IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0295761.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Physical measures of physical functioning as prognostic factors to predict outcomes in low back pain: Protocol for a systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Rameeza Rashed
  • Katie Kowalski
  • David Walton
  • Afieh Niazigharemakhe
  • Alison Rushton

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Rameeza Rashed & Katie Kowalski & David Walton & Afieh Niazigharemakhe & Alison Rushton, 2023. "Physical measures of physical functioning as prognostic factors to predict outcomes in low back pain: Protocol for a systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(12), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0295761
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295761
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0295761
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0295761&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0295761?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rabea Begum & Alison Rushton & Alaa El Chamaa & David Walton & Paul Parikh, 2025. "Physical measures of physical functioning as prognostic factors in predicting outcomes for neck and thoracic pain: Protocol for a systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(1), pages 1-16, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0295761. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.