Physical measures of physical functioning as prognostic factors to predict outcomes in low back pain: Protocol for a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a highly prevalent condition that substantially impairs individuals' physical functioning. This highlights the need for effective management strategies to improve patient outcomes. It is, therefore, crucial to have knowledge of physical functioning prognostic factors that can predict outcomes to facilitate the development of targeted treatment plans aiming to achieve better patient outcomes. There is no synthesis of evidence for physical functioning measures as prognostic factors in the LBP population. The objective of this systematic review is to synthesize evidence for physical measures of physical functioning as prognostic factors to predict outcomes in LBP. METHODS: The protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Prospective longitudinal observational studies investigating potential physical prognostic factors in LBP and/or low back-related leg pain population will be included, with no restriction on outcome. Searches will be performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL databases, grey literature search using Open Grey System and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, hand-searching journals, and reference lists of included studies. Two independent reviewers will evaluate the eligibility of studies, extract data, assess risk of bias and quality of evidence. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool. Adequacy of clinical, methodological, and statistical homogeneity among included studies will decide quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative analysis (narrative synthesis) focused on prognostic factors and strength of association with outcomes. Quality of cumulative evidence will be evaluated using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). DISCUSSION: Information about prognostic factors can be used to predict outcomes in LBP. Accurate outcome prediction is essential for identifying high-risk patients that allows targeted allocation of healthcare resources, ultimately reducing the healthcare burden. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42023406796.
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 | 0.064 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.009 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".