Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35044534›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2022

What can we learn from long-term studies on chronic low back pain? A scoping review.

Alisa L Dutmer, Remko Soer, André P Wolff, Michiel F Reneman, Maarten H Coppes, Henrica R Schiphorst Preuper

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
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

6 authors.

Alisa L DutmerDepartment of Rehabilitation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0598-8516
Remko SoerDepartment of Rehabilitation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
André P WolffUniversity Medical Center Groningen, Pain Center, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6240-3903
Michiel F RenemanDepartment of Rehabilitation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. m.f.reneman@umcg.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4058-3437
Maarten H CoppesDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Henrica R Schiphorst PreuperDepartment of Rehabilitation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9460-3459

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA scoping review was conducted with the objective to identify and map the available evidence from long-term studies on chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP), to examine how these studies are conducted, and to address potential knowledge gaps.

methodWe searched MEDLINE and EMBASE up to march 2021, not restricted by date or language. Experimental and observational study types were included. Inclusion criteria were: participants between 18 and 65 years old with non-specific sub-acute or chronic LBP, minimum average follow-up of > 2 years, and studies had to report at least one of the following outcome measures: disability, quality of life, work participation, or health care utilization. Methodological quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment. Data were extracted, tabulated, and reported thematically.

resultsNinety studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies examined invasive treatments (72%), conservative (21%), or a comparison of both (7%). No natural cohorts were included. Methodological quality was weak (16% of studies), moderate (63%), or strong (21%) and generally improved after 2010. Disability (92%) and pain (86%) outcomes were most commonly reported, followed by work (25%), quality of life (15%), and health care utilization (4%). Most studies reported significant improvement at long-term follow-up (median 51 months, range 26 months-18 years). Only 10 (11%) studies took more than one measurement > 2 year after baseline.

conclusionPatients with persistent non-specific LBP seem to experience improvement in pain, disability and quality of life years after seeking treatment. However, it remains unclear what factors might have influenced these improvements, and whether they are treatment-related. Studies varied greatly in design, patient population, and methods of data collection. There is still little insight into the long-term natural course of LBP. Additionally, few studies perform repeated measurements during long-term follow-up or report on patient-centered outcomes other than pain or disability.

Indexed as

Chronic PainLow Back PainAdolescentAdultAgedHumansLongitudinal StudiesMiddle AgedObservational Studies as TopicQuality of LifeYoung AdultChronic low back painDisabilityLong-term follow-upQuality of lifeScoping reviewWork participation

Identifiers

PMID35044534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.