Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 645

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Clinical Prediction Rule for Classifying Patients with Low Back Pain Who Demonstrate Short-Term Improvement With Spinal Manipulation

Flynn, Timothy, Fritz, Julie, Whitman, Julie, Wainner, Robert, Magel, Jake, Rendeiro, Daniel, Butler, Barbara, Garber, Matthew, Allison, Stephen·2002·Spine

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, cohort study of patients with nonradicular low back pain referred to physical therapy. OBJECTIVE: Develop a clinical prediction rule for identifying patients with low back pain who improve with spinal manipulation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Development of clinical prediction rules for classifying patients with low back pain who are likely to respond to a particular intervention, such as manipulation, would improve clinical decision-making and research. METHODS: Patients with nonradicular low back pain underwent a standardized examination and then underwent a standardized spinal manipulation treatment program. Success with treatment was determined using percent change in disability scores over three sessions and served as the reference standard for determining the accuracy of examination variables. Examination variables were first analyzed for univariate accuracy in predicting success and then combined into a multivariate clinical prediction rule. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients participated. Thirty-two had success with the manipulation intervention. A clinical prediction rule with five variables (symptom duration, fear-avoidance beliefs, lumbar hypomobility, hip internal rotation range of motion, and no symptoms distal to the knee) was identified. The presence of four of five of these variables (positive likelihood ratio = 24.38) increased the probability of success with manipulation from 45% to 95%. CONCLUSION: It appears that patients with low back pain likely to respond to manipulation can be accurately identified before treatment.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00007632-200212150-00021

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

See all 645

Metadata

Authors
Flynn, T., Fritz, J., Whitman, J., Wainner, R., Magel, J., Rendeiro, D., Butler, B., Garber, M., & Allison, S.
Venue
Spine
Published
2002-12
Volume
27
Issue
24
Pages
2835-2843
ISSN
0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2024078895
Cited by
645
References
3
FWCI
9.69
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: A Clinical Prediction Rule for Classifying Patients with Low Back Pain Who Demonstrate Short-Term Improvement With Spinal Manipulation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00007632-200212150-00021
The paper
Flynn, T., Fritz, J., Whitman, J., Wainner, R., Magel, J., Rendeiro, D., Butler, B., Garber, M., & Allison, S. (2002). A Clinical Prediction Rule for Classifying Patients with Low Back Pain Who Demonstrate Short-Term Improvement With Spinal Manipulation. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200212150-00021

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.