ArticleEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2026
BACK-on-LINE
Article in European journal of pain (London, England), 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveLow back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of work-related disability. Although early tailored self-management is advocated, current approaches remain generic. Classifying LBP by predominant pain phenotype (nociceptive, neuropathic, nociplastic) may enable targeted self-management, yet practical tools for early or workplace use are limited. This study evaluated the reliability and validity of BACK-on-LINE, a self-administered digital tool differentiating nociceptive and nociplastic pain to support early mechanism-informed self-management in working populations, benchmarked against established patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).
methodsEmployed adults with LBP (n = 211) recruited from occupational settings completed BACK-on-LINE and PROMs assessing pain (Numeric Pain Rating Scale; NPRS), disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire; RMDQ), and psychosocial risk (STarT Back Screening Tool; SBST). Reliability was assessed using internal consistency (Cronbach's α) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient; ICC). Validity was examined through convergent validity with PROMs, known-groups validity comparing nociceptive and nociplastic subgroups, and criterion validity using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses against reference standards (pain intensity, disability, chronicity, sickness absence).
resultsData from 136 participants (64% completion) were analysed. BACK-on-LINE classified 68.4% as nociceptive and 31.6% as nociplastic. Reliability was strong (α = 0.83; ICC = 0.88). Convergent validity was moderate, strongest with SBST (r = 0.67). Known-groups validity was robust, with nociplastic participants reporting higher pain, disability and psychosocial risk (all p < 0.001). Criterion validity was moderate (AUC = 0.67-0.77), with BACK-on-LINE demonstrating comparable or superior discrimination to SBST.
conclusionsBACK-on-LINE shows good reliability and multi-dimensional validity for self-classifying pain phenotypes in working adults with LBP, offering a scalable approach to support early mechanism-informed self-management in occupational health pathways. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This study provides robust initial evidence for a self-administered digital tool BACK-on-LINE that enables working adults to self-classify their low back pain into dominant pain mechanism phenotype. By supporting earlier, pain mechanism-informed self-management, it addresses a key gap in workplace back pain support, which is often generic advice poorly tailored. The tool's strength lies in scalability, early application and workplace relevance, outperforming a widely used prognostic tool in this context.
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.