| Title |
Inclusion and exclusion criteria used in non-specific low back pain trials: a review of randomised controlled trials published between 2006 and 2012
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12891-018-2034-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pål André Amundsen, David W. Evans, Dévan Rajendran, Philip Bright, Tom Bjørkli, Sandra Eldridge, Rachelle Buchbinder, Martin Underwood, Robert Froud |
| Abstract |
Low back pain is a common health complaint resulting in substantial economic burden. Each year, upwards of 20 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions for non-specific low back pain are published. Use of the term non-specific low back pain has been criticised on the grounds of encouraging heterogeneity and hampering interpretation of findings due to possible heterogeneous causes, challenging meta-analyses. We explored selection criteria used in trials of treatments for nsLBP. A systematic review of English-language reports of RCTs in nsLBP population samples, published between 2006 and 2012, identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases, using a mixed-methods approach to analysis. Study inclusion and exclusion criteria were extracted, thematically categorised, and then descriptive statistics were used to summarise the prevalence by emerging category. We included 168 studies. Two inclusion themes (anatomical area, and symptoms and signs) were identified. Anatomical area was most reported as between costal margins and gluteal folds (n = 8, 5%), while low back pain (n = 150, 89%) with or without referred leg pain (n = 27, 16%) was the most reported symptom. Exclusion criteria comprised 21 themes. Previous or scheduled surgery (n = 84, 50%), pregnancy (n = 81, 48%), malignancy (n = 78, 46%), trauma (n = 63, 37%) and psychological conditions (n = 58, 34%) were the most common. Sub-themes of exclusion criteria mostly related to neurological signs and symptoms: nerve root compromise (n = 44, 26%), neurological signs (n = 34, 20%) or disc herniation (n = 30, 18%). Specific conditions that were most often exclusion criteria were spondylolisthesis (n = 35, 21%), spinal stenosis (n = 31, 18%) or osteoporosis (n = 27, 16%). RCTs of interventions for non-specific low back pain have incorporated diverse inclusion and exclusion criteria. Guidance on standardisation of inclusion and exclusion criteria for nsLBP trials will increase clinical homogeneity, facilitating greater interpretation of between-trial comparisons and meta-analyses. We propose a template for reporting inclusion and exclusion criteria. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 21% |
| Australia | 2 | 8% |
| Spain | 2 | 8% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 8% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Luxembourg | 1 | 4% |
| Chile | 1 | 4% |
| Italy | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 58% |
| Scientists | 6 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 155 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 14% |
| Researcher | 19 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 11% |
| Other | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 13% |
| Unknown | 52 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 17% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 3% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 21 | 14% |
| Unknown | 62 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 04 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,221,850
of 24,150,351 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#434
of 4,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,458
of 333,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#7
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,150,351 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,247 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 333,003 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.