The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 45 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive method guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To help reviewers design, conduct, and report reviews of trials in the field of back and neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In 1997, the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group published method guidelines for systematic reviews. Since its publication, new methodologic evidence emerged and more experience was acquired in conducting reviews. METHODS: All reviews and protocols of the Back Review Group were assessed for compliance with the 1997 method guidelines. Also, the most recent version of the Cochrane Handbook (4.1) was checked for new recommendations. In addition, some important topics that were not addressed in the 1997 method guidelines were included (e.g., methods for qualitative analysis, reporting of conclusions, and discussion of clinical relevance of the results). In May 2002, preliminary results were presented and discussed in a workshop. In two rounds, a list of all possible recommendations and the final draft were circulated for comments among the editors of the Back Review Group. RESULTS: The recommendations are divided in five categories: literature search, inclusion criteria, methodologic quality assessment, data extraction, and data analysis. Each recommendation is classified in minimum criteria and further guidance. Additional recommendations are included regarding assessment of clinical relevance, and reporting of results and conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews need to be conducted as carefully as the trials they report and, to achieve full impact, systematic reviews need to meet high methodologic standards.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Qualitative analysis of this review is based on the scientific evidence levels for the results classification [25].”
From Effectiveness of non-pharmacological conservative therapies in adults with fibromyalgia: A systematic review of high-quality clinical trials (2022) · cites this paper as [25]
In the citing paper
“To minimise the risk of including low-quality studies in our analysis, we utilized a standardized quality index developed by the Cochrane Back Review Group (40).”
From A systematic review on the efficacy of virtual reality and gamification interventions for managing anxiety and depression (2023) · cites this paper as [40]
In the citing paper
“We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) and the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines for this meta-analysis [9,10].”
From Effect of omega-3 fatty acids on cardiovascular outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [9]
In the citing paper
“We graded the levels of evidence (LoE) for each outcome of interest according to the guideline of evidence synthesis [31] derived from the criteria of van Tulder [32] (Table S2).”
From Effects of Protein Supplementation Combined with Exercise Intervention on Frailty Indices, Body Composition, and Physical Function in Frail Older Adults (2018) · cites this paper as [32]
Citations
Cites
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
Publication and related bias in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., Gavaghan, D., & Egger, M. (2000) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00242-0 · Cited by 2,282
Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews
Dickersin, K., Scherer, R. W., & Lefebvre, C. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6964.1286 · Cited by 2,255
Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7304.101 · Cited by 2,225
The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis
Jüni, P. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1054 · Cited by 1,981
Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research
L'ABBÉ, K. A., DETSKY, A. S., & O'ROURKE, K. (1987) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-107-2-224 · Cited by 1,267
Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German
Egger, M., Zellweger-Zähner, T., Schneider, M., Junker, C., Lengeler, C., & Antes, G. (1997) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)02419-7 · Cited by 1,028
Yusuf, S. (1991) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1991.03470010097038 · Cited by 1,014
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,009 of 1,009
Charlton, P. C., Drew, M. K., Mentiplay, B. F., Grimaldi, A., & Clark, R. A. (2017) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.1007/s40279-017-0742-y · Cited by 43
Tsang, C., Taghizadeh, M., Aghabagheri, E., Asemi, Z., & Jafarnejad, S. (2019) · Clinical Obesity · doi:10.1111/cob.12313 · Cited by 36
Effects of Mind–Body Exercises on Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis
Wei, G.-X., Yang, L., Imm, K., Loprinzi, P. D., Smith, L., Zhang, X., & Yu, Q. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00819 · Cited by 25
Martins, A. D., Fernandes, O., Pereira, A., Oliveira, R., Alderete Goñi, F. D., Leite, N. J. C., & Brito, J. P. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19095390 · Cited by 24
Richards, M. C., Ford, J. J., Slater, S. L., Hahne, A. J., Surkitt, L. D., Davidson, M., & McMeeken, J. M. (2013) · Manual Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.math.2012.06.005 · Cited by 24
Rogan, S., Radlinger, L., Hilfiker, R., Schmidtbleicher, D., de Bie, R. A., & de Bruin, E. D. (2015) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-015-0021-4 · Cited by 23
Effects of physiotherapy treatment in patients with bronchial asthma: A systematic review
Garagorri-Gutiérrez, D., & Leirós-Rodríguez, R. (2022) · Physiotherapy Theory and Practice · doi:10.1080/09593985.2020.1772420 · Cited by 19
Assessment of Research Quality of Telehealth Trials in Pain Management: A Meta‐Analysis
McGeary, D. D., McGeary, C. A., Gatchel, R. J., Allison, S., & Hersh, A. (2013) · Pain Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1533-2500.2012.00601.x · Cited by 19
Lippmann, M., Laudel, H., Heinzle, M., & Narciss, S. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/12497 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- van Tulder, M., Furlan, A., Bombardier, C., & Bouter, L.
- Affiliations
- Institute for Work & Health (CA)
- Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Bouter, Lex
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 2003-06
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1290-1299
- ISSN
- 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2064296154
- Cited by
- 2,180
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 48 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 91 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 102 · 2021: 118 · 2020: 114 · 2019: 107 · 2018: 107 · 2017: 119 · 2016: 102 · 2015: 125 · 2014: 120 · 2013: 141 · 2012: 125
- FWCI
- 12.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Spine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- systematic review methodology, back pain, neck pain, methodological quality assessment, data extraction, literature searching, inclusion criteria, clinical relevance, result reporting
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Back Pain, Compliance, Humans, International Agencies, Peer Review, Periodicals as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Neck 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.
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
