ArticleScientific reports2024
Symptom burden and follow-up of patients with neck and back complaints in specialized outpatient care: a national register study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cognitive functional therapy for persistent neck pain.Pain management · 2026Article
- "I hope to get some hope": balancing expectations, hope, and acceptance in naturally occurring consultations without a medical diagnosis.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2025Article
- Responsiveness and minimal important change of neck disability index and numeric pain rating scale for neck patients in the Norwegian neck and back register.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 · 2025Article
- Cohort profile: the Norwegian Neck and Back Registry (NNRR): a medical quality registry for patients with neck and back complaints.BMJ open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Back and neck pain are common in the population, especially among immigrants. In Norway's specialist care system, treating these patients typically involves a multidisciplinary approach based on the biopsychosocial model. However, language and cultural differences may create barriers to participation. Immigrants are often underrepresented in clinical studies, but a register-based approach can enhance their participation in research. This study aimed to compare both the symptom burden, and treatment, among Norwegians, non-Norwegians, and patients requiring translator service for back and neck pain within the Norwegian specialist care system. The Norwegian neck and back registry is a National Quality Register, established in 2012 and fully digitized in late 2020. The baseline data includes demographics and patient recorded outcome measures including Oswestry Disability Index, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs, pain rating on a numeric rating scale, Hopkins Symptom Checklist and EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire on health related quality of life. During the two-year study period, a total of 14,124 patients were invited, and 10,060 (71%) participated. Norwegian patients reported less pain, better function assessed by Oswestry Disability Index, lower fear avoidance beliefs, less emotional distress, and higher health related quality of life compared to non-Norwegians. We found that patients with female gender, who were younger, more educated and exhibited fear-avoidance behavior were significantly more likely to receive multidisciplinary treatment. We found no difference in the proportion of Norwegian and non-Norwegian patients receiving multidisciplinary treatment [odds ratio (OR) 1.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-1.16)]. However, patients needing a translator were less likely to receive multidisciplinary treatment compared to those who didn't require translation [OR 0.41 (95% CI (0.25-0.66)]. We found that non-Norwegian patients experience a higher symptom burden compared to Norwegian. We found that both non-Norwegians and patient in need of translator were to a greater extent recommended treatment in primary health care. The proportion of non-Norwegians patients receiving multidisciplinary treatment was similar to Norwegians, but those needing a translator were less likely to receive such treatment.
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.