TY - JOUR
T1 - Low-back pain definitions in occupational studies were categorized for a meta-analysis using Delphi consensus methods
AU - Griffith, Lauren E.
AU - Hogg-Johnson, Sheilah
AU - Cole, Donald C.
AU - Krause, Niklas
AU - Hayden, Jill
AU - Burdorf, Alex
AU - Leclerc, Annette
AU - Coggon, David
AU - Bongers, Paulien
AU - Walter, Stephen D.
AU - Shannon, Harry S.
PY - 2007/6
Y1 - 2007/6
N2 - Objective: To determine which literature-based definitions of low back pain (LBP) could be combined to produce sufficiently similar sets for use in a meta-analysis. Study Design and Setting: A group of six international experts participated in an e-mail-administered Delphi process. Literature-based LBP definitions were preliminarily classified into 14 sets within four outcome types: pathology, symptoms and care-seeking, functional limitations, and participation. Experts independently rated their level of agreement that each outcome definition belonged in its assigned set using a seven-point Likert scale. After each round, results were synthesized and revised classifications were fed back to the experts who were asked to consider them before rerating the outcome definitions. Results: The experts completed three Delphi rounds and reached consensus on the categorization of 115/119 (97%) of the outcome definitions. There were 20 final sets of outcomes identified: three sets of pathology outcomes, two sets each of functional limitation and participation outcomes, and 13 sets of symptom and care-seeking outcomes. Conclusions: In a research area that currently lacks uniformly accepted definitions of outcomes, we successfully used a Delphi consensus process to reach substantial agreement on combinable LBP outcomes that would be combinable for a meta-analysis.
AB - Objective: To determine which literature-based definitions of low back pain (LBP) could be combined to produce sufficiently similar sets for use in a meta-analysis. Study Design and Setting: A group of six international experts participated in an e-mail-administered Delphi process. Literature-based LBP definitions were preliminarily classified into 14 sets within four outcome types: pathology, symptoms and care-seeking, functional limitations, and participation. Experts independently rated their level of agreement that each outcome definition belonged in its assigned set using a seven-point Likert scale. After each round, results were synthesized and revised classifications were fed back to the experts who were asked to consider them before rerating the outcome definitions. Results: The experts completed three Delphi rounds and reached consensus on the categorization of 115/119 (97%) of the outcome definitions. There were 20 final sets of outcomes identified: three sets of pathology outcomes, two sets each of functional limitation and participation outcomes, and 13 sets of symptom and care-seeking outcomes. Conclusions: In a research area that currently lacks uniformly accepted definitions of outcomes, we successfully used a Delphi consensus process to reach substantial agreement on combinable LBP outcomes that would be combinable for a meta-analysis.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34247562222&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34247562222&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.005
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.005
M3 - Article
C2 - 17493522
AN - SCOPUS:34247562222
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 60
SP - 625.e1-625.e23
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
IS - 6
ER -