The DOI matches its Crossref record; 130 of the 132 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 44 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain.
Open accessAbstract
Unlabelled Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. Therefore, NIH Pain Consortium charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimum dataset to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect that the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.Perspective A task force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain. The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimum dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 44 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this rather severely affected sample, baseline RTF Impact scores were almost equally distributed among mild, moderate and severe impacts.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 2. Stratify chronic low back pain by impact
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, score changes on the RTF Impact Stratification correlated more strongly with patient satisfaction at follow-up than did change on the Roland-Morris score (Table 5).”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 2. Stratify chronic low back pain by impact
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Measures of effect size and standardized response mean for the 170 patients available for 3-month follow-up suggested that the RTF Impact Stratification was more responsive than the Roland-Morris Disability Scale (Table 3).”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 2. Stratify chronic low back pain by impact
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the survey of RTF members regarding items for a minimal dataset, the most highly ranked items of medical history and examination included demographics, involvement in workers’ compensation or legal claims, work status, education, various measures of comorbidity, and previous treatment history.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 3. Report a Minimum Dataset
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Measures from the physical examination ranked lower than items of medical history.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 3. Report a Minimum Dataset
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The RTF Impact Stratification showed strong correlations with legacy measures.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 2. Stratify chronic low back pain by impact
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is growing evidence that cLBP, like other chronic pain conditions, can progress beyond a symptomatic state to a complex condition unto itself,109 involving persistent anatomical and functional changes in the central nervous system9, 93, 100 in addition to structural changes in the back (e.g., degenerative spinal changes, atrophy or asymmetry of para-spinal muscles).10, 11, 14”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > Abstract > Perspective
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [109] Tracey, 2009, How neuroimaging studies have challenged us to rethink: is chronic pain a disease?, J Pain source
- Not checked yetcites [9] Baliki, 2012, Corticostriatal functional connectivity predicts transition to chronic back pain, Nat Neurosci source
- Not checked yetcites [93] Rodriguez-Raecke, 2013, Structural brain changes in chronic pain reflect probably neither damage nor atrophy, PLoS One source
- Not checked yetcites [100] Seminowicz, 2011, Effective treatment of chronic low back pain in humans reverses abnormal brain anatomy and function, J Neurosci source
- Not checked yetcites [10] Barker, 2004, Changes in the cross-sectional area of multifidus and psoas in patients with unilateral back pain: the relationship to pain and disability, Spine (Phila Pa 1976) source
- Not checked yetcites [11] Battie, 2012, Is level- and side-specific multifidus asymmetry a marker for lumbar disc pathology?, Spine J source
- Not checked yetcites [14] Beneck, 2012, Multifidus atrophy is localized and bilateral in active persons with chronic unilateral low back pain, Arch Phys Med Rehabil source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus.”
- Also stated in: § Perspective · plain
“clinical studies have used variable inclusion and exclusion criteria, case definitions for LBP chronicity or recurrence, baseline assessments, stratification criteria, and outcome measures.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Perspective · plain
In the paper
“Although some patients with cLBP may have clear pathoanatomic etiologies, for many there is no clear association between pain and identifiable pathology of the spine or its associated soft tissues.26”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > Abstract > Perspective
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Chou, 2012, Appropriate use of lumbar imaging for evaluation of low back pain, Radiol Clin North Am source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“Furthermore, we often cannot identify mechanisms to account for the substantial negative impact cLBP has on the lives of many patients.20”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > Abstract > Perspective
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] Bunzli, 2013, Lives on Hold: A Qualitative Synthesis Exploring the Experience of Chronic Low-back Pain, Clin J Pain source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“After considerable discussion about formal prognostic scales for stratification, such as the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back instrument,60 the RTF decided there remained substantial uncertainty about generalizability to subspecialty patients and older adults.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 2. Stratify chronic low back pain by impact
