Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39354445›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024

How is recovery defined and measured in patients with low back pain? A mixed study systematic review.

Michael J Lukacs, Nicole Peters, Masakazu Minetama, Katie L Kowalski, Meagan Stanley, Keerthana Jayaprakash, David M Walton, Alison B Rushton

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Recovery capital: a concept analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Michael J LukacsSchool of Physical Therapy, Western University, London, ON, N6G 1H1, Canada. mlukacs2@uwo.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9113-4834
Nicole PetersSchool of Physical Therapy, Western University, London, ON, N6G 1H1, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6112-8436
Masakazu MinetamaSpine Care Center, Wakayama Medical University Kihoku Hospital, 219 Myoji, Katsuragi-cho, Ito-gun, Wakayama, 649-7113, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9906-9224
Katie L KowalskiSchool of Physical Therapy, Western University, London, ON, N6G 1H1, Canada.
Meagan StanleyWestern Libraries, Western University, London, Canada.
Keerthana JayaprakashFaculty of Science, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
David M WaltonSchool of Physical Therapy, Western University, London, ON, N6G 1H1, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9155-3337
Alison B RushtonSchool of Physical Therapy, Western University, London, ON, N6G 1H1, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8114-7669

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the burden of low back pain (LBP) there is no currently accepted definition for its recovery, nor is there a gold standard for measurement. In addition, it is currently unclear how the perspective of patients are used in making recovery determinations. The purpose of this mixed study systematic review across both quantitative and qualitative literature was to (1) explore how recovery has been defined and measured for patients experiencing LBP, and (2) examine how the perspectives of patients and providers for recovery of LBP align or differ.

methodsThis was a mixed study systematic review. Key databases were searched from inception until February 20, 2023: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PEDro looking for sources examining definitions and measures of recovery in patients with LBP. Grey literature was identified through the ProQuest Thesis & Dissertation database. Two reviewers used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for quality assessment of both qualitative and quantitative studies to explore definitions, measurements and perspective of recovery.

results466 original studies were included: 12 qualitative studies, 88 quantitative randomized control trials, 348 quantitative non-randomized studies, 16 quantitative descriptive studies, and two mixed methods studies. Most of the time recovery was not defined, with six other themes identified: comparison of scores, in relation to a singular cut-off score, improvement of absence of clinical symptoms, a return to a pre-injury state, change/improvement score from baseline and as a process/trajectory. For recovery measurements, six themes described the data: multiple measures, single measure excluding recovery, a recovery measure, recovery and an additional measure, pain and an additional measure, or indirect/ not specified. Lastly recovery perspectives were made from either the patient, provider, or a combination of patient and provider.

conclusionFor patients living with LBP, the concept of recovery continues to lack consensus for its definition and measurement in patients with LBP. The perspectives of patients were mostly not preserved in making recovery determinations. Urgent action is needed to generate consensus across clinicians, researchers, and patients regarding how recovery should be defined and measured. A multitude of study-specific definitions limit knowledge syntheses and definition of best practice.

Indexed as

Low Back PainRecovery of FunctionHumansPain MeasurementTreatment OutcomeLow back painMixed study systematic reviewRecovery

Identifiers

PMID39354445
PMCPMC11445860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.