were derived from a multicentre longitudinal study (n = 1071, age >18, intermittent LBP). The greatest prognostic predictors of 4 flag domains ("pain," "distress," "social-environment," "medical care-environment") were determined using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression analysis. Internal validity and prognosis error were evaluated after 1-year follow-up. Receiver operating characteristic curves for discrimination (area under the curve) and cutoff values were determined.

resultsThe risk stratification index identified persons with increased risk of chronic LBP and accurately estimated expected pain intensity and disability on the Pain Grade Questionnaire (0-100 points) up to 1 year later with an average prognosis error of 15 points. In addition, 3-risk classes were discerned with an accuracy of area under the curve = 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.63-0.85). The RPI-S also distinguished persons with potentially modifiable prognostic indicators from 4 flag domains and stratified allocation to biopsychosocial treatments accordingly.

conclusionThe screening tools, developed in compliance with the PROGRESS and TRIPOD statements, revealed good validation and prognostic strength. These tools improve on existing screening tools because of their utility for secondary preventions, incorporation of exercise effect modifiers, exact pain estimations, and personalized allocation to multimodal treatments.

Indexed as

Back pain diagnosisBack pain prognosisExercisePain screeningPrediction of disability/intensityPROGRESS/TRIPODYellow flags

Identifiers

PMID29392237
PMCPMC5741323
OpenAlexW2757427503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.