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [60] Hill, 2011, Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial, Lancet source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“While creation of research diagnostic criteria has proven beneficial to research for some other conditions (e.g., temporomandibular joint disorders,99 Alzheimer’s Disease98 )”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [99] Schiffman, 2014, Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) for Clinical and Research Applications: Recommendations of the International RDC/TMD Consortium Network* and Orofacial Pain Special Interest Groupdagger, J Oral Facial Pain Headache source
- Not checked yetcites [98] Sarazin, 2012, Clinical and research diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease, Neuroimaging Clin N Am source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“No laboratory or imaging tests were highly ranked, because of the widely recognized weak association between degenerative spine changes on imaging and patient symptoms or function.26”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 3. Report a Minimum Dataset
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Chou, 2012, Appropriate use of lumbar imaging for evaluation of low back pain, Radiol Clin North Am source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After extended review and discussion, the RTF concluded that at the current state of scientific evidence on cLBP, it was not realistic to create operationally defined Research Diagnostic Criteria for subsets of cLBP.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > DISCUSSION
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the generalizability of such studies to interventions and populations outside of primary care remain uncertain.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 5. Research on the Proposed Standards
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Recent work such as the STarT Back project from the U.K. has made important advances in this regard,57–60”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 5. Research on the Proposed Standards
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [57] Hill, 2008, A primary care back pain screening tool: identifying patient subgroups for initial treatment, Arthritis Rheum source
- Not checked yetcites [58] Hill, 2010, Subgrouping low back pain: a comparison of the STarT Back Tool with the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire, Eur J Pain source
- Not checked yetcites [59] Hill, 2010, Comparing the STarT back screening tool's subgroup allocation of individual patients with that of independent clinical experts, Clin J Pain source
- Not checked yetcites [60] Hill, 2011, Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial, Lancet source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These items have substantial research support to validate their discriminatory and prognostic importance. 13, 19, 31, 38, 39, 43, 47–49, 53, 54, 57–60, 66–68, 73, 76, 80, 82, 85, 86, 97, 106, 108, 110, 112–116, 122”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 2. Stratify chronic low back pain by impact
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Beneciuk, 2013, The STarT back screening tool and individual psychological measures: evaluation of prognostic capabilities for low back pain clinical outcomes in outpatient physical therapy settings, Phys Ther source
- Not checked yetcites [19] Bruyere, 2012, Translation validation of a new back pain screening questionnaire (the STarT Back Screening Tool) in French, Arch Public Health source
- Not checked yetcites [31] Cleeland, 1994, Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory, Ann Acad Med Singapore
- Not checked yetcites [38] Dunn, 2008, A prognostic approach to defining chronic pain: replication in a UK primary care low back pain population, Pain source
- Not checked yetcites [39] Dunn KM, Von Korff M, Croft P: Defining Chronic Pain by Prognosis, in Hasenbring MI, Rusu AC, Turk DC (ed): From Acute to Chronic Back Pain: Risk Factors, Mechanisms, and Clinical Implications, New York, NY, Oxford University Press 2012, pp. 21-40 source
- Not checked yetcites [43] Edelen, 2010, Correspondence of verbal descriptor and numeric rating scales for pain intensity: an item response theory calibration, J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci source
- Not checked yetcites [47] Field, 2012, Relationship between STarT Back Screening Tool and prognosis for low back pain patients receiving spinal manipulative therapy, Chiropr Man Therap source
- Not checked yetcites [48] Friedman, 2012, Predicting 7-day and 3-month functional outcomes after an ED visit for acute nontraumatic low back pain, Am J Emerg Med source
- Not checked yetcites [49] Fritz, 2011, Relationship between categorization with the STarT Back Screening Tool and prognosis for people receiving physical therapy for low back pain, Phys Ther source
- Not checked yetcites [53] Gerbershagen, 2011, Determination of moderate-to-severe postoperative pain on the numeric rating scale: a cut-off point analysis applying four different methods, Br J Anaesth source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“The potential for such an iterative approach to re-evaluate scientific measures of chronic pain was successfully modeled in developing Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD).”
