The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Low Back Pain in Primary Care: An International Comparison
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive study. OBJECTIVES: To compare national clinical guidelines on low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To rationalize the management of low back pain, clinical guidelines have been issued in various countries around the world. Given that the available scientific evidence is the same, irrespective of the country, one would expect these guidelines to include more or less similar recommendations regarding diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: Guidelines were included that met the following criteria: the target group consisted of primary care health professionals, and the guideline was published in English, German, or Dutch. Only one guideline per country was included: the one most recently published. RESULTS: Clinical guidelines from 11 different countries published from 1994 until 2000 were included in this review. The content of the guidelines appeared to be quite similar regarding the diagnostic classification (diagnostic triage) and the use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Consistent features were the early and gradual activation of patients, the discouragement of prescribed bed rest, and the recognition of psychosocial factors as risk factors for chronicity. However, there were discrepancies for recommendations regarding exercise therapy, spinal manipulation, muscle relaxants, and patient information. CONCLUSION: The comparison of clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain showed that diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations were generally similar. Updates of the guidelines are planned in most countries, although so far produced only in the United Kingdom. However, new evidence may lead to stronger conclusions and enable future guidelines to become even more concordant.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The fear-avoidance model of musculoskeletal pain: Current state of scientific evidence
Leeuw, M., Goossens, M. E. J. B., Linton, S. J., Crombez, G., Boersma, K., & Vlaeyen, J. W. S. (2007) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10865-006-9085-0 · Cited by 2,261
Updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group
van Tulder, M., Furlan, A., Bombardier, C., & Bouter, L. (2003) · Spine · doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000065484.95996.af · Cited by 2,180
Oliveira, C. B., Maher, C. G., Pinto, R. Z., Traeger, A. C., Lin, C.-W. C., Chenot, J.-F., van Tulder, M., & Koes, B. W. (2018) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-018-5673-2 · Cited by 1,584
Self-citationAcute low back pain: systematic review of its prognosis
Pengel, L. H. M., Herbert, R. D., Maher, C. G., & Refshauge, K. M. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7410.323 · Cited by 872
Krismer, M., & van Tulder, M. (2007) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology · doi:10.1016/j.berh.2006.08.004 · Cited by 694
Metadata
- Authors
- Koes, B. W., van Tulder, M. W., Ostelo, R., Kim Burton, A., & Waddell, G.
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 2001-11
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 2504-2513
- ISSN
- 0362-2436
- OpenAlex
- W2011059504
- Cited by
- 690
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Low Back Pain in Primary Care: An International Comparison. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00007632-200111150-00022
- The paper
- Koes, B. W., van Tulder, M. W., Ostelo, R., Kim Burton, A., & Waddell, G. (2001). Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Low Back Pain in Primary Care: An International Comparison. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200111150-00022
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.