Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37640886›Full record

ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2023

What do we mean by 'self-management' for chronic low back pain? A narrative review.

Tianyu Zhou, David Salman, Alison H McGregor

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tianyu ZhouMSk Lab, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, 2nd Floor, Sir Michael Uren Hub, 86 Wood Lane, London, W12 0BZ, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8785-8493
David SalmanMSk Lab, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, 2nd Floor, Sir Michael Uren Hub, 86 Wood Lane, London, W12 0BZ, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1481-8829
Alison H McGregorMSk Lab, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, 2nd Floor, Sir Michael Uren Hub, 86 Wood Lane, London, W12 0BZ, UK. a.mcgregor@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4672-332X
Imperial College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent musculoskeletal condition affecting 60-80% of the general population within their lifetime. Given the large numbers of people affected, self-management approaches have been introduced as a way to manage this condition with endorsement by the national institute for health and care excellence. Interventions are often termed self-management without defining either content or goals. Our study sought to determine the content, characteristics, and evidence for self-management of CLBP.

methodsThis narrative review was conducted using a systematic approach to search journal articles in English that focused on CLBP self-management. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were used to identify publications with terms relating to back pain and self-management from January 2016 until January 2022.

resultsIn total, 15 studies were found suitable for inclusion in the review. Core components of self-management strategies include exercise, education, and psychological interventions, but there was a lack of consistency with respect to content. Intervention characteristics were either under-reported or varied. Furthermore, outcome measures used to assess these self-management programmes were diverse, mainly focusing on functional disability and pain intensity.

conclusionsInconsistencies in the content of self-management interventions, intervention characteristics, and outcome measures used for assessing self-management programmes were found across the literature. Current self-management approaches do not consider the complex biopsychosocial nature of CLBP. A consensus on the key components of self-management interventions, and how they should be evaluated, will pave the way for research to determine whether self-management can effectively manage CLBP.

Indexed as

Chronic PainLow Back PainSelf-ManagementHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareChronic low back painComponentEvidenceOutcomeSelf-management

Identifiers

PMID37640886
OpenAlexW4386211697

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.