- Also stated in: § Recommendation 5. Research on the Proposed Standards · boosted
“An iterative scientific process has successfully evolved the next generation of evidence-based measures for diagnosing and classifying the most common subtypes of TMD, including physical, behavioral and psychosocial domains99”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 5. Research on the Proposed Standards
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [99] Schiffman, 2014, Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) for Clinical and Research Applications: Recommendations of the International RDC/TMD Consortium Network* and Orofacial Pain Special Interest Groupdagger, J Oral Facial Pain Headache source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Recommendation 5. Research on the Proposed Standards · boosted
In the paper
“One recent study suggested excellent performance of the PROMIS physical function item bank among patients with back and neck problems.63”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 5. Research on the Proposed Standards
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [63] Hung, 2014, Psychometric Properties of the PROMIS Physical Function Item Bank in Patients With Spinal Disorders, Spine (Phila Pa 1976) source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 13
- Probably not a substantial claim. 17
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sample included 218 patients with a mean age of 54 years; 56% were females.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 2. Stratify chronic low back pain by impact
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 218Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The key comorbid conditions were judged to be smoking status, obesity, substance abuse, and widespread pain symptoms.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 3. Report a Minimum Dataset
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this sample, the median time-to-completion was 7 minutes, and 75% of subjects completed the questionnaire in less than 10 minutes.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 3. Report a Minimum Dataset
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Scores on the Impact Stratification measure for this sample improved over time, as expected.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 2. Stratify chronic low back pain by impact
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe quote only partly states this claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Given the epidural steroid injection intervention, an improvement in average functional scores was expected.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the most highly ranked of these were straight leg raising for patients with leg pain; hip internal rotation as a screen for hip arthritis (a potential cause of LBP); and lower extremity strength.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 3. Report a Minimum Dataset
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Such cLBP is often termed non-specific, and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies.”
- Also stated in: § Perspective · hedged
“may in fact be due to the contributions of different and multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies in different individuals.87”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [87] Negrini, 2013, The chimera of low back pain etiology: a clinical rehabilitation perspective, Am J Phys Med Rehabil source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Perspective · hedged
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades.”
- Also stated in: § Perspective · plain
“Despite increased utilization, however, the prevalence of symptoms and expenditures has increased.37, 70, 91”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [37] Deyo, 2009, Overtreating chronic back pain: time to back off?, J Am Board Fam Med source
- Not checked yetcites [70] Kenan, 2012, Trends in prescriptions for oxycodone and other commonly used opioids in the United States, 2000-2010, Open Med
- Not checked yetcites [91] Rajaee, 2012, Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008, Spine (Phila Pa 1976) source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Perspective · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many of these have shown some clinical benefit, but few appear to consistently provide substantial, long-term reductions in pain with increased function.25, 27–29”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > Abstract > Perspective
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] Chou, 2009, Nonsurgical interventional therapies for low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society clinical practice guideline, Spine (Phila Pa 1976) source
- Not checked yetcites [27] Chou, 2007, Medications for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline, Ann Intern Med source
- Not checked yetcites [28] Chou, 2007, Nonpharmacologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline, Ann Intern Med source
- Not checked yetcites [29] Chou, 2009, Interventional therapies, surgery, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline from the American Pain Society, Spine (Phila Pa 1976) source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, it is difficult to compare epidemiological data and studies of similar or competing interventions, replicate findings, pool data from multiple studies, resolve conflicting conclusions, develop multidisciplinary consensus, or even achieve consensus within a discipline regarding interpretation of findings.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > Abstract > Perspective
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Task Force found the results encouraging but acknowledges that the analyses reported reflect only an initial assessment.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 2. Stratify chronic low back pain by impact
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This stratification of cLBP by impact would be appropriate whether or not there appears to be contributory degenerative pathoanatomy.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 2. Stratify chronic low back pain by impact
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Even when pathoanatomic conditions are thought to contribute to symptoms and dysfunction, they often coexist and overlap, and sometimes fail to respond to specific interventions.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Beyond viewing the present set of recommendations as appropriate topics for future research, the RTF identified several related knowledge gaps that limit our ability to define and classify critical domains and variables.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 5. Research on the Proposed Standards
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The RTF decided that it could not respond in detail to every component of the NIH Pain Consortium’s charge. For example, producing explicit evidence-based diagnostic criteria for conditions such as spinal stenosis, sciatica, or spine “instability” would be impossible with available time and resources, given the current lack of professional consensus.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > METHODS > Work Plan
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, stratifying cLBP by its impact might have equally important descriptive and prognostic value, and could supplement any pathophysiologic description.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > METHODS > Work Plan
