CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 704Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationClinical practice guidelines implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

2015 Updated Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group

Open access
Furlan, Andrea D., Malmivaara, Antti, Chou, Roger, Maher, Chris G., Deyo, Rick A., Schoene, Mark, Bronfort, Gert, van Tulder, Maurits W.·2015·Spine
DOI 10.1097/brs.0000000000001061
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: Method guideline for systematic reviews of trials of interventions for neck and back pain, and related spinal disorders. OBJECTIVE: To help authors design, conduct, and report systematic reviews of trials in this field. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In 1997, the Cochrane Back Review Group editorial board published the Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews, which was updated in 2003 and in 2009. Since then, new methodological evidence has emerged and standards have changed, therefore it was clear that revisions were needed to the 2009 guideline. In May 2015 the group changed its name to Cochrane Back and Neck. METHODS: The editorial board met in September 2014 to review the relevant new methodological evidence and determine how it should be incorporated. Members of the advisory board were consulted. Based on the feedback received, an updated method guideline was prepared and approved by the editorial board. RESULTS: We have updated recommendations in 7 categories: objectives, literature search, selection criteria, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, data analysis, and reporting of results and conclusions. Each category is classified into minimum criteria (mandatory) and further guidance (optional). This update also includes some new guidance for preparation of summary of finding tables and for conducting nonintervention reviews. CONCLUSION: Citations of previous versions of the method guideline in published scientific articles (1193 in total) suggest that others may find this guideline useful to plan, conduct, or evaluate systematic reviews in the field of back and neck pain, and spinal disorders. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

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/brs.0000000000001061

Cites

15 of 15 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

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?

  • Considering the last version of the CBN Group, the overview authors rated all RCTs in Franke and colleagues (2014) at high risk of bias, with high-risk domains including care provider (100%), patient blinding (67%), outcome assessor blinding (67%), groups similar at baseline (27%), lack of intention to treat analysis use (27%), free of selective outcome report (13%), dropouts described and 7%, and

    “However, considering the last version of the CBN Group,19 we rated all RCTs at high RoB [domains at high RoB (% of RCTs): care provider (100%), patient blinding (67%), outcome assessor blinding (67%), groups similar at baseline (27%), lack of intention to treat analysis use (27%), free of selective outcome report (13%), dropouts described+acceptable (7%), similar timing outcome assessment (7%) and”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [19]

  • Considering the CBN Group, the overview authors rated all RCTs in Franke and colleagues (2017) at high risk of bias, with high-risk domains including patient blinding (100%), care provider blinding (100%), outcome assessor blinding (100%), dropouts described and acceptable (25%), groups similar at baseline (25%), intention to treat analysis (25%), similar timing outcome assessment (25%), and

    “Considering the CBN Group,19 we rated all RCTs as at high RoB [domains at high RoB (% of RCTs): patient binding (100%), care provider binding (100%), outcome assessor blinding (100%), dropouts described +acceptable (25%), group similar at the baseline (25%), intention to treat analysis (25%), similar timing outcome assessment (25%) and compliance acceptable (12%)].”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [19]

  • Considering the CBN Group, the overview authors rated all RCTs in Franke and colleagues (2015) at high risk of bias, with high-risk domains including patient blinding (67%), care provider (100%), outcome assessor blinding (67%), dropouts described and acceptable (33%), and intention to treat analysis (100%).

    “Considering the CBN Group,19 we rated all RCTs at high RoB [domains at high RoB (% of RCTs): patient blinding (67%), care provider (100%), outcome assessor blinding (67%), dropouts described+acceptable (33%) and intention to treat analysis (100%)].”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [19]

  • In Dal Farra and colleagues, the authors using the CBN Group reported high risk of bias for all RCTs, with high-risk domains including care provider (100%), patient blinding (50%), outcome assessor blinding (17%), participant allocation (33%), and reporting bias (17%).

    “The methodological quality of the primary studies, evaluated by the authors using the CBN Group,19 reported a high RoB for all RCTs [domains at high RoB (% of RCTs): high RoB for care provider (100%), patient blinding (50%), outcome assessor blinding (17%), participant allocation (33%) and reporting bias (17%)].”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [19]

  • Considering the CBN Group, the overview authors rated all RCTs in Muller and colleagues at high risk of bias, with high-risk domains including care provider blinding (100%), outcome assessor blinding (60%), randomisation (20%), patient blinding (20%), groups similar at baseline (20%), and intention to treat analysis (20%).

    “Considering the CBN Group,19 we rated all RCTs at high RoB [domains at high RoB (% of RCTs): care provider blinding (100%), outcome assessor blinding (60%), randomisation (20%), patient blinding (20%), groups similar at the baseline (20%) and intention to treat analysis (20%)].”

