ArticleBMC health services research2022
The clinical back pain courses described by information available in Danish central registries.
Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundPatients with back pain are often in contact with 2-4 hospital departments when receiving a back pain diagnosis and treatment. This complicates the entire clinical course description. There is, currently, no model that describes the course across departments for patients with back pain. This study aims to construct an interdisciplinary clinical course using the central register's information.
methodsAll patients with back pain referred for diagnosis and treatment at the Spine Center of Southern Denmark from 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2017 were included. By means of information available in central registers, we described the interdisciplinary clinical course for the individual patient, including information on all contacts at different departments, and proposed three different models to define the index and final date. The index date was defined as the first visit without a previous contact to the Spine Center for 6 months for model I, 1 year for model II, and 2 years for model III. The final date was defined as the last visit without following contacts for 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, respectively, for models I, II, and III.
resultsA total of 69,564 patients (male: n = 30,976) with back pain diagnosis were identified. The three models all leave the information on the entire course at the hospital. In model I (64,757 clinical back pain courses), the time span to a possible previous clinical course is too short to secure the start of a new course (14% had two or more). With at least 1 year between a possible previous contact, model II (60,914 courses) fits the everyday clinical practice (9% had two or more clinical back pain courses). In model III (60,173 courses) it seems that two independent courses might be connected in the same course as only 5% had two or more clinical back pain courses.
conclusionsDespite contact with different departments, the clinical course for back pain patients can be described by information from the central registers. A one-year time interval fits best the clinicians' everyday observations.
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.