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The two-item conjoint scale (TICS) was judged to be an adequate and suitably brief screen for substance abuse.18”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 3. Report a Minimum Dataset
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] Brown, 2001, A two-item conjoint screen for alcohol and other drug problems, J Am Board Fam Pract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, creation of an impact stratification and a uniform minimal dataset will achieve many of the same goals.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the likely adverse events vary enormously with the nature of an intervention, the RTF did not make recommendations for reporting specific adverse events.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 4. Outcome measures
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the RTF concluded that with the paucity of data on performance of such composite measures for low back pain, it could not make a recommendation about composite outcome measures.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 4. Outcome measures
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The RTF overwhelmingly agreed that neither adequate data nor resources were available to offer a new pathoanatomic or pathophysiologic subclassification of cLBP that was clearly superior to those currently available.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 2. Stratify chronic low back pain by impact
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Many patients who undergo procedures intended to correct putative causative pathoanatomy continue to have pain.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the stratification of impact seems to be a useful addition to pathoanatomic, physiologic, or symptomatic classification, but not a substitute.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 2. Stratify chronic low back pain by impact
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Even when pathoanatomic conditions are thought to contribute to symptoms and dysfunction, they often coexist and overlap, and sometimes fail to respond to specific interventions.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Extensive effort has been made to validate the PROMIS measures,5, 7, 21, 51, 55, 72, 89, 92, 95 but there is modest information on their performance specifically in the context of cLBP.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 5. Research on the Proposed Standards
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Amtmann, 2010, Development of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference, Pain source
- Not checked yetcites [7] Askew, 2013, Development of a crosswalk for pain interference measured by the BPI and PROMIS pain interference short form, Qual Life Res source
- Not checked yetcites [21] Buysse, 2010, Development and validation of patient-reported outcome measures for sleep disturbance and sleep-related impairments, Sleep source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The new research standards should improve the comparability of research studies on cLBP, facilitate pooling data from multiple studies (e.g., for meta-analyses), and improve the ability to define phenotypes among patients with low back pain.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the measures in the minimal dataset will often not comprise the sole measures used in a study, their widespread use will not only provide researchers a standardized set of data, but will also provide accumulating evidence for (or against) the reliability, validity, and clinical utility of the RTF recommendations.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 5. Research on the Proposed Standards
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The RTF chose not to make specific recommendations for timing of outcome assessments because appropriate timing would vary depending on an intervention.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 4. Outcome measures
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These standards will allow comparable core summary statistics to be included in all published reports, without interfering with collection of specific measures needed to address specific research questions.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This analysis was covered by an existing Institutional Review Board approval from the University of Washington.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 2. Stratify chronic low back pain by impact
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“and others have systematically reviewed risk factors for the emergence of chronic back pain.30”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 5. Research on the Proposed Standards
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [30] Chou, 2010, Will this patient develop persistent disabling low back pain?, JAMA source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“After considering several potential instruments for assessing these domains, the RTF concluded that the short-form PROMIS measures1 offered the best trade-off of length with psychometric validity for a minimal dataset.”
§ REPORT OF THE NIH TASK FORCE ON RESEARCH STANDARDS FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS > Recommendation 3. Report a Minimum Dataset
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Accessing PROMIS Short Form Instruments. Available at: http://www.assessmentcenter.net/PromisForms.aspx. Accessed February 2, 2014
- Not checked yetcites [22] Cella, 2010, The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008, J Clin Epidemiol source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
Many patients who undergo procedures intended to correct putative causative pathoanatomy continue to have pain.
“Many patients who undergo procedures intended to correct the putative causative pathoanatomy continue to have pain.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Given the epidural steroid injection intervention, an improvement in average functional scores was expected.
“Given the intervention, an improvement in average functional scores was expected.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Even when pathoanatomic conditions are thought to contribute to symptoms and dysfunction, they often coexist and overlap, and sometimes fail to respond to specific interventions.
“Even when pathoanatomic conditions are thought to contribute to symptoms and dysfunction, they often coexist and overlap, and sometimes fail to respond to specific interventions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In older adults, hip osteoarthritis is more likely to contribute to low back pain.
“In older adults, there is increased likelihood of hip osteoarthritis contributing to low back pain.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Dementia may impair the validity of assessments or of consent for research.
“A screen for cognitive function may also be important in such studies, as dementia may impair the validity of assessments or of consent for research.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Little work has addressed the outcomes that patients with chronic low back pain judge most important.
“little work has addressed the outcomes judged most important by patients with chronic low back pain.”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Recommendations of the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain were adopted in conducting our study, including use of the case definition for chronic low back pain and clinical measures pertaining to low back pain intensity, back-related disability, and quality of life.”
