Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39707248›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2024

Benchmarks for low back pain in general practice in Flanders: electronic audit of INTEGO.

Rico Paridaens, Bert Vaes, Steve Van den Bulck, Justine Soetaert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 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. Data resource profile: the Intego-II primary care database.International journal of epidemiology · 2025
    Article
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

4 authors.

Rico ParidaensGhent University, Ghent, Belgium. rico.paridaens@kuleuven.be.
Bert VaesKU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Steve Van den BulckKU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Justine SoetaertKU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow back pain (LBP) is one of the most frequent reasons for encounter in general practice. Yet results from literature show adherence to clinical practice guidelines is low. Audit & feedback is a well-known strategy to improve adherence to guidelines. Benchmarking is an important step in the audit & feedback process. The objective of this study was to develop data-derived benchmarks for low back pain quality indicators.

methodsFour electronic health record extractable quality indicators were selected from an existing indicator set developed by CEBAM, an independent, multidisciplinary and interuniversity medical scientific institute in Belgium. Data from 2021-2022 from INTEGO, a general practice morbidity registry, were used to calculate benchmarks for the four quality indicators. The Achievable Benchmark of Care methodology was used to create benchmarks based on the performance of the 10% best-performing practices.

resultsThe following benchmarks were derived: 4.2% prescription for medical imaging, 12.7% prescription for opioids, 27.2% for prescription for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or acetaminophen, 37.7% prescription for physical therapy and 11.9% prescription for work absenteeism.

conclusionsBenchmarks for four electronic health record-extractable quality indicators have been established. They can be used for an electronic audit & feedback tool in primary practice in Flanders or other quality improvement initiatives.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingElectronic Health RecordsGeneral PracticeLow Back PainQuality Indicators, Health CareAbsenteeismAcetaminophenAdultAgedAnalgesics, OpioidAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalBelgiumFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansMaleAcetaminophenAnalgesics, OpioidAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalElectronic health recordsFamily medicineLow back painQuality indicatorQuality of care

Identifiers

PMID39707248
PMCPMC11660715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.