ArticleBMJ open2024
Low back pain management in primary healthcare: findings from a scoping review on models of care.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of musculoskeletal expert input on low back pain outcomes: A randomised controlled trial.PloS one · 2026Trial
- Management of older adults consulting in GP surgery practices with back pain in UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum: population based study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Economic burden of recurrent low back pain among working-age adults in Poland: a 3-year retrospective observational analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
- Article
- High-BMI-related low back pain in China: a GBD-based observational study on sex-age trends and projections (1990-2021).European journal of medical research · 2025Observational
- Analysis and comparison of the trends in burden of low back pain in China and worldwide from 1990 to 2021.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2025Article
- A scoping review on implementation processes and outcomes of models of care for low back pain in primary healthcare.BMC health services research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionModels of care (MoCs) describe evidence-informed healthcare that should be delivered to patients. Several MoCs have been implemented for low back pain (LBP) to reduce evidence-to-practice gaps and increase the effectiveness and sustainability of healthcare services.
objectiveTo synthesise research evidence regarding core characteristics and key common elements of MoCs implemented in primary healthcare for the management of LBP.
designScoping review. DATA SOURCES: Searches on MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature databases were conducted. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible records included MoCs implemented for adult LBP patients in primary healthcare settings. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction was carried out independently by two researchers and included a summary of the studies, the identification of the MoCs and respective key elements, concerning levels of care, settings, health professionals involved, type of care delivered and core components of the interventions. Findings were investigated through a descriptive qualitative content analysis using a deductive approach.
results29 studies reporting 11 MoCs were included. All MoCs were implemented in high-income countries and had clear objectives. Ten MoCs included a stratified care approach. The assessment of LBP patients typically occurred in primary healthcare while care delivery usually took place in community-based settings or outpatient clinics. Care provided by general practitioners and physiotherapists was reported in all MoCs. Education (n=10) and exercise (n=9) were the most common health interventions. However, intervention content, follow-ups and discharge criteria were not fully reported.
conclusionsThis study examines the features of MoCs for LBP, highlighting that research is in its early stages and stressing the need for better reporting to fill gaps in care delivery and implementation. This knowledge is crucial for researchers, clinicians and decision-makers in assessing the applicability and transferability of MoCs to primary healthcare settings.
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.