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The inclusion criteria for chronic low back pain duration and frequency described herein match the case definition established by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain. 10”
In the citing paper
“outcomes were consistent with NIH recommendations on research standards for chronic LBP38 and core outcome sets for LBP research39”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
The three-month boundary differs between the definition and its questions
MinorThe stated definition includes a back-pain problem lasting exactly three months, but the specified response to question 1 requires more than three months. A person at the three-month boundary would therefore qualify under one statement but not the other.
“The RTF recommended that “chronic low back pain “ (cLBP) be defined as a back pain problem that has persisted at least 3 months, and has resulted in pain on at least half the days in the past 6 months.”
“A response of greater than three months to question 1, and a response of “at least half the days in the past 6 months” to question 2 would define cLBP.”
Citations
Cites
The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the General Population
Radloff, L. S. (1977) · Applied Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/014662167700100306 · Cited by 53,267
The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale
Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983) · Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x · Cited by 47,139
The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x · Cited by 44,910
(1992) · PubMed · Cited by 33,716
A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2006) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092 · Cited by 31,765
The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 · Cited by 30,033
WARE, J. E., KOSINSKI, M., & KELLER, S. D. (1996) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003 · Cited by 17,392
Depression and quality of life in older persons: A review
Sivertsen, H., Bjørkløf, G. H., Engedal, K., Selbæk, G., & Helvik, A.-S. (2015) · Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders · doi:10.1159/000437299 · Cited by 14,152
Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases
DEYO, R. (1992) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(92)90133-8 · Cited by 10,452
Self-citationThe Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Development and validation.
Sullivan, M. J. L., Bishop, S. R., & Pivik, J. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037//1040-3590.7.4.524 · Cited by 8,227
Flagged first, then by citations
2 of the 132 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Keefe FJ, Williams DA, Smith SJ: Assessment of pain behaviors, in Turk DC, Melzack R (ed): Handbook of Pain Assessment, New York, NY, Guilford Press, 2001, pp 170-190
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Prevalence of Chronic Pain and High-Impact Chronic Pain Among Adults — United States, 2016
Dahlhamer, J., Lucas, J., Zelaya, Nahin, R., Mackey, S., DeBar, L., Kerns, R., Von Korff, M., Porter, L., & Helmick, C. (2018) · MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report · doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6736a2 · Cited by 2,598
Self-citationEstimates of Pain Prevalence and Severity in Adults: United States, 2012
Nahin, R. L. (2015) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2015.05.002 · Cited by 918
Chiarotto, A., Maxwell, L. J., Ostelo, R., Boers, M., Tugwell, P., & Terwee, C. B. (2018) · Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2018.07.009 · Cited by 780
George, S. Z., Fritz, J. M., Silfies, S. P., Schneider, M. J., Beneciuk, J. M., Lentz, T. A., Gilliam, J. R., Hendren, S., & Norman, K. S. (2021) · Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.0304 · Cited by 607
Overlapping Chronic Pain Conditions: Implications for Diagnosis and Classification
Maixner, W., Fillingim, R. B., Williams, D. A., Smith, S. B., & Slade, G. D. (2016) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2016.06.002 · Cited by 558
Metadata
- Authors
- Deyo, R. A., Dworkin, S. F., Amtmann, D., Andersson, G., Borenstein, D., Carragee, E., Carrino, J., Chou, R., Cook, K., DeLitto, A., Goertz, C., Khalsa, P., Loeser, J., Mackey, S., Panagis, J., Rainville, J., Tosteson, T., Turk, D., Von Korff, M., & Weiner, D. K.
- Affiliations
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Rush University Medical Center (US)
- George Washington University (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Northwestern University (US)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Palmer College of Chiropractic (US)
- National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (US)
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- New England Baptist Hospital (US)
- Dartmouth College (US)
- Corresponding author
- Deyo, Richard A.
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Journal of Pain
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-06
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 569-585
- ISSN
- 1526-5900 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4128347
- OpenAlex
- W2089675869
- Cited by
- 533
- References
- 132
- Citations by year
- 2026: 34 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 18.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (Z99 AT999999, Z99 AR999999)
- National Cancer Institute (P30CA023108)
- National Institute of Nursing Research
- National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
- National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
- Keywords
- chronic low back pain, non-specific low back pain, research standards, minimum dataset, PROMIS, responder analysis, outcome reporting, pain interference, physical function, phenotypes, functional disability
- MeSH terms
- Humans, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), Pain Measurement, Research, Research Design, United States, Low Back Pain, Advisory Committees, Chronic Pain
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
