ArticleBMJ open2024
Diagnostic utility of diagnostic investigations to identify neuropathic pain in low back-related leg pain: protocol for a systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNeuropathic pain in low back-related leg pain has gained increasing interest in contemporary research. Identification of neuropathic pain in low back-related leg pain is essential to inform precision management. Diagnostic investigations are commonly used to identify neuropathic pain in low back-related leg pain; yet the diagnostic utility of these investigations is unknown. This systematic review aims to investigate the diagnostic utility of diagnostic investigations to identify neuropathic pain in low back-related leg pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol has been designed and reported in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy studies, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist, respectively. The search strategy will involve two independent reviewers searching electronic databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, AMED, Pedro), key journals (Spine, The Clinical Journal of Pain, PAIN, European Journal of Pain, The Journal of Pain, Musculoskeletal Science and Practice) and grey literature (British National Bibliography for report literature, OpenGrey, EThOS) from inception to 31 July 2023 to identify studies. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of diagnostic investigation to identify neuropathic pain in patients with low back-related leg pain will be eligible, studies not written in English will be excluded. The reviewers will extract the data from included studies, assess risk of bias (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) and determine confidence in findings (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines). Methodological heterogeneity will be assessed to determine if a meta-analysis is possible. If pooling of data is not possible then a narrative synthesis will be done. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at relevant conferences and shared with the Patient Partner Advisor Group at Western University, Canada. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023438222.
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.