首页> 外文期刊>European Spine Journal >A modified Delphi approach to standardize low back pain recurrence terminology
【24h】

A modified Delphi approach to standardize low back pain recurrence terminology

机译:改良的Delphi方法标准化腰背痛复发术语

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Lack of standardization of terminology in low back pain (LBP) research has significantly impeded progress in this area. The diversity in existing definitions for a ‘recurrence of an episode of LBP’ and ‘recurrent LBP’ is an important example. The variety of definitions used by researchers working in this area has prevented comparison of results between trials and made meta-analyses of this data unfeasible. The aim of this study was to use a modified Delphi approach to gain consensus on definitions for a ‘recurrence of an episode of LBP’ (e.g. outcome event) and for ‘recurrent LBP’ (e.g. patient population). Existing definitions for both constructs were classified into the main features comprising the definition (e.g. ‘duration of pain’) and the items that defined each feature (e.g. ‘pain lasting at least 24 h’). In each round, participants were asked to rate the importance of each feature to a definition of a ‘recurrence of an episode of LBP’, and a definition of ‘recurrent LBP’ and rank the items (defining each feature) in order of decreasing importance. Forty-six experts in LBP research, from nine different countries, participated in this study. Four rounds were completed with responses rates of 94, 91, 83, and 97% in rounds 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Consensus definitions were reached in both areas with 95% of panel members supporting the definition of a ‘recurrence of an episode of LBP’ and 92% of panel members supporting the definition of ‘recurrent LBP’. Future research is necessary to evaluate these definitions.
机译:下腰痛(LBP)研究中术语的缺乏标准化严重阻碍了这一领域的进展。一个重要的例子是,“ LBP发作的复发”和“ LBP复发”的现有定义存在差异。该领域研究人员使用的各种定义阻止了试验之间的结果比较,并使该数据的荟萃分析不可行。这项研究的目的是使用改良的Delphi方法在“ LBP发作的复发”(例如结局事件)和“ LBP复发”(例如患者人群)的定义上达成共识。两种结构的现有定义都分为主要特征,包括定义(例如“持续时间”)和定义每个特征的项目(例如“持续至少24小时的疼痛”)。在每个回合中,要求参与者根据“ LBP发作的复发”的定义和“复发性LBP”的定义对每个功能的重要性进行评分,并按重要性递减的顺序对项目(定义每个功能)进行排名。来自九个国家的46位LBP研究专家参加了这项研究。在第一轮,第二轮,第三轮和第四轮中,完成了四轮的回复率分别为94%,91%,83%和97%。在这两个领域都达成了共识定义,其中95%的小组成员支持“ LBP发作的复发”的定义,而92%的小组成员支持“复发性LBP”的定义。为了评估这些定义,有必要进行进一步的研究。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号