ArticleBMJ open2024
Evaluating low back pain through electrodermal activity: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLow back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and multifaceted health condition affecting over 619 million people globally. Today, pain evaluation heavily relies on subjective measures, so more advanced diagnosis and treatment methods are required. Electrodermal activity (EDA) could represent a potential objective tool to assess LBP. Despite its promise, EDA has been less studied in this context, and the methodologies vary across studies. The systematic review described thus aims to determine the relationship between EDA and LBP as well as the potential utility of EDA as a tool for evaluating LBP. The various EDA measurement methodologies employed to detect LBP will also be analysed to ultimately identify the most reliable and effective approaches. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The primary databases include PubMed, Web of Science (all databases) and Scopus. The search strategy will be tailored to identify articles written in English or Spanish without imposing any time restrictions. The snowballing technique will also be used to identify additional studies by reviewing the reference lists of relevant articles or citing articles.Eligible studies will encompass adults with both acute and chronic LBP. A diverse range of research designs will be considered, focusing on the relationship between EDA and LBP. PEDro scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 (RoB2) will be used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias in the studies, respectively. Data synthesis will be based on a structured presentation of participant characteristics, methodological details and EDA-related variables. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol of systematic review, registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, adheres to the PRISMA checklist. The study findings will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals. The search process is forecast to end on 30 November 2024. Adhering to Spanish guidelines, ethical approval is deemed unnecessary for our secondary analyses, given the de-identification and anonymous analysis of all data. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023464812.
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.