SynthesisEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2025
Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of Low Back Pain Core Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in European journal of pain (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of Low Back Pain Core Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Are All Cross-Cultural Adaptations of Core Low Back Pain Outcome Measures Substandard? A Response.European journal of pain (London, England) · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate the quality of cross-cultural adaptations of the six core outcome measures (NRS, SF-12, PROMIS, ODI, RMDQ and VAS) for low back pain (LBP) and assess their psychometric properties.
methodsMedline, EMBASE, Emcare and CINAHL databases were searched from inception to August 2024. Eligible studies included those assessing core LBP outcome measures in adults with LBP. The COSMIN checklist was used to assess the quality of cross-cultural adaptations and evaluate the psychometric properties. Additionally, the COSMIN risk of bias tool and GRADE approach were employed to assess study quality and provide levels of evidence.
resultsA total of 82 studies were included. Among them, 35 studies examined the cross-cultural adaptations of the ODI, 25 for the RMDQ, 4 for PROMIS, 1 for SF-12 and 2 for NRS/VAS. The quality of cross-cultural adaptations was generally poor or fair due to inadequate reporting of pre-testing processes and small sample sizes. Most psychometric properties were rated as having an inadequate risk of bias, with evidence quality ranging from very low to low.
conclusionThis review highlights that the cross-cultural adaptations of the five core LBP outcome measures have generally been conducted with low quality. To improve the adaptation process, studies should employ larger sample sizes and standardised pre-testing procedures. Additional research is needed to explore a broader range of psychometric properties of cross-cultural adaptations, ensuring better validity, reliability and comparability across adapted versions. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Improving the quality of cross-cultural adaptations of LBP outcome measures is crucial to ensuring that assessments are culturally relevant and accurate across diverse populations, leading to better-informed clinical decisions and equitable care for patients with LBP globally.
trial registrationCRD42023413077.
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.