| Title |
An updated overview of clinical guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, July 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-010-1502-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bart W. Koes, Maurits van Tulder, Chung-Wei Christine Lin, Luciana G. Macedo, James McAuley, Chris Maher |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to present and compare the content of (inter)national clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain. To rationalise the management of low back pain, evidence-based clinical guidelines have been issued in many countries. Given that the available scientific evidence is the same, irrespective of the country, one would expect these guidelines to include more or less similar recommendations regarding diagnosis and treatment. We updated a previous review that included clinical guidelines published up to and including the year 2000. Guidelines were included that met the following criteria: the target group consisted mainly of primary health care professionals, and the guideline was published in English, German, Finnish, Spanish, Norwegian, or Dutch. Only one guideline per country was included: the one most recently published. This updated review includes national clinical guidelines from 13 countries and 2 international clinical guidelines from Europe published from 2000 until 2008. The content of the guidelines appeared to be quite similar regarding the diagnostic classification (diagnostic triage) and the use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Consistent features for acute low back pain were the early and gradual activation of patients, the discouragement of prescribed bed rest and the recognition of psychosocial factors as risk factors for chronicity. For chronic low back pain, consistent features included supervised exercises, cognitive behavioural therapy and multidisciplinary treatment. However, there are some discrepancies for recommendations regarding spinal manipulation and drug treatment for acute and chronic low back pain. The comparison of international clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain showed that diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations are generally similar. There are also some differences which may be due to a lack of strong evidence regarding these topics or due to differences in local health care systems. The implementation of these clinical guidelines remains a challenge for clinical practice and research. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,503 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | <1% |
| Australia | 4 | <1% |
| Germany | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Brazil | 3 | <1% |
| Chile | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 7 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1467 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 268 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 247 | 16% |
| Researcher | 139 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 115 | 8% |
| Other | 104 | 7% |
| Other | 322 | 21% |
| Unknown | 308 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 541 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 281 | 19% |
| Sports and Recreations | 72 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 50 | 3% |
| Psychology | 38 | 3% |
| Other | 154 | 10% |
| Unknown | 367 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 84. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2020.
All research outputs
#491,101
of 24,909,203 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#40
of 5,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,228
of 100,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#2
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,909,203 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,138 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 100,122 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.