Reporting outcomes of back pain trials: A modified Delphi study

Background: Low back pain is a common and expensive health complaint. Many low back pain trials have been conducted, but these are reported in a variety of ways and are often difficult to interpret. Aim: To facilitate consensus on a statement recommending reporting methods for future low back pain t...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Froud, R., Eldridge, S., Kovacs, F., Breen, A., Bolton, J., Dunn, K., Fritz, J., Keller, A., Kent, Peter, Lauridsen, H., Ostelo, R., Pincus, T., Tulder, M., Vogel, S., Underwood, M.
Format: Journal Article
Published: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 2011
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/55009
_version_ 1848759524141301760
author Froud, R.
Eldridge, S.
Kovacs, F.
Breen, A.
Bolton, J.
Dunn, K.
Fritz, J.
Keller, A.
Kent, Peter
Lauridsen, H.
Ostelo, R.
Pincus, T.
Tulder, M.
Vogel, S.
Underwood, M.
author_facet Froud, R.
Eldridge, S.
Kovacs, F.
Breen, A.
Bolton, J.
Dunn, K.
Fritz, J.
Keller, A.
Kent, Peter
Lauridsen, H.
Ostelo, R.
Pincus, T.
Tulder, M.
Vogel, S.
Underwood, M.
author_sort Froud, R.
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description Background: Low back pain is a common and expensive health complaint. Many low back pain trials have been conducted, but these are reported in a variety of ways and are often difficult to interpret. Aim: To facilitate consensus on a statement recommending reporting methods for future low back pain trials. Methods: We presented experts with clinicians' views on different reporting methods and asked them to rate and comment on the suitability reporting methods for inclusion in a standardized set. Panellists developed a statement of recommendation over three online rounds. We used a modified Delphi process and the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method as a formal framework for establishing appropriateness and quantifying panel disagreement. Results: A group of 63 experts from 14 countries participated. Consensus was reached on a statement recommending that the continuous patient-reported outcomes commonly used in back pain trials, are reported using between-group mean differences (accompanied by minimally important difference (between-group/population-level) thresholds where these exist), the proportion of participants improving and deteriorating according to established and relevant minimally important change thresholds, and the number needed to treat; all with 95% confidence intervals. Outcomes may additionally be reported using alternative approaches (e.g. relative risks, odds ratios, or standardized mean difference) according to the needs of a particular trial. Conclusions: A group of back pain experts reached a high level of consensus on a statement recommending reporting methods for patient-reported outcomes in future low back pain trials. The statement has the potential to increase interpretability and improve patient care..
first_indexed 2025-11-14T10:01:15Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-55009
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T10:01:15Z
publishDate 2011
publisher John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-550092017-09-13T16:11:35Z Reporting outcomes of back pain trials: A modified Delphi study Froud, R. Eldridge, S. Kovacs, F. Breen, A. Bolton, J. Dunn, K. Fritz, J. Keller, A. Kent, Peter Lauridsen, H. Ostelo, R. Pincus, T. Tulder, M. Vogel, S. Underwood, M. Background: Low back pain is a common and expensive health complaint. Many low back pain trials have been conducted, but these are reported in a variety of ways and are often difficult to interpret. Aim: To facilitate consensus on a statement recommending reporting methods for future low back pain trials. Methods: We presented experts with clinicians' views on different reporting methods and asked them to rate and comment on the suitability reporting methods for inclusion in a standardized set. Panellists developed a statement of recommendation over three online rounds. We used a modified Delphi process and the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method as a formal framework for establishing appropriateness and quantifying panel disagreement. Results: A group of 63 experts from 14 countries participated. Consensus was reached on a statement recommending that the continuous patient-reported outcomes commonly used in back pain trials, are reported using between-group mean differences (accompanied by minimally important difference (between-group/population-level) thresholds where these exist), the proportion of participants improving and deteriorating according to established and relevant minimally important change thresholds, and the number needed to treat; all with 95% confidence intervals. Outcomes may additionally be reported using alternative approaches (e.g. relative risks, odds ratios, or standardized mean difference) according to the needs of a particular trial. Conclusions: A group of back pain experts reached a high level of consensus on a statement recommending reporting methods for patient-reported outcomes in future low back pain trials. The statement has the potential to increase interpretability and improve patient care.. 2011 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/55009 10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.04.015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. restricted
spellingShingle Froud, R.
Eldridge, S.
Kovacs, F.
Breen, A.
Bolton, J.
Dunn, K.
Fritz, J.
Keller, A.
Kent, Peter
Lauridsen, H.
Ostelo, R.
Pincus, T.
Tulder, M.
Vogel, S.
Underwood, M.
Reporting outcomes of back pain trials: A modified Delphi study
title Reporting outcomes of back pain trials: A modified Delphi study
title_full Reporting outcomes of back pain trials: A modified Delphi study
title_fullStr Reporting outcomes of back pain trials: A modified Delphi study
title_full_unstemmed Reporting outcomes of back pain trials: A modified Delphi study
title_short Reporting outcomes of back pain trials: A modified Delphi study
title_sort reporting outcomes of back pain trials: a modified delphi study
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/55009