Completeness of outcome description in studies for low back pain rehabilitation interventions: a survey of trials included in Cochrane reviews

Background Selection of appropriate outcome measures is crucial in clinical trials in order to minimize bias and allow for precise comparisons of effects between interventions [1–3]. See PDF.] What: which outcome e.g., pain; With What: the instrument to measure that outcome e.g., visual analogue sca...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Current controlled trials in cardiovascular medicine 2015-05, Vol.16 (S1), p.P24-P24, Article P24
Main Authors: Castellini, Greta, Gianola, Silvia, Frigerio, Pamela, Agostini, Michela, Bolotta, Rosa, Corbetta, Davide, Gasparini, Monica, Gozzer, Paolo, Guariento, Erica, Li, Linda, Pecoraro, Valentina, Sirtori, Valeria, Turolla, Andrea, Moja, Lorenzo
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Back pain
Clinical trials
Poster Presentation
Quality of life
Range of motion
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Selection of appropriate outcome measures is crucial in clinical trials in order to minimize bias and allow for precise comparisons of effects between interventions [1–3]. See PDF.] What: which outcome e.g., pain; With What: the instrument to measure that outcome e.g., visual analogue scale; How: how the instrument is applied e.g., visual analogue scale from 0 to 100; When: at which follow up e.g., immediately after the intervention period; Who: the assessor e.g., a physical therapist.; Who How: the detection status with reference to potential bias (i.e., systematic differences between groups in how outcomes are determined) e.g., blinding of the outcome assessor. The outcomes most commonly reported were pain (165/185; 89,2%, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 84.7% – 93.7 %), disability (118/185; 63,8%, 95% CI 56.9% – 70.7 %), range of motion (72/185; 38.9%95% CI 31.9% – 45.9%), and quality of life (45/185; 24,3%, 95% CI 18.1% – 30.5%) measured respectively by 70, 43, 41, 19 different measurement instruments (Figure 2).
ISSN:1745-6215
1745-6215
DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-16-S1-P24