ArticleMusculoskeletal care2025
Accessible Patient Education Materials for Low Back Pain Rarely Meet People's Information Needs: A Scoping Review.
Article in Musculoskeletal care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patient education for chronic musculoskeletal pain: a scoping review of recommendations, effectiveness, and educational content.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient education is a cornerstone of care for individuals with non-specific low back pain (LBP). However, little is known about whether accessible patient education materials (PEMs) meet people's information needs.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review following the JBI methodology and reported results according to PRISMA-ScR. We systematically reviewed three databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL. The search strategy was iteratively developed and peer-reviewed using the PRESS checklist. Eligible studies had to provide full access to the PEM designed for people with LBP. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. Five reviewers conducted a consensus-based analysis by independently matching PEM content to eight categories of information needs derived from previous research.
resultsOf 9617 citations identified, 23 studies met inclusion criteria, yielding 41 unique PEMs. We excluded many citations (67.3%) because the PEM used in the study was missing. Most PEMs were in English (95%) and took the form of posters, booklets, or leaflets. Only eight PEMs (19.5%) reported readability assessment. Stakeholder involvement was reported in eight studies. Among PEMs with stakeholder input, characteristics from the PROGRESS + framework were rarely disclosed. Only one PEM addressed all eight identified information needs. The most frequently covered information needs were treatment options (65.9%) and imaging (61.0%), while information on prognosis and flare management was scarce (17.1%).
conclusionAccessible PEMs for non-specific LBP rarely meet the full spectrum of patient information needs. Improving stakeholder involvement and readability assessment is essential to enhance the usefulness and equity of educational resources.
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.