ArticlePain research & management2026
Proposal and Initial Validation of a Brief Questionnaire for Epidemiological Assessment of Low Back Pain.
Article in Pain research & management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Proposal and Initial Validation of a Brief Questionnaire for Epidemiological Assessment of Low Back Pain.Pain research & management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLow back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent pain conditions worldwide and a major contributor to disability. Although numerous epidemiological studies have investigated LBP, heterogeneity in pain definitions and assessment indicators has limited comparability across studies. A brief and reproducible questionnaire incorporating core LBP indicators commonly used in pain epidemiology may facilitate consistent assessment of LBP occurrence and impact in population-based research.
methodsWe proposed a brief low back pain questionnaire (B-LBPQ) designed to assess the occurrence and characteristics of LBP in epidemiological studies. The B-LBPQ consists of seven items covering current LBP, LBP during the past 12 months, lifetime experience of LBP, pain duration, and pain-related interference with daily activities. A cross-sectional validation study was conducted among 783 Japanese welfare workers aged 20-74 years (mean age: 41.9 years) undergoing routine health checkups. Construct validity was examined by comparing questionnaire-based LBP classifications with scores on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ). Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Test-retest reliability over a 2-week interval was evaluated among 595 participants using kappa statistics, prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK), and weighted kappa coefficients.
resultsConstruct validity was supported by significantly higher RDQ scores among participants reporting LBP compared with those without LBP (all p < 0.001). For items with multiple response categories, significant differences and ordered trends in RDQ scores were observed across response categories (all p for trend < 0.001). Internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach's α = 0.87). Test-retest reliability ranged from substantial to almost perfect, with PABAK values of 0.70-0.85 for dichotomous items and weighted kappa coefficients of 0.65-0.81 for items with three or more categories.
conclusionsThe B-LBPQ demonstrated initial reliability and construct validity in Japanese welfare workers and may be useful for epidemiological assessment of LBP. However, further validation in diverse populations and settings is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.