Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32610721›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of health policy and management2021

Attributes Underlying Non-surgical Treatment Choice for People With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Mixed Studies Review.

Thomas G Poder, Marion Beffarat

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of health policy and management, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Preferences of patients with chronic low back pain about nonsurgical treatments: Results of a discrete choice experiment.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Thomas G PoderSchool of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7017-096X
Marion BeffaratCERDI, Université Clermont Auvergne, ClermontFerrand, France.
Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal · CAUniversité Clermont Auvergne · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe knowledge of patients' preferences in the medical decision-making process is gaining in importance. In this article we aimed to provide an overview on the importance of attributes underlying the choice of non-surgical treatments in people with low back pain (LBP). Methods: A systematic mixed studies review was conducted. Articles were retrieved from the search engines PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus through June 21, 2018. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of the study, and each step was performed by 2 reviewers. ANALYSIS: From a total of 390 articles, 13 were included in the systematic review, all of which were considered to be of good quality. Up to 40 attributes were found in studies using various methods. Effectiveness, ie, pain reduction, was the most important attribute considered by patients in their choice of treatment. This attribute was cited by 7 studies and was systematically ranked first or second in each. Other important attributes included the capacity to realize daily life activities, fit to patient's life, and the credibility of the treatment, among others. DISCUSSION: Pain reduction was the most important attribute underlying patients' choice for treatment. However, this was not the only trait, and future research is needed to determine the relative importance of the attributes.

Indexed as

Low Back PainDecision MakingHumansPatient PreferenceChoiceLow Back PainPreferenceSystematic ReviewTreatment

Identifiers

PMID32610721
PMCPMC8167275
OpenAlexW3016011685

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.