Quality of Low Back Pain Guidelines Improved
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of clinical guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality of clinical guidelines for the management of acute and chronic low back pain (LBP) in primary care and compare their recommendations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A guideline evaluation performed in 2004 concluded that the quality and transparency of the development process and consistency in the reporting of primary care guidelines for LBP need to be improved. At present, several guidelines have been revised and new guidelines are published. We evaluated if the quality of guidelines has improved. METHODS: Guidelines published since 2004 were selected by electronically searching in MEDLINE, Cochrane Back Review Group database, Guideline Clearing House, Google, and contacting experts. The methodological quality of the guidelines was assessed by 2 authors independently, using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation in Europe instrument. Also, the diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations were compared. RESULTS: Fourteen guidelines were included. In general, the quality was satisfactory. The guidelines had best scores on clarity and presentation. The domain scores of scope and purpose were often moderate due to the absence of description of the clinical questions. The domain of stakeholder involvement scored moderate, mostly because guidelines were not tested among target users. Domains that had generally low scores were applicability and editorial independence. Four guidelines scored low on the rigor of development, but the other guidelines scored high on this domain.The diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations in the guidelines for acute LBP were mainly comparable while the recommendations for the management of chronic LBP varied widely. CONCLUSION: Compared to the quality assessment performed in 2004, the average quality of guidelines has improved. However, guideline developers should still improve the quality transparency of the development process. Especially the applicability of guidelines and the editorial independence need to be ensured in future guidelines.
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 | 0.201 | 0.518 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".