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
Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review
Guzmán, J., Esmail, R., Karjalainen, K., Malmivaara, A., Irvin, E., & Bombardier, C. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7301.1511 · Cited by 941
Self-citationA consumer's guide to subgroup analyses
Oxman, A. D., & Guyatt, G. H. (1992) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-116-1-78 · Cited by 914
Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study
Jüni, P., Holenstein, F., Sterne, J., Bartlett, C., & Egger, M. (2002) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/31.1.115 · Cited by 892
Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials
Chalmers, T. C., Celano, P., Sacks, H. S., & Smith, H. (1983) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198312013092204 · Cited by 864
Robinson, K. A., & Dickersin, K. (2002) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/31.1.150 · Cited by 833
Kunz, R., & Oxman, A. D. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1185 · Cited by 770
A general parametric approach to the meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials
Whitehead, A., & Whitehead, J. (1991) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780101105 · Cited by 749
van Tulder, M. W., Assendelft, W. J., Koes, B. W., & Bouter, L. M. (1997) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-199710150-00001 · Cited by 727
Self-citationClinical Guidelines for the Management of Low Back Pain in Primary Care
Koes, B. W., van Tulder, M. W., Ostelo, R., Burton, K. A., & Waddell, G. (2001) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200111150-00022 · Cited by 703
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Guyatt, G. H. (1994) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03510250075039 · Cited by 693
Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis
Detsky, A. S., Naylor, C. D., O'Rourke, K., McGeer, A. J., & L'Abbé, K. A. (1992) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(92)90085-2 · Cited by 640
Cook, D. J., Sackett, D. L., & Spitzer, W. O. (1995) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(94)00172-m · Cited by 573
Grégoire, G., Derderian, F., & LeLorier, J. (1995) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(94)00098-b · Cited by 521
How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. I: Medical
Colditz, G. A., Miller, J. N., & Mosteller, F. C. (1989) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780080408 · Cited by 520
Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses?
Berlin, J. A. (1997) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)62352-5 · Cited by 478
What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses?
Moher, D., Pham, Klassen, T. P., Schulz, K. F., Berlin, J. A., Jadad, A. R., & Liberati, A. (2000) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00188-8 · Cited by 453
Misleading funnel plot for detection of bias in meta-analysis
Tang, J.-L., & Liu, J. L. (2000) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00204-8 · Cited by 420
Random-Effects Meta-Analyses Are Not Always Conservative
Poole, C., & Greenland, S. (1999) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010035 · Cited by 338
The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews.
Verhagen, A., de Vet, H. D., de Bie, R. D., Boers, M., & van den Brandt, P. A. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00360-7 · Cited by 258
Development of The Cochrane Collaboration's Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials
Dickersin, K., Manheimer, E., Wieland, S., Robinson, K. A., Lefebvre, C., & McDonald, S. (2002) · Evaluation & the Health Professions · doi:10.1177/0163278702025001004 · Cited by 198
Identifying Clinical Trials in the Medical Literature with Electronic Databases
Suarez-Almazor, M. E., Belseck, E. M., Homik, J., Dorgan, M., & Ramos-Remus, C. (2000) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(00)00067-2 · Cited by 179
Egger, M., Ebrahim, S., & Smith, G. D. (2002) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/31.1.1 · Cited by 160
Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial Rehabilitation for Subacute Low Back Pain in Working-Age Adults
Karjalainen, K. A., Malmivaara, A. V., van Tulder, M. W., Roine, R. P., Jauhiainen, M., Hurri, H., & Koes, B. W. (2001) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200102010-00011 · Cited by 150
The Relationship Between Methodological Quality and Conclusions in Reviews of Spinal Manipulation
Assendelft, W. J. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03530240052041 · Cited by 132
A Critical Review of Reviews on the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain
Furlan, A. D., Clarke, J., Esmail, R., Sinclair, S., Irvin, E., & Bombardier, C. (2001) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200104010-00018 · Cited by 116
Self-citationDiscrepancy between published report and actual conduct of randomized clinical trials
Hill, C. L., LaValley, M. P., & Felson, D. T. (2002) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00440-7 · Cited by 111
Verhagen, A. P., de Vet, H. C. W., de Bie, R. A., Kessels, A. G. H., Boers, M., & Knipschild, P. G. (1998) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00297-7 · Cited by 102
Avenell, A., Handoll, H. H., & Grant, A. (2001) · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/73.3.505 · Cited by 87
Medline and Embase complement each other in literature searches
Woods, D. J., & Trewheellar, K. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7138.1166 · Cited by 82
A Brief Introduction to the Critical Reading of the Clinical Literature
Shekelle, P., Andersson, G. B. J., Cherkin, D. C., Deyo, R. A., Keller, R., Lee, C., Liang, M. H., Lipscomb, B., Spratt, K. F., & Weinstein, J. N. (1994) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-199409151-00002 · Cited by 69
Searching for rehabilitation articles on MEDLINE and EMBASE. An example with cross-over design
Minozzi, S., Pistotti, V., & Forni, M. (2000) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/s0003-9993(00)90099-6 · Cited by 55
The Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for Spinal Disorders
Bombardier, C., Esmail, R., & NACHEMSON, A. L. (1997) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-199704150-00001 · Cited by 47
Self-citationMeta-analysis: formulating, evaluating, combining, and reporting
Normand, S.-L. T. (1999) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19990215)18:3
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Mollayeva, T., Thurairajah, P., Burton, K., Mollayeva, S., Shapiro, C. M., & Colantonio, A. (2016) · Sleep Medicine Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2015.01.009 · Cited by 1,847
2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group
Furlan, A. D., Pennick, V., Bombardier, C., & van Tulder, M. (2009) · Spine · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181b1c99f · Cited by 1,663
Self-citationvan Gent, R. N., Siem, D., van Middelkoop, M., van Os, A. G., Bierma‐Zeinstra, S., & Koes, B. W. (2007) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsm.2006.033548 · Cited by 1,505
Chapter 3 European guidelines for the management of acute nonspecific low back pain in primary care
van Tulder, M., Becker, A., Bekkering, T., Breen, A., del Real, M. T. G., Hutchinson, A., Koes, B., Laerum, E., Malmivaara, A., & On behalf of the COST B13 Working Group on Guidelines for the Management of Acute Low Back Pain in Primary Care (2006) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-006-1071-2 · Cited by 1,258
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
