Measurement properties of self-reported outcome measures for older adults with nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarise the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for older adults with nonspecific low back pain. METHODS: Eight databases were searched from inception to January 2024. Two independent reviewers conducted article screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessments, evaluations of measurement properties of PROMs, syntheses of quality of evidence and forming recommendation levels using relevant checklists and assessment tools. RESULTS: Ten PROMs were identified from 12 included studies. The Functional Rating Index, Oswestry Disability Index, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale demonstrated the highest recommendation (category A: PROM most suitable) for evaluating pain-related functional limitation or pain intensity in older adults with acute, subacute or chronic nonspecific low back pain. The Pain Response to Activity and Positioning questionnaire obtained a category A recommendation for making a differential diagnosis of chronic nonspecific low back pain in older adults. The 36-Item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 was considered promising (category B: PROM recommended) for assessing physical functioning, while the Back Believe Questionnaire, Catastrophizing Avoidance Scale D-65+, Pain Catastrophizing Scale and Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale obtained category B recommendation for evaluating negative thoughts in this population, although further validation is warranted. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identified suitable PROMs for assessing physical function in older adults with nonspecific low back pain, but more studies are needed to evaluate the measurement properties of questionnaires on other outcome domains in this population.
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 | 0.035 | 0.174 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".