↓ Skip to main content

Inclusion and exclusion criteria used in non-specific low back pain trials: a review of randomised controlled trials published between 2006 and 2012

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2018
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 (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 23%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 12 21%

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 16 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,106,297
of 13,827,708 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#248
of 2,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,651
of 276,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,827,708 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,748 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 276,276 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them