The George Institute for Global Health, The University of Sydney, PO Box M201, Missenden Road, Sydney, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Eur Spine J. 2011 May;20(5):744-52. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1671-8. Epub 2010 Dec 31.
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.
下背痛(LBP)研究中术语缺乏标准化,这极大地阻碍了该领域的进展。现有的“LBP 发作的复发”和“复发性 LBP”定义的多样性就是一个重要的例子。在该领域工作的研究人员使用的各种定义阻止了试验之间的结果比较,并使对这些数据的荟萃分析变得不可行。本研究旨在使用改良 Delphi 方法就“LBP 发作的复发”(例如结局事件)和“复发性 LBP”(例如患者人群)的定义达成共识。对这两个结构的现有定义进行分类,包括定义的主要特征(例如“疼痛持续时间”)和定义每个特征的项目(例如“疼痛持续至少 24 小时”)。在每一轮中,参与者被要求对每个特征对“LBP 发作的复发”定义的重要性进行评分,并对“复发性 LBP”定义以及对按重要性降序排列的项目进行排名。来自 9 个不同国家的 46 名 LBP 研究专家参加了这项研究。完成了四轮,第一轮、第二轮、第三轮和第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,95%的小组成员支持“LBP 发作的复发”的定义,92%的小组成员支持“复发性 LBP”的定义。需要进一步研究来评估这些定义。