    From Efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment: an overview of systematic reviews (2022) · cites this paper as [19]

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. van Tulder, 1997, Spine, 22, 2323, 10.1097/00007632-199710150-00001 · DOI
  2. van Tulder, 2003, Spine, 28, 1290
  3. Marin, 2013, Spine (Phila Pa 1), 38, 2057, 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000006 · DOI
  4. Day, 2005, J Clin Epidemiol, 58, 874, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.005 · DOI
  5. Glanville, 2006, J Med Libr Assoc, 94, 130
  6. Minozzi, 2000, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 81, 720, 10.1016/S0003-9993(00)90099-6 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Sampson, 2003, pidemiol, 56, 943
  8. Woods, 1998, BMJ, 316, 1166, 10.1136/bmj.316.7138.1166 · DOI
  9. Suarez-Almazor, 2000, Control Clin Trials, 21, 476, 10.1016/S0197-2456(00)00067-2 · DOI
  10. Golder, 2006, Health Info Libr J, 23, 3, 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2006.00634.x · DOI
  11. Dworkin, 2009, Pain, 146, 238, 10.1016/j.pain.2009.08.019 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Egger, 1997, Lancet, 350, 326, 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02419-7 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Egger, 2002, pidemiol, 31, 1
  14. Gregoire, 1995, pidemiol, 48, 159
  15. Pham, 2005, J Clin Epidemiol, 58, 769, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.08.021 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Furlan, 2008, J Clin Epidemiol, 61, 209, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.019 · DOI
  17. Colditz, 1989, Stat Med, 8, 441, 10.1002/sim.4780080408 · DOI
  18. Miller, 1989, Stat Med, 8, 455, 10.1002/sim.4780080409 · DOI
  19. Schulz, 1995, JAMA, 273, 408, 10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · DOI
  20. Tierney, 2005, Int J Epidemiol, 34, 79, 10.1093/ije/dyh300 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Boutron, 2005, J Clin Epidemiol, 58, 1233, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.05.004 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Jadad, 1996, rials, 17, 1
  23. Verhagen, 1998, J Clin Epidemiol, 51, 335, 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00297-7 · DOI
  24. Detsky, 1992, J Clin Epidemiol, 45, 255, 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90085-2 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Verhagen, 2001, J Clin Epidemiol, 54, 651, 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00360-7 · DOI
  26. Normand, 1999, Stat Med, 18, 321, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990215)18:3<321::AID-SIM28>3.0.CO;2-P · DOI · Paper page
  27. Whitehead, 1991, Stat Med, 10, 1665, 10.1002/sim.4780101105 · DOI
  28. Engels, 2000, Stat Med, 19, 1707, 10.1002/1097-0258(20000715)19:13<1707::AID-SIM491>3.0.CO;2-P · DOI
  29. Williamson, 2002, Stat Med, 21, 3337, 10.1002/sim.1303 · DOI
  30. Poole, 1999, Am J Epidemiol, 150, 469, 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010035 · DOI
  31. Hahn, 2000, Stat Med, 19, 3325, 10.1002/1097-0258(20001230)19:24<3325::AID-SIM827>3.0.CO;2-D · DOI · Paper page
  32. Tang, 2000, J Clin Epidemiol, 53, 477, 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00204-8 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Egger, 1997, BMJ, 315, 629, 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Chaparro, 2014, Spine (Phila Pa 1), 39, 556, 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000249 · DOI
  35. Atkins, 2004, BMJ, 328, 1490, 10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Sahar, 2007, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 4, CD005275
  37. Oosterhuis, 2014, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 3, CD003007
  38. Ebadi, 2014, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 3, CD009169
  39. Croft, 2006, Pain, 122, 1, 10.1016/j.pain.2006.01.023 · DOI
  40. Hemingway, 2013, BMJ, 346, e5595, 10.1136/bmj.e5595 · DOI
  41. Chaparro, 2013, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 8, CD004959
  42. Drummond, 1996, BMJ, 313, 275, 10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Evers, 2005, Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 21, 240, 10.1017/S0266462305050324 · DOI
  44. Lin, 2011, Eur Spine J, 20, 1012, 10.1007/s00586-010-1675-4 · DOI
  45. Driessen, 2012, Eur Spine J, 21, 1441, 10.1007/s00586-012-2272-5 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Furlan, A. D., Malmivaara, A., Chou, R., Maher, C. G., Deyo, R. A., Schoene, M., Bronfort, G., & van Tulder, M. W.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (FI)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Institute for Work & Health (CA)
Corresponding author
  • Furlan, Andrea D.
  • Schoene, Mark
  • van Tulder, Maurits W.
ORCID
Venue
Spine
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2015-11
Volume
40
Issue
21
Pages
1660-1673
ISSN
0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/brs.0000000000001061
OpenAlex
W1010285967
Cited by
704
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 98 · 2021: 99 · 2020: 100 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 1
FWCI
6.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Spine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • STM:n Hallinnonalan avoin julkaisuarkisto (Julkari) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
systematic review methodology, back pain, neck pain, spinal disorders, risk of bias assessment, literature searching, selection criteria, data extraction, data analysis, result reporting, summary of findings tables
MeSH terms
Back Pain, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic

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