Low Back Pain Sample Research Articles

Impact of Low Back Pain Clinical Trials Measured by the Altmetric Score: Cross-Sectional Study.

BackgroundThere is interest from authors and publishers in sharing the results of their studies over the Internet in order to increase their readership. In this way, articles tend to be discussed and the impact of these articles tends to be increased. In order to measure this type of impact, a new score (named Altmetric) was created. Altmetric aims to understand the individual impact of each article through the attention attracted online.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this study was to analyze potential factors related with the publishing journal and the publishing trial that could be associated with Altmetric scores on a random sample of low back pain randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The secondary objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of these trials and their Altmetric scores.MethodsWe searched for all low back pain RCTs indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; www.pedro.org.au) published between 2010 and 2015. A total of 200 articles were randomly selected, and we extracted data related to the publishing trial, the publishing journal, methodological quality of the trials (measured by the 0-10 item PEDro scale), and total and individual scores of Altmetric mentioned and Altmetric reader. The study was a cross-sectional study, and multivariate regression models and descriptive statistics were used.ResultsA total of four variables were associated with Altmetric mentioned score: impact factor (β-coefficient=3.4 points), number of years since publication (β-coefficient=–4.9 points), number of citations divided by years since publication (β-coefficient=5.2 points), and descriptive title (β-coefficient=–29.4 points). Only one independent variable was associated with Altmetric reader score: number of citations divided by years since publication (β-coefficient=10.1 points, 95% CI 7.74-12.46). We also found that the majority of articles were published in English, with a descriptive title, and published in open access journals endorsing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement.ConclusionsResearchers should preferably select high impact factor journals for submission and use declarative or interrogative titles, as these factors are likely to increase the visibility of their studies in social media.

Translation and Validation of the Danish Version of the Bournemouth Questionnaire

Objective Translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of the Danish version of the Bournemouth Questionnaire (BQ). Methods Translation/retranslation of the English version of the BQ was done blindly and independently by 4 different individuals and adapted by an expert team. The Danish version of the BQ was tested for face validity in a sample of low-back pain (LBP) patients attending 2 chiropractic clinics. Reproducibility was tested using 28 stable LBP patients attending a hospital outpatient back-pain clinic. Finally, the Danish version of the BQ was tested for external construct validity, external longitudinal construct validity, internal consistency, and sensitivity to change against the Danish versions of the SF-36 and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) using 118 first-time LBP patients reporting to 1 of 7 chiropractic clinics. Results Minor changes were made after the face-validity test. Intraclass correlation coefficient of the total score for the BQ based on the 2 administrations was 0.96. Satisfactory values for the external construct validity and the external longitudinal construct validity were found using both Pearson r and Bland-Altman plots. Cronbach α's were .89 and .88 for the pretreatment and posttreatment scores, respectively. The Danish version of the BQ showed greater responsiveness than the SF-36 and similar responsiveness when compared with the RMDQ. Conclusions The BQ was successfully translated and culturally adapted into Danish. The BQ was successfully tested for validity, consistency, and responsiveness against the Danish version of the SF-36 and RMDQ.

Functional disability in nonspecific low back pain: The role of pain-related fear and problem-solving skills

Previous studies have shown that pain disability in chronic back pain patients is closely associated with pain-related fear and avoidance. This study was aimed at replicating this finding in a sample of low back pain (LBP) patients with a new episode of sick leave. In addition, the supplemental value of problem solving in predicting pain disability was examined. It was further hypothesized that problem solving would moderate the effects of daily stress on pain disability. The results were partly as predicted. Pain-related fear, pain intensity, pain catastrophizing, daily stress, and problem solving were found to be individually related to functional disability, of which pain intensity and pain catastrophizing were the strongest predictors. Problem solving neither added predictive value regarding pain disability, nor could the moderating role of problem solving be confirmed. Surprisingly, and in disagreement with previous findings, pain intensity was found to be closely related to disability in this sample of LBP patients.