ReviewHealth science reports2021
Goal attainment scaling for patients with low back pain in rehabilitation: A systematic review.
Review in Health science reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of goal attainment scaling implementation practices by caregivers in randomized controlled trials.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Goal setting among older adults starting mobile health cardiac rehabilitation in the RESILIENT trial.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024Trial
- Goal attainment scaling for patients with chronic low back pain receiving physical therapist care: a feasibility and reliability study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Goal Attainment Scaling in Patients With Burning Mouth Syndrome: A Real-World Clinical Study Protocol.Cureus · 2024Article
- Availability, Quality, and Evidence-Based Content of mHealth Apps for the Treatment of Nonspecific Low Back Pain in the German Language: Systematic Assessment.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Review
- Article
- Use of Goal Attainment Scaling to Measure Educational and Rehabilitation Improvements in Children with Multiple Disabilities.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Is There Room for Individual Patient-Specified Preferences in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Revolution?Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2023Article
- Goal Attainment Scaling in Outpatient Physical Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Goal attainment scaling for patients with low back pain in rehabilitation: A systematic review.Health science reports · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsGoal attainment scaling (GAS) has been widely applied to chronic conditions; however, only recently has it been used for patients with low back pain (LBP). The objectives of this systematic review were to (a) examine the characteristics and rigor of published studies of GAS in the rehabilitation of patients with LBP, (b) describe how GAS has been applied in patients with LBP, and (c) evaluate the responsiveness and validity of GAS as an outcome measure in patients with LBP.
methodsA systematic search of the CINAHL, PubMed, and MEDLINE databases was performed (1968 and 1 September 2020) in addition to hand searching. Studies including GAS procedures in patients with LBP during rehabilitation were included in the review. Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion and determined levels of evidence using the Oxford Levels of Evidence and rated each study for quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and reporting transparency using the STROBE statement checklist.
resultsSix Level IV and one Level III/IV study were included in this review (search produced 248 studies for review). These studies assessed GAS feasibility, validity, sensitivity, and association with other outcome measures in patients with LBP. Findings suggest that patients with LBP are able to identify and set individualized goals during GAS, while GAS may be more sensitive to change and may measure different aspects of the patient experience as compared with fixed-item patient-reported measures. Additionally, GAS may have a therapeutic effect while improving patient outcomes and may be associated with patient satisfaction.
conclusionBased on this review, GAS shows promise as a feasible patient-centered measure that may be more responsive to change than traditional outcome measures. However, GAS has been inadequately developed and validated for use during rehabilitation in patients with LBP.
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.