ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Correlation of patient reported outcomes among patients with chronic low back pain and controls.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Pain and Quality-of-Life Outcomes Following Bipolar Versus Monopolar Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment for Chronic Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: An Observational Study.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2026Observational
- Multidimensional Profiles of Recovery: Using Correspondence Analysis to Visualize Physiotherapy Outcomes in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Relationship between physical activity and ankle osteoarthritis: Implications for metabolic diseases.PloS one · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChronic low back pain (CLBP) is a prevalent condition with significant physiological, psychological, social, and economic impacts. A range of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used to collect self-reported perceptions of patient health and well-being relating to the condition. Correlations between different types of PROs have previously been demonstrated - for example, between PROs that measure pain, and those that measure anxiety. Furthermore, PROs have evolved over time, and there exist strong correlations between more recently developed outcomes, such as PROMIS PROs, and legacy PROs. However, most studies in this area focus only on subjects with CLBP. It would be enlightening to determine whether the same correlations between PROS exist in healthy subjects, and whether and how the presence of CLBP moderates the relationships between these PROs. This comparative cross-sectional study hypothesizes that: • PRO metrics correlate with CLBP occurrence. • Legacy and PROMIS PROs are correlated in CLBP contexts. • CLBP moderates the relationships between PROs. • Latent factors may identify characteristics that most influence variance in outcomes.
methodsWe compared outcomes of legacy PROs with PROMIS PROs collected from participants aged 35-65 with (n = 133) and without (n = 100) CLBP. Welch t-tests compared PRO scores between groups. Linear regressions evaluated the relationship between legacy and PROMIS PROs, accounting for CLBP as a binary variable. An exploratory factor analysis identified latent factors summarizing variance in the PROs.
resultsCases reported significantly lower scores than controls across all PROs except for activity level. Strong correlations emerged between several PROMIS metrics and two legacy PROs measuring pain intensity and disability. CLBP significantly moderated these relationships. Moderate correlations were noted between PROMIS metrics and pain catastrophizing and anxiety, with weaker correlations for activity level. Five latent factors were identified, capturing key characteristics that influence variance.
conclusionsLegacy and PROMIS PROs performed similarly in terms of correlation with CLBP, suggesting they capture overlapping information. However, latent factor analysis indicates potential for designing more focused PROs, targeting characteristics in these factors, to better capture variance in outcomes across individuals with and without CLBP. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.