SynthesisPloS one2023
Instruments for assessing back pain in athletes: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Turkish version of the athlete disability index.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Development and internal validation of a field-based triage tool for lumbopelvic-hip dysfunction in collegiate athletes.PloS one · 2026Article
- Physical and psychological differences between athletes with and without chronic primary low back pain: a scoping review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Review
- Prevalence of Lower Back Pain and Risk Factors in Equestrians: A Systematic Review.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Adverse Events of the Long-Term Use of Opioids for Chronic Non-cancer Pain: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Back pain in athletes varies with sport, age, and sex, which can impair athletic performance, thereby contributing to retirement. Studies on back pain in this population use questionnaires to assess components, such as pain intensity and location and factors associated with pain, among others. This study aimed to review validated questionnaires that have assessed back pain in athletes. This systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) by searching the databases Embase, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and Scopus. The articles were selected regardless of language and date of publication. Titles and abstracts were independently selected by two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. All the steps were conducted using the software Rayyan. The methodological quality of the questionnaire validation articles was assessed using a critical appraisal tool checklist proposed by Brink and Louw. The search returned 4748 articles, of which 60 were selected for this review, including 5 questionnaire validation studies. These articles were published between 2004 and 2022, which were performed in more than 20 countries, particularly Germany (14) and Sweden (5). Thirteen different instruments were identified, of which 46.1% were developed in Europe. The most commonly used questionnaires were the Oswestry Disability Index and Nordic Standardized Questionnaire. In addition, five questionnaire validation studies were selected for methodological quality assessment, with only two studies demonstrating high methodological quality. The following three instruments were identified for assessing back pain specifically in athletes: Micheli Functional Scale, Persian Functional Rating Index, and Athlete Disability Index. This review confirmed that all three instruments were specifically designed to assess this condition.
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.