↓ Skip to main content

Core outcome domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
272 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
308 Mendeley
Title
Core outcome domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain
Published in
European Spine Journal, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00586-015-3892-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessandro Chiarotto, Richard A. Deyo, Caroline B. Terwee, Maarten Boers, Rachelle Buchbinder, Terry P. Corbin, Leonardo O. P. Costa, Nadine E. Foster, Margreth Grotle, Bart W. Koes, Francisco M. Kovacs, Chung-Wei Christine Lin, Chris G. Maher, Adam M. Pearson, Wilco C. Peul, Mark L. Schoene, Dennis C. Turk, Maurits W. van Tulder, Raymond W. Ostelo

Abstract

Inconsistent reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) hinders comparison of findings and the reliability of systematic reviews. A core outcome set (COS) can address this issue as it defines a minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical trials. In 1998, Deyo et al. recommended a standardized set of outcomes for LBP clinical research. The aim of this study was to update these recommendations by determining which outcome domains should be included in a COS for clinical trials in NSLBP. An International Steering Committee established the methodology to develop this COS. The OMERACT Filter 2.0 framework was used to draw a list of potential core domains that were presented in a Delphi study. Researchers, care providers and patients were invited to participate in three Delphi rounds and were asked to judge which domains were core. A priori criteria for consensus were established before each round and were analysed together with arguments provided by panellists on importance, overlap, aggregation and/or addition of potential core domains. The Steering Committee discussed the final results and made final decisions. A set of 280 experts was invited to participate in the Delphi; response rates in the three rounds were 52, 50 and 45 %. Of 41 potential core domains presented in the first round, 13 had sufficient support to be presented for rating in the third round. Overall consensus was reached for the inclusion of three domains in this COS: 'physical functioning', 'pain intensity' and 'health-related quality of life'. Consensus on 'physical functioning' and 'pain intensity' was consistent across all stakeholders, 'health-related quality of life' was not supported by the patients, and all the other domains were not supported by two or more groups of stakeholders. Weighting all possible argumentations, the Steering Committee decided to include in the COS the three domains that reached overall consensus and the domain 'number of deaths'. The following outcome domains were included in this updated COS: 'physical functioning', 'pain intensity', 'health-related quality of life' and 'number of deaths'. The next step for the development of this COS will be to determine which measurement instruments best measure these domains.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 308 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 304 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 12%
Researcher 34 11%
Student > Bachelor 33 11%
Other 27 9%
Other 71 23%
Unknown 62 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 62 20%
Psychology 12 4%
Sports and Recreations 10 3%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Other 41 13%
Unknown 76 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 03 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,542,848
of 22,797,621 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#124
of 4,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,593
of 264,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#4
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,797,621 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,624 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 264,207 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 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 97% of its contemporaries.