The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Reporting outcomes of back pain trials: A modified Delphi study

Reporting outcomes of back pain trials: A modified Delphi study
Reporting outcomes of back pain trials: A modified Delphi study
BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common and expensive health complaint. Many low back pain trials have been conducted, but these are reported in a variety of ways and are often difficult to interpret. AIM: To facilitate consensus on a statement recommending reporting methods for future low back pain trials. METHODS: We presented experts with clinicians' views on different reporting methods and asked them to rate and comment on the suitability reporting methods for inclusion in a standardized set. Panellists developed a statement of recommendation over three online rounds. We used a modified Delphi process and the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method as a formal framework for establishing appropriateness and quantifying panel disagreement. RESULTS: A group of 63 experts from 14 countries participated. Consensus was reached on a statement recommending that the continuous patient-reported outcomes commonly used in back pain trials, are reported using between-group mean differences (accompanied by minimally important difference (between-group/population-level) thresholds where these exist), the proportion of participants improving and deteriorating according to established and relevant minimally important change thresholds, and the number needed to treat; all with 95% confidence intervals. Outcomes may additionally be reported using alternative approaches (e.g. relative risks, odds ratios, or standardized mean difference) according to the needs of a particular trial. CONCLUSIONS: A group of back pain experts reached a high level of consensus on a statement recommending reporting methods for patient-reported outcomes in future low back pain trials. The statement has the potential to increase interpretability and improve patient care.
1090-3801
1068-1074
Froud, Robert
303169a8-8486-4e37-98f8-494c4be01dfd
Eldridge, Sandra
0c937038-b04b-48d2-b55f-524fca308948
Kovacs, Francisco
b08861f5-f01d-4fc2-a78f-66705dddf754
Breen, Alan
8227c8aa-a9d2-49e3-94c6-7fd7b12e1313
Bolton, Jenni
de94d322-9a6b-4025-bfdf-9efc17fe7ba8
Dunn, Kate
1cd91223-522f-4c50-97c4-d13b1b93de7f
Fritz, Julie
95660439-ef70-4b73-b3bc-9af94d6ccfba
Keller, Anne
3938c696-6024-4492-8034-2e5d3c3cfa05
Kent, Peter
382b13b8-3eb1-45d4-8c67-e1166d437591
Lauridsen, Henrik Hein
915e059b-e69d-42ee-b051-909ee153d5d9
Ostelo, Raymond
5868483e-4fd6-4f6f-a165-331d89baaf6f
Pincus, Tamar
55388347-5d71-4fc0-9fd2-66fbba080e0c
Tulder, Maurits van
b90ecbbc-f899-467e-99ed-c4caa028150d
Vogel, Steven
a9e25ead-dcfd-40ae-9756-b3c68c7252fc
Underwood, Martin
239a8609-e7b5-4acb-aaf9-9e7f717f0d62
Froud, Robert
303169a8-8486-4e37-98f8-494c4be01dfd
Eldridge, Sandra
0c937038-b04b-48d2-b55f-524fca308948
Kovacs, Francisco
b08861f5-f01d-4fc2-a78f-66705dddf754
Breen, Alan
8227c8aa-a9d2-49e3-94c6-7fd7b12e1313
Bolton, Jenni
de94d322-9a6b-4025-bfdf-9efc17fe7ba8
Dunn, Kate
1cd91223-522f-4c50-97c4-d13b1b93de7f
Fritz, Julie
95660439-ef70-4b73-b3bc-9af94d6ccfba
Keller, Anne
3938c696-6024-4492-8034-2e5d3c3cfa05
Kent, Peter
382b13b8-3eb1-45d4-8c67-e1166d437591
Lauridsen, Henrik Hein
915e059b-e69d-42ee-b051-909ee153d5d9
Ostelo, Raymond
5868483e-4fd6-4f6f-a165-331d89baaf6f
Pincus, Tamar
55388347-5d71-4fc0-9fd2-66fbba080e0c
Tulder, Maurits van
b90ecbbc-f899-467e-99ed-c4caa028150d
Vogel, Steven
a9e25ead-dcfd-40ae-9756-b3c68c7252fc
Underwood, Martin
239a8609-e7b5-4acb-aaf9-9e7f717f0d62

Froud, Robert, Eldridge, Sandra, Kovacs, Francisco, Breen, Alan, Bolton, Jenni, Dunn, Kate, Fritz, Julie, Keller, Anne, Kent, Peter, Lauridsen, Henrik Hein, Ostelo, Raymond, Pincus, Tamar, Tulder, Maurits van, Vogel, Steven and Underwood, Martin (2011) Reporting outcomes of back pain trials: A modified Delphi study. European Journal of Pain, 15 (10), 1068-1074. (doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.04.015).

Record type: Article

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common and expensive health complaint. Many low back pain trials have been conducted, but these are reported in a variety of ways and are often difficult to interpret. AIM: To facilitate consensus on a statement recommending reporting methods for future low back pain trials. METHODS: We presented experts with clinicians' views on different reporting methods and asked them to rate and comment on the suitability reporting methods for inclusion in a standardized set. Panellists developed a statement of recommendation over three online rounds. We used a modified Delphi process and the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method as a formal framework for establishing appropriateness and quantifying panel disagreement. RESULTS: A group of 63 experts from 14 countries participated. Consensus was reached on a statement recommending that the continuous patient-reported outcomes commonly used in back pain trials, are reported using between-group mean differences (accompanied by minimally important difference (between-group/population-level) thresholds where these exist), the proportion of participants improving and deteriorating according to established and relevant minimally important change thresholds, and the number needed to treat; all with 95% confidence intervals. Outcomes may additionally be reported using alternative approaches (e.g. relative risks, odds ratios, or standardized mean difference) according to the needs of a particular trial. CONCLUSIONS: A group of back pain experts reached a high level of consensus on a statement recommending reporting methods for patient-reported outcomes in future low back pain trials. The statement has the potential to increase interpretability and improve patient care.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 2011
Additional Information: Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 469381
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/469381
ISSN: 1090-3801
PURE UUID: 014cdb96-f866-4d6e-9584-28db511fee18
ORCID for Tamar Pincus: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-3172-5624

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 14 Sep 2022 16:40
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 04:11

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Robert Froud
Author: Sandra Eldridge
Author: Francisco Kovacs
Author: Alan Breen
Author: Jenni Bolton
Author: Kate Dunn
Author: Julie Fritz
Author: Anne Keller
Author: Peter Kent
Author: Henrik Hein Lauridsen
Author: Raymond Ostelo
Author: Tamar Pincus ORCID iD
Author: Maurits van Tulder
Author: Steven Vogel
Author: Martin Underwood

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×