ReviewWorld neurosurgery: X2024
Acute back pain: Clinical and radiologic diagnosis: WFNS spine committee recommendations.
Review in World neurosurgery: X, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transforaminal intradiscal steroid injection versus transforaminal epidural steroid injection for chronic discogenic low back pain with active discopathy: a randomized controlled trial protocol.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Sensitivity and Specificity of Elliptical Modeling and Sagittal Lumbar Alignment Variables in Normal vs. Acute Low Back Pain Patients: Does Pelvic Morphology Explain Group Lordotic Differences?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- From complexity to clarity: A perspective on personalized spine care through genetic, psychosocial, and technological advancements.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineReview
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 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To formulate the most current, evidence-based recommendations for the clinical and radiologic diagnosis of acute low back pain lasting <4 weeks. Methods: A systematic literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar databases was performed from 2012 to 2022 using the search terms "acute back pain AND clinical diagnosis" and "acute back pain AND radiologic diagnosis". Screening criteria resulted in a total of 97 papers analyzed. Using the Delphi method and two rounds of voting, the WFNS (World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies) Spine Committee generated ten final consensus statements. Results: Ten final consensus statements address the clinical diagnosis of acute LBP, including which clinical conditions cause acute LBP and how we can distinguish between the different causes of LBP, including discogenic, facet joint, sacroiliac joint, and myofascial pain. The most important step for the radiologic diagnosis of acute LBP is to evaluate the necessity of radiologic investigation, as well as its timing and the most appropriate type of imaging modality. Importantly, imaging should Conclusion: Overall, the quality of evidence is not high for most of our consensus statements, and further studies are needed to validate the WFNS Spine Committee recommendations on the clinical and radiographic diagnosis of acute LBP.
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.