Suppr超能文献

职业研究中腰痛的定义通过德尔菲共识法进行分类,以用于荟萃分析。

Low-back pain definitions in occupational studies were categorized for a meta-analysis using Delphi consensus methods.

作者信息

Griffith Lauren E, Hogg-Johnson Sheilah, Cole Donald C, Krause Niklas, Hayden Jill, Burdorf Alex, Leclerc Annette, Coggon David, Bongers Paulien, Walter Stephen D, Shannon Harry S

机构信息

Program in Occupational Health and Environmental Medicine, McMaster University, HSC 3H57, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8N 3A5.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jun;60(6):625-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.005. Epub 2006 Dec 27.

Abstract

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.

摘要

目的

确定哪些基于文献的腰痛(LBP)定义可以合并,以产生足够相似的集合用于荟萃分析。

研究设计与背景

一组六名国际专家参与了通过电子邮件进行的德尔菲法流程。基于文献的LBP定义初步被分为四种结果类型中的14组:病理学、症状与就医行为、功能限制和参与度。专家们使用七点李克特量表独立评定他们对每个结果定义属于其指定组的认同程度。每一轮之后,综合结果并将修订后的分类反馈给专家,要求他们在重新评定结果定义之前考虑这些分类。

结果

专家们完成了三轮德尔菲法并就119个结果定义中的115个(97%)的分类达成了共识。确定了20个最终结果集:三组病理学结果,两组功能限制结果,两组参与度结果,以及13组症状与就医行为结果。

结论

在目前缺乏统一认可的结果定义的研究领域,我们成功地使用了德尔菲法共识流程,就可用于荟萃分析的可合并LBP结果达成了实质性共识。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验