Dataset Information

Research methods for subgrouping low back pain.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: There is considerable clinician and researcher interest in whether the outcomes for patients with low back pain, and the efficiency of the health systems that treat them, can be improved by 'subgrouping research'. Subgrouping research seeks to identify subgroups of people who have clinically important distinctions in their treatment needs or prognoses. Due to a proliferation of research methods and variability in how subgrouping results are interpreted, it is timely to open discussion regarding a conceptual framework for the research designs and statistical methods available for subgrouping studies (a method framework). The aims of this debate article are: (1) to present a method framework to inform the design and evaluation of subgrouping research in low back pain, (2) to describe method options when investigating prognostic effects or subgroup treatment effects, and (3) to discuss the strengths and limitations of research methods suitable for the hypothesis-setting phase of subgroup studies. DISCUSSION: The proposed method framework proposes six phases for studies of subgroups: studies of assessment methods, hypothesis-setting studies, hypothesis-testing studies, narrow validation studies, broad validation studies, and impact analysis studies. This framework extends and relabels a classification system previously proposed by McGinn et al (2000) as suitable for studies of clinical prediction rules. This extended classification, and its descriptive terms, explicitly anchor research findings to the type of evidence each provides. The inclusive nature of the framework invites appropriate consideration of the results of diverse research designs. Method pathways are described for studies designed to test and quantify prognostic effects or subgroup treatment effects, and examples are discussed. The proposed method framework is presented as a roadmap for conversation amongst researchers and clinicians who plan, stage and perform subgrouping research. SUMMARY: This article proposes a research method framework for studies of subgroups in low back pain. Research designs and statistical methods appropriate for sequential phases in this research are discussed, with an emphasis on those suitable for hypothesis-setting studies of subgroups of people seeking care.

SUBMITTER: Kent P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2908106 | biostudies-other | 2010

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Research methods for subgrouping low back pain.

Kent Peter P Keating Jennifer L JL Leboeuf-Yde Charlotte C

BMC medical research methodology 20100703

<h4>Background</h4>There is considerable clinician and researcher interest in whether the outcomes for patients with low back pain, and the efficiency of the health systems that treat them, can be improved by 'subgrouping research'. Subgrouping research seeks to identify subgroups of people who have clinically important distinctions in their treatment needs or prognoses. Due to a proliferation of research methods and variability in how subgrouping results are interpreted, it is timely to open di ...[more]

PMID: 20598153

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChronic low back pain (cLBP) is a complex with a heterogenous clinical presentation. A better understanding of the factors that contribute to cLBP is needed for accurate diagnosis, optimal treatment, and identification of mechanistic targets for new therapies. The Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC) Research Program provides a unique opportunity in this regard, as it will generate large clinical datasets, including a diverse set of harmonized measurements. The Theoretical Model Working Group was established to guide BACPAC research and to organize new knowledge within a mechanistic framework. This article summarizes the initial work of the Theoretical Model Working Group. It includes a three-stage integration of expert opinion and an umbrella literature review of factors that affect cLBP severity and chronicity.MethodsDuring Stage 1, experts from across BACPAC established a taxonomy for risk and prognostic factors (RPFs) and preliminary graphical depictions. During Stage 2, a separate team conducted a literature review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to establish working definitions, associated data elements, and overall strength of evidence for identified RPFs. These were subsequently integrated with expert opinion during Stage 3.ResultsThe majority (∼80%) of RPFs had little strength-of-evidence confidence, whereas seven factors had substantial confidence for either a positive association with cLBP (pain-related anxiety, serum C-reactive protein, diabetes, and anticipatory/compensatory postural adjustments) or no association with cLBP (serum interleukin 1-beta / interleukin 6, transversus muscle morphology/activity, and quantitative sensory testing).ConclusionThis theoretical perspective will evolve over time as BACPAC investigators link empirical results to theory, challenge current ideas of the biopsychosocial model, and use a systems approach to develop tools and algorithms that disentangle the dynamic interactions among cLBP factors.

Project description:Background:Researchers are highly interested in the study of nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP). However, few have attempted to collect global data, analyze the emerging trends, and conduct reviews from the perspectives of visualization and bibliometrics. Purpose:We aimed to evaluate research situation and capture subsequent developmental dynamics regarding NSLBP via CiteSpace. Methods:Publications on NSLBP in recent 19 years were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). We used CiteSpace to analyze publication outputs, document types, countries, institutions, journals, authors, references, and keywords. Knowledge foundation, hot topics, and future direction were then stated. Results:A total of 1099 papers were collected, and the trend of annual publications maintained growth with small fluctuations. Australia (188) and the University of Sydney (76) were the most prolific country and institution, respectively. The Netherlands (0.84) and the University of Sydney (0.47) had the maximum centrality, thus indicating that they have importance in this field. The journal Spine (publication: 87, cocitation counts: 942) ranked first in terms of the volume of publications and cocitation counts. Maher CG (52) who published the most papers and Waddell G (286) who was cited most frequently were the leading authors, thus making strong academic influences. "Motor control exercise" was the largest cluster, which contained most related research articles. 14 references with the strongest citation counts were cited until 2018, thus implying the future development trend. Current hotspots were treatment, meta-analysis, method, and risk factors. Spine, efficacy, adult, and meta-analysis can be regarded as research frontiers. Conclusion:This study offers insights into the trend of NSLBP to determine major research countries and institutions, core journals, pivotal authors, overall development tendency, hot topics, and research frontiers. Moreover, it will help researchers extract hidden valuable information for further study.

Project description:Study designTwo-year, prospective cohort data from the Japan epidemiological research of occupation-related back pain study in urban settings were used for this analysis.ObjectiveTo examine the association between aggravated low back pain and psychosocial factors among Japanese workers with mild low back pain.Summary of background dataAlthough psychosocial factors are strongly indicated as yellow flags of low back pain (LBP) leading to disability, the association between aggravated LBP and psychosocial factors has not been well assessed in Japanese workers.MethodsAt baseline, 5,310 participants responded to a self-administered questionnaire including questions about individual characteristics, ergonomic work demands, and work-related psychosocial factors (response rate: 86.5%), with 3,811 respondents completing the 1-year follow-up questionnaire. The target outcome was aggravation of mild LBP into persistent LBP during the follow-up period. Incidence was calculated for the participants with mild LBP during the past year at baseline. Logistic regression was used to explore risk factors associated with persistent LBP.ResultsOf 1,675 participants who had mild LBP during the preceding year, 43 (2.6%) developed persistent LBP during the follow-up year. Multivariate analyses adjusted for individual factors and an ergonomic factor found statistically significant or almost significant associations of the following psychosocial factors with persistent LBP: interpersonal stress at work [adjusted odds ratio (OR): 1.96 and 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 1.00-3.82], job satisfaction (OR: 2.34, 95%CI: 1.21-4.54), depression (OR: 1.92, 95%CI: 1.00-3.69), somatic symptoms (OR: 2.78, 95%CI: 1.44-5.40), support from supervisors (OR: 2.01, 95%CI: 1.05-3.85), previous sick-leave due to LBP (OR: 1.94, 95%CI: 0.98-3.86) and family history of LBP with disability (OR: 1.98, 95%CI: 1.04-3.78).ConclusionsPsychosocial factors are important risk factors for persistent LBP in urban Japanese workers. It may be necessary to take psychosocial factors into account, along with physical work demands, to reduce LBP related disability.

Dataset Information

Research methods for subgrouping low back pain.

Publications

Research methods for subgrouping low back pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets