Research ExplorerPublicationsA consensus approach toward the standardization of back pain...

A consensus approach toward the standardization of back pain definitions for use in prevalence studies.

Standard

A consensus approach toward the standardization of back pain definitions for use in prevalence studies. / Dionne, Clermont E; Dunn, Kate M; Croft, Peter R; Nachemson, Alf L; Buchbinder, Rachelle; Walker, Bruce F; Wyatt, Mary; Cassidy, J David; Rossignol, Michel; Leboeuf-Yde, Charlotte; Hartvigsen, Jan; Leino-Arjas, Päivi; Latza, Ute; Reis, Shmuel; Real, Gil Del; Teresa, Maria; Kovacs, Francisco M; Oberg, Birgitta; Cedraschi, Christine; Bouter, Lex M; Koes, Bart W; Picavet, H Susan J; Tulder, van; Maurits, W; Burton, Kim; Foster, Nadine E; Macfarlane, Gary J; Thomas, Elaine; Underwood, Martin; Waddell, Gordon; Shekelle, Paul; Volinn, Ernest; Michael, Von Korff.

In: SPINE, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1, 2008, p. 95-103.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Dionne, CE, Dunn, KM, Croft, PR, Nachemson, AL, Buchbinder, R, Walker, BF, Wyatt, M, Cassidy, JD, Rossignol, M, Leboeuf-Yde, C, Hartvigsen, J, Leino-Arjas, P, Latza, U, Reis, S, Real, GD, Teresa, M, Kovacs, FM, Oberg, B, Cedraschi, C, Bouter, LM, Koes, BW, Picavet, HSJ, Tulder, V, Maurits, W, Burton, K, Foster, NE, Macfarlane, GJ, Thomas, E, Underwood, M, Waddell, G, Shekelle, P, Volinn, E & Michael, VK 2008, 'A consensus approach toward the standardization of back pain definitions for use in prevalence studies.', SPINE, vol. 33, no. 1, 1, pp. 95-103. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18165754?dopt=Citation>

APA

Dionne, C. E., Dunn, K. M., Croft, P. R., Nachemson, A. L., Buchbinder, R., Walker, B. F., Wyatt, M., Cassidy, J. D., Rossignol, M., Leboeuf-Yde, C., Hartvigsen, J., Leino-Arjas, P., Latza, U., Reis, S., Real, G. D., Teresa, M., Kovacs, F. M., Oberg, B., Cedraschi, C., ... Michael, V. K. (2008). A consensus approach toward the standardization of back pain definitions for use in prevalence studies. SPINE, 33(1), 95-103. [1]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18165754?dopt=Citation

Vancouver

Dionne CE, Dunn KM, Croft PR, Nachemson AL, Buchbinder R, Walker BF et al. A consensus approach toward the standardization of back pain definitions for use in prevalence studies. SPINE. 2008;33(1):95-103. 1.

Bibtex

@article{e49054a55422452fa2c2d8986c24c09f,
title = "A consensus approach toward the standardization of back pain definitions for use in prevalence studies.",
abstract = "STUDY DESIGN: A modified Delphi study conducted with 28 experts in back pain research from 12 countries. OBJECTIVE: To identify standardized definitions of low back pain that could be consistently used by investigators in prevalence studies to provide comparable data. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Differences in the definition of back pain prevalence in population studies lead to heterogeneity in study findings, and limitations or impossibilities in comparing or summarizing prevalence figures from different studies. METHODS: Back pain definitions were identified from 51 articles reporting population-based prevalence studies, and dissected into 77 items documenting 7 elements. These items were submitted to a panel of experts for rating and reduction, in 3 rounds (participation: 76%). Preliminary results were presented and discussed during the Amsterdam Forum VIII for Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain, compared with scientific evidence and confirmed and fine-tuned by the panel in a fourth round and the preparation of the current article. RESULTS: Two definitions were agreed on a minimal definition (with 1 question covering site of low back pain, symptoms observed, and time frame of the measure, and a second question on severity of low back pain) and an optimal definition that is made from the minimal definition and add-ons (covering frequency and duration of symptoms, an additional measure of severity, sciatica, and exclusions) that can be adapted to different needs. CONCLUSION: These definitions provide standards that may improve future comparisons of low back pain prevalence figures by person, place and time characteristics, and offer opportunities for statistical summaries.",
author = "Dionne, {Clermont E} and Dunn, {Kate M} and Croft, {Peter R} and Nachemson, {Alf L} and Rachelle Buchbinder and Walker, {Bruce F} and Mary Wyatt and Cassidy, {J David} and Michel Rossignol and Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde and Jan Hartvigsen and P{\"a}ivi Leino-Arjas and Ute Latza and Shmuel Reis and Real, {Gil Del} and Maria Teresa and Kovacs, {Francisco M} and Birgitta Oberg and Christine Cedraschi and Bouter, {Lex M} and Koes, {Bart W} and Picavet, {H Susan J} and van Tulder and W Maurits and Kim Burton and Foster, {Nadine E} and Macfarlane, {Gary J} and Elaine Thomas and Martin Underwood and Gordon Waddell and Paul Shekelle and Ernest Volinn and Michael, {Von Korff}",
year = "2008",
language = "Deutsch",
volume = "33",
pages = "95--103",
journal = "SPINE",
issn = "0362-2436",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A consensus approach toward the standardization of back pain definitions for use in prevalence studies.

AU - Dionne, Clermont E

AU - Dunn, Kate M

AU - Croft, Peter R

AU - Nachemson, Alf L

AU - Buchbinder, Rachelle

AU - Walker, Bruce F

AU - Wyatt, Mary

AU - Cassidy, J David

AU - Rossignol, Michel

AU - Leboeuf-Yde, Charlotte

AU - Hartvigsen, Jan

AU - Leino-Arjas, Päivi

AU - Latza, Ute

AU - Reis, Shmuel

AU - Real, Gil Del

AU - Teresa, Maria

AU - Kovacs, Francisco M

AU - Oberg, Birgitta

AU - Cedraschi, Christine

AU - Bouter, Lex M

AU - Koes, Bart W

AU - Picavet, H Susan J

AU - Tulder, van

AU - Maurits, W

AU - Burton, Kim

AU - Foster, Nadine E

AU - Macfarlane, Gary J

AU - Thomas, Elaine

AU - Underwood, Martin

AU - Waddell, Gordon

AU - Shekelle, Paul

AU - Volinn, Ernest

AU - Michael, Von Korff

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - STUDY DESIGN: A modified Delphi study conducted with 28 experts in back pain research from 12 countries. OBJECTIVE: To identify standardized definitions of low back pain that could be consistently used by investigators in prevalence studies to provide comparable data. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Differences in the definition of back pain prevalence in population studies lead to heterogeneity in study findings, and limitations or impossibilities in comparing or summarizing prevalence figures from different studies. METHODS: Back pain definitions were identified from 51 articles reporting population-based prevalence studies, and dissected into 77 items documenting 7 elements. These items were submitted to a panel of experts for rating and reduction, in 3 rounds (participation: 76%). Preliminary results were presented and discussed during the Amsterdam Forum VIII for Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain, compared with scientific evidence and confirmed and fine-tuned by the panel in a fourth round and the preparation of the current article. RESULTS: Two definitions were agreed on a minimal definition (with 1 question covering site of low back pain, symptoms observed, and time frame of the measure, and a second question on severity of low back pain) and an optimal definition that is made from the minimal definition and add-ons (covering frequency and duration of symptoms, an additional measure of severity, sciatica, and exclusions) that can be adapted to different needs. CONCLUSION: These definitions provide standards that may improve future comparisons of low back pain prevalence figures by person, place and time characteristics, and offer opportunities for statistical summaries.

AB - STUDY DESIGN: A modified Delphi study conducted with 28 experts in back pain research from 12 countries. OBJECTIVE: To identify standardized definitions of low back pain that could be consistently used by investigators in prevalence studies to provide comparable data. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Differences in the definition of back pain prevalence in population studies lead to heterogeneity in study findings, and limitations or impossibilities in comparing or summarizing prevalence figures from different studies. METHODS: Back pain definitions were identified from 51 articles reporting population-based prevalence studies, and dissected into 77 items documenting 7 elements. These items were submitted to a panel of experts for rating and reduction, in 3 rounds (participation: 76%). Preliminary results were presented and discussed during the Amsterdam Forum VIII for Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain, compared with scientific evidence and confirmed and fine-tuned by the panel in a fourth round and the preparation of the current article. RESULTS: Two definitions were agreed on a minimal definition (with 1 question covering site of low back pain, symptoms observed, and time frame of the measure, and a second question on severity of low back pain) and an optimal definition that is made from the minimal definition and add-ons (covering frequency and duration of symptoms, an additional measure of severity, sciatica, and exclusions) that can be adapted to different needs. CONCLUSION: These definitions provide standards that may improve future comparisons of low back pain prevalence figures by person, place and time characteristics, and offer opportunities for statistical summaries.

M3 - SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz

VL - 33

SP - 95

EP - 103

JO - SPINE

JF - SPINE

SN - 0362-2436

IS - 1

M1 - 1

ER -