The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Acute low back pain: systematic review of its prognosis
Open accessAbstract
Objectives To describe the course of acute low back pain and sciatica and to identify clinically important prognostic factors for these conditions. Design Systematic review. Data sources Searches of Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Science Citation Index and iterative searches of bibliographies. Main outcome measures Pain, disability, and return to work. Results 15 studies of variable methodological quality were included. Rapid improvements in pain (mean reduction 58% of initial scores), disability (58%), and return to work (82% of those initially off work) occurred in one month. Further improvement was apparent until about three months. Thereafter levels for pain, disability, and return to work remained almost constant. 73% of patients had at least one recurrence within 12 months. Conclusions People with acute low back pain and associated disability usually improve rapidly within weeks. None the less, pain and disability are typically ongoing, and recurrences are common.
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
Cites
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Pincus, T., Burton, A. K., Vogel, S., & Field, A. P. (2002) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200203010-00017 · Cited by 1,633
Dangers of Using "Optimal" Cutpoints in the Evaluation of Prognostic Factors
Altman, D. G., Lausen, B., Sauerbrei, W., & Schumacher, M. (1994) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/86.11.829 · Cited by 1,143
Cited by
Qaseem, A., Wilt, T. J., McLean, R. M., Forciea, M. A., & for the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians* (2017) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m16-2367 · Cited by 3,234
Chou, R., Qaseem, A., Snow, V., Casey, D., Cross, J. T., Shekelle, P., Owens, D. K., & for the Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the American College of Physicians and the American College of Physicians/American Pain Society Low Back Pain Guidelines Panel* (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-7-200710020-00006 · Cited by 2,718
Chapter 4 European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain
Airaksinen, O., Brox, J. I., Cedraschi, C., Hildebrandt, J., Klaber-Moffett, J., Kovacs, F., Mannion, A. F., Reis, S., Staal, J. B., Ursin, H., et al. (2006) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-006-1072-1 · Cited by 2,594
The epidemiology of low back pain
Hoy, D., Brooks, P., Blyth, F., & Buchbinder, R. (2010) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology · doi:10.1016/j.berh.2010.10.002 · Cited by 2,037
Evaluation of the Quality of Prognosis Studies in Systematic Reviews
Hayden, J. A., Côté, P., & Bombardier, C. (2006) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-6-200603210-00010 · Cited by 1,452
Metadata
- Authors
- Pengel, L. H. M., Herbert, R. D., Maher, C. G., & Refshauge, K. M.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2003-08-07
- Volume
- 327
- Issue
- 7410
- Pages
- 323
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2111416401
- Cited by
- 872
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 1.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Acute low back pain: systematic review of its prognosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.327.7410.323
- The paper
- Pengel, L. H. M., Herbert, R. D., Maher, C. G., & Refshauge, K. M. (2003). Acute low back pain: systematic review of its prognosis. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7410.323
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.
