Effective intervention for low back pain (LBP) can include feedback in one form or other. Although extrinsic feedback (EF) can be provided in a number of ways, most research has not considered how different EF characteristics (e.g. timing and content) influence treatment outcomes. A systematic search related to feedback and LBP was performed on relevant electronic databases. This narrative review aims to describe the forms of feedback provision in the literature regarding management of LBP, and to discuss these in light of previously recommended principles for the use of extrinsic feedback. The present review found support for the provision of EF that focuses on content characteristics including program feedback, summary results feedback, and external focus of attention. Temporal characteristics should enhance the use of intermittent or self-selected feedback. The literature does not support the provision of concurrent or constant EF. As much of the literature related to EF in the management of LBP has not considered content and timing characteristics we have identified future research directions that will clarify the use of content and timing characteristics of EF relative to the management of LBP.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 October 2011.
All research outputs
#19,156,659
of 27,778,980 outputs
Outputs from Manual Therapy
#267
of 417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,663
of 207,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Manual Therapy
#10
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,778,980 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 417 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 207,200 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
