ArticlePloS one2026
Research priorities for back pain: Results from an adapted James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership.
Article in PloS one, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKnowledge gaps remain in the field of back pain research, with few systematic efforts undertaken to identify research priorities that reflect the preferences of individuals affected by the condition. The objective of this study was to identify the top 10 research priorities for back pain, as defined by individuals with lived experience of back pain and healthcare professionals.
methodA James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership approach was conducted in Norway. This involved (1) establishing a Steering Committee; (2) defining a scope; (3) gathering stakeholders' evidence uncertainties about back pain using focus group interviews; (4) summarising evidence uncertainties and verifying uncertainties by checking existing evidence; (5) shortlisting evidence uncertainties using an online survey; and (6) determining the top 10 research priorities through a priority-setting workshop.
resultsIn total, 230 questions were generated through three focus group interviews involving 12 individuals with lived experience of back pain and seven healthcare professionals. Generated questions were summarised into 37 core questions. None of the core questions had been sufficiently addressed by existing evidence (prioritising high-quality evidence, preferably systematic reviews). The shortlisting survey was completed by 284 respondents (263 individuals with lived experience of back pain (93%), and 40 healthcare professionals (14%), with some respondents identifying as both). The top 25 core questions were brought forward to the priority-setting workshop involving five healthcare professionals and four individuals with lived experience of back pain. The top research priority was "How can implementation of evidence-based treatment recommendations for back pain be ensured in the Norwegian healthcare system?".
conclusionAdopting the JLA approach, this study has identified the top 10 research priorities for back pain from the perspectives of both individuals with lived experience of back pain and healthcare professionals. These findings should be considered a guide to research areas that are meaningful to end-users.
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.