ArticlePloS one2023
Physical measures of physical functioning as prognostic factors to predict outcomes in low back pain: Protocol for a systematic review.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- What do we know about flares in spinal and pelvic girdle pain? A scoping review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a highly prevalent condition that substantially impairs individuals' physical functioning. This highlights the need for effective management strategies to improve patient outcomes. It is, therefore, crucial to have knowledge of physical functioning prognostic factors that can predict outcomes to facilitate the development of targeted treatment plans aiming to achieve better patient outcomes. There is no synthesis of evidence for physical functioning measures as prognostic factors in the LBP population. The objective of this systematic review is to synthesize evidence for physical measures of physical functioning as prognostic factors to predict outcomes in LBP.
methodsThe protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Prospective longitudinal observational studies investigating potential physical prognostic factors in LBP and/or low back-related leg pain population will be included, with no restriction on outcome. Searches will be performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL databases, grey literature search using Open Grey System and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, hand-searching journals, and reference lists of included studies. Two independent reviewers will evaluate the eligibility of studies, extract data, assess risk of bias and quality of evidence. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool. Adequacy of clinical, methodological, and statistical homogeneity among included studies will decide quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative analysis (narrative synthesis) focused on prognostic factors and strength of association with outcomes. Quality of cumulative evidence will be evaluated using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). DISCUSSION: Information about prognostic factors can be used to predict outcomes in LBP. Accurate outcome prediction is essential for identifying high-risk patients that allows targeted allocation of healthcare resources, ultimately reducing the healthcare burden. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42023406796.
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.