ArticlePain physician2022
A Scoping Review of Chronic Low Back Pain Classification Schemes Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes.
Article in Pain physician, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04426812 (Measuring Chronic Pain Impact), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Measuring Chronic Pain Impact
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing Frailty Status Among Clusters Identified Based on EQ-5D-5L Dimensions in Older Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Lipid Alterations in Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain in the Chinese Population: A Metabolomic and Lipidomic Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Classifying patients with non-specific chronic low back pain using the impact stratification score in an online convenience sample.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 2014, the National Institutes of Health Pain Consortium Research Task Force recommended that patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) be stratified by its impact on their lives. They proposed the Impact Stratification Score (ISS) to help guide therapy and facilitate study comparability. The ISS has been evaluated as a continuous measure, but not for use as a stratification or classification scheme.
objectivesIdentify the characteristics of successful schemes to inform the use of the ISS for stratification or classification. STUDY
designScoping review of the peer-reviewed literature.
methodsSearch of PubMed, CINAHL, and APA PsycInfo to identify patient self-report-based classification schemes applicable to CLBP. Data were captured on the methods used for each scheme's development, the domains covered, their scoring criteria and what the classification has successfully measured. The study was reviewed and approved by the RAND Human Subjects Protection Committee (2019-0651-AM02).
resultsThe search identified 87 published articles about the development and testing of 5 classification schemes: 1) The Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Screening Tool, 2) Multiaxial Assessment of Pain, 3) Graded Chronic Pain Scale, 4) Back Pain Classification Scale, and 5) Chronic Pain Risk Score. All have been shown to be predictive of future outcomes and the STarT Back has been found useful in identifying effective classification-specific treatment. Each scheme had a different classification scoring structure, was developed using different methods, and 3 included domains not found in the ISS. LIMITATIONS: Expanding the search to other databases may have identified more classification schemes. Our minimum number of publications inclusion criterion eliminated dozens of cluster analyses, some of which may have eventually been replicated.
conclusionsThe methods used to develop these successful classification schemes, especially those that use straightforward scoring schemes, should be considered for use in the development of a scheme based on the ISS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36122256PMC10543950W4296793519What 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.