Quality of Primary Care Guidelines for Acute Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Systematic review of clinical guidelines. Objectives. To assess the methodologic quality of existing guidelines for the management of acute low back pain. Summary of Background Data. Guidelines are playing an increasingly important role in evidence-based practice. After publication of the Quebec Task Force in Canada in 1987 and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines in the United States in 1994, guidelines for acute low back pain were developed in many other countries. However, little is known about the methodologic quality of these guidelines. Methods. Guidelines were selected by electronically searching MEDLINE and the Internet and through personal communication with experts in the field of low back pain research in primary care. The methodologic quality of the guidelines was assessed by two authors independently using the AGREE instrument. Results. A total of 17 guidelines were included. Overall, the quality of reporting of guidelines was disappointing. Most guidelines clearly described the aim of the guideline and its target population, and most guideline development committees were multiprofessional. However, many other methodologic flaws were identified. More than half of the guidelines did not take patients’ preferences into account, did not perform a pilot test among target users, did not clearly describe the methods of study identification and selection, did not include an external review, did not provide a procedure for updating, were not supported with tools for application, did not consider potential organizational barriers and cost implications, did not provide criteria for monitoring and audit, did not include recommendations for implementation strategies, and did not adequately record editorial independence and conflict of interest of the members. The diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations of the guidelines were largely similar. Conclusions. The quality and transparency of the development process and the consistency in the reporting of primary care guidelines for low back pain need to be improved. The methodologic quality of existing guidelines for the management of acute low back pain was assessed by two authors independently using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research Evaluation in Europe (AGREE) instrument. Seventeen guidelines were included. Overall the quality of reporting was disappointing did not meet the AGREE criteria. The quality transparency of the development process the consistency of reporting of primary care guidelines for low back pain need to be improved.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.230 | 0.557 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".