ArticlePain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain2025
Detailed Analysis of Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study of Epidemiology and Previous Therapies in a German Population.
Article in Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defining spine care: a framework for scope, standards, and bidirectional care transitions.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Review
- Detailed Analysis of Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study of Epidemiology and Previous Therapies in a German Population.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiagnosing cLBP is complex due to its heterogeneity, lack of definitive biomarkers, and the subjective nature of pain. This study aims to analyze cLBP patients comprehensively, characterizing demographic and clinical profiles of patients and evaluating the types and effectiveness of previous treatments.
methodsFrom January 2022 to April 2024, we recruited 1262 participants aged between 18 and 72 years from the general population by advertisements and word-of-mouth propaganda. Collected data included a detailed medical history, standardized questionnaires (e.g., Von Korff) and a clinical examination.
resultsOur population included 471 (38%) with chronic back pain, 335 (27%) without back pain, and an additional group in between of 327 (26%) with intermittent back pain. The majority of participants experienced multifocal back pain, which was further subdivided based on the predominant pain localization. In patients with localized cLBP (median: 5 years, IQR: 1-10 years), the pain persisted for a shorter time than in the group with predominant back pain other than the lower back (median: 10 years, IQR: 5-15 years). The majority of participants did either use no pain medication at all (cLBP: 32%; iLBP: 37%; no-BP(2): 55%) or on-demand medication (cLBP: 56%; iLBP: 56%; no-BP(2): 39%).
conclusionOur data show considerable heterogeneity underlying the widespread diagnosis "chronic back pain." Quantitative differentiation is difficult due to the low pain intensity on the day of the examination, and adequate treatment recommendations are challenging. To better understand chronic back pain, there is a strong need for a subclassification.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trial Register: DRKS-ID: DRKS00027907.
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.