Cited by 375Delphi Technique in ResearchMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Core outcome-domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain

Open access
Chiarotto, Alessandro, Deyo, Richard A., Terwee, Caroline B., Boers, Maarten, Buchbinder, Rachelle, Corbin, Terry P., Costa, Leonardo O. P., Foster, Nadine E. +11 more·2015·European Spine Journal

Abstract

PURPOSE: Inconsistent reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) hinders comparison of findings and the reliability of systematic reviews. A core outcome set (COS) can address this issue as it defines a minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical trials. In 1998, Deyo et al. recommended a standardized set of outcomes for LBP clinical research. The aim of this study was to update these recommendations by determining which outcome domains should be included in a COS for clinical trials in NSLBP. METHODS: An International Steering Committee established the methodology to develop this COS. The OMERACT Filter 2.0 framework was used to draw a list of potential core domains that were presented in a Delphi study. Researchers, care providers and patients were invited to participate in three Delphi rounds and were asked to judge which domains were core. A priori criteria for consensus were established before each round and were analysed together with arguments provided by panellists on importance, overlap, aggregation and/or addition of potential core domains. The Steering Committee discussed the final results and made final decisions. RESULTS: A set of 280 experts was invited to participate in the Delphi; response rates in the three rounds were 52, 50 and 45%. Of 41 potential core domains presented in the first round, 13 had sufficient support to be presented for rating in the third round. Overall consensus was reached for the inclusion of three domains in this COS: 'physical functioning', 'pain intensity' and 'health-related quality of life'. Consensus on 'physical functioning' and 'pain intensity' was consistent across all stakeholders, 'health-related quality of life' was not supported by the patients, and all the other domains were not supported by two or more groups of stakeholders. Weighting all possible argumentations, the Steering Committee decided to include in the COS the three domains that reached overall consensus and the domain 'number of deaths'. CONCLUSIONS: The following outcome domains were included in this updated COS: 'physical functioning', 'pain intensity', 'health-related quality of life' and 'number of deaths'. The next step for the development of this COS will be to determine which measurement instruments best measure these domains.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00586-015-3892-3

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chiarotto, A., Deyo, R. A., Terwee, C. B., Boers, M., Buchbinder, R., Corbin, T. P., Costa, L. O. P., Foster, N. E., Grotle, M., Koes, B. W., Kovacs, F. M., Lin, C.-W. C., Maher, C. G., Pearson, A. M., Peul, W. C., Schoene, M. L., Turk, D. C., van Tulder, M. W., & Ostelo, R. W.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Arthritis Research UK (GB)
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Fundación Kovacs (ES)
  • Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center (US)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Chiarotto, Alessandro
Venue
European Spine Journal
Published
2015-04-05
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
1127-1142
ISSN
  • 0940-6719 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0932
OpenAlex
W2047189877
Cited by
374
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 7
FWCI
97.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Spine Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Keele Research Repository (Keele University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
non-specific low back pain, core outcome set, outcome reporting, physical function, pain intensity, health-related quality of life, Delphi consensus, stakeholder consensus, clinical trial results
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Delphi Technique, Female, Humans, Male, Low Back Pain, Patient Outcome Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review