Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35598162›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2022

The available evidence on the effectiveness of 10 common approaches to the management of non-specific low back pain: An evidence map.

Hazel J Jenkins, Giovanni Ferreira, Aron Downie, Chris Maher, Rachelle Buchbinder, Mark J Hancock

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of pain (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Hazel J JenkinsFaculty of Medicine, Health, and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0535-687X
Giovanni FerreiraThe Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney Local Health District and the University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8534-195X
Aron DownieFaculty of Medicine, Health, and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9888-3854
Chris MaherThe Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney Local Health District and the University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1628-7857
Rachelle BuchbinderDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0597-0933
Mark J HancockFaculty of Medicine, Health, and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9277-5377

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveLow back pain is common and remains one of the leading causes of disability globally. This study aimed to develop an evidence map of the quantity of available evidence assessing approaches to manage low back pain, to identify potential redundancies or gaps in the synthesized data, and guide future research focus. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched to March 2022 for systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of 10 guideline-recommended approaches to manage low back pain. For each management strategy, the number of systematic reviews, date of publication, eligibility criteria and included primary trials were extracted and descriptive data presented.

resultsSubstantial evidence, including both systematic reviews and primary trials, was available for each management approach except for patient reassurance. The quantity of available evidence has continued to increase over time. Cochrane reviews have been performed for all 10 treatments, except reassurance of the benign nature of low back pain; however, many of the Cochrane reviews were performed prior to 2015. Substantial heterogeneity in the eligibility criteria between systematic reviews exists; however, some age ranges (children and older adults), clinical settings (emergency), and conditions (radiculopathy) were infrequently assessed.

conclusionsBased on systematic reviews, there is a large body of evidence assessing the effectiveness of common approaches to manage low back pain. Justification of the need for further systematic reviews and primary trials should consider the available evidence and is essential to avoid potential research redundancy when investigating effective management of low back pain. SIGNIFICANCE: Substantial evidence (systematic reviews and primary trials) exists for 10 approaches to manage low back pain. The quantity of available evidence has continued to increase over time. The quantity and large heterogeneity of inclusion criteria in available systematic reviews may influence conflicting recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Justification of the need for further systematic reviews and primary trials is essential to avoid potential research redundancy.

Indexed as

Low Back PainPain ManagementHumansSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID35598162
PMCPMC9545727

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.