SynthesisFrontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland)2025
Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews underpinning clinical practice guidelines for low back pain: a meta-epidemiological study.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading musculoskeletal disorder worldwide and a major cause of disability, health care utilization, and economic burden. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) aim to optimize care but depend heavily on systematic reviews (SRs). The reporting and methodological quality of SRs underpinning LBP CPGs remain unclear. Objectives: To conduct a meta-epidemiological assessment of the reporting and methodological quality of SRs cited in LBP CPGs and compare Cochrane vs. non-Cochrane reviews. Methods and design: Cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study. We identified English-language LBP CPGs published between 2017 and 2021 and extracted SRs underpinning therapeutic recommendations. Reporting quality was assessed using PRISMA and methodological quality using AMSTAR-2. Two reviewers performed masked, duplicate extraction with consensus resolution. Between-group comparisons used Wilcoxon rank-sum tests; prespecified subgroup analyses (by intervention domain) and an exploratory multivariable linear regression examined factors associated with PRISMA scores. Results: Eight CPGs cited 90 unique SRs. Mean PRISMA adherence was 83% (SD: 12.2); 39% of SRs met ≥90% of items. Mean AMSTAR-2 adherence was 79.3% (SD: 14.4); 24% were rated overall "high," while 14% were "low/critically low." Common deficits included protocol registration, justification of excluded studies, and assessment of small study/publication bias. Cochrane SRs ( Conclusions: SRs informing LBP CPGs show variable reporting and methodological quality with consistent shortfalls in protocol registration, exclusion justifications, and publication-bias assessment. Cochrane SRs outperformed non-Cochrane SRs yet comprised only a minority of the evidence base. Facilitating uptake of protocol registration, complete PRISMA-aligned reporting, transparent exclusion lists, and routine small-study bias assessment, alongside greater use of methodologically stronger SRs, could strengthen the evidentiary foundation of LBP guidelines.
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.