The uptake of the core outcome set for non-specific low back pain clinical trials is poor: a meta-epidemiological study of trial registrations

We conducted a meta-epidemiological study on all non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) trial registrations on the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. We aimed to 1) assess the uptake of the core outcome set (COS) for NSLBP in clinical trials...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Innocenti, T, Salvioli, S, Logullo, P, Giagio, S, Ostelo, R, Chiarotto, A
Format: Journal article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2023
_version_ 1797112512170164224
author Innocenti, T
Salvioli, S
Logullo, P
Giagio, S
Ostelo, R
Chiarotto, A
author_facet Innocenti, T
Salvioli, S
Logullo, P
Giagio, S
Ostelo, R
Chiarotto, A
author_sort Innocenti, T
collection OXFORD
description We conducted a meta-epidemiological study on all non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) trial registrations on the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. We aimed to 1) assess the uptake of the core outcome set (COS) for NSLBP in clinical trials; 2) assess the uptake of the core outcome measurement set for NSLBP in clinical trials; and 3) determine whether specific study characteristics are associated with the COS uptake. After applying the relevant filters for the condition, study type, and phase of the trial, 240 registry entries were included in this study. Only 50 (20.8%) entries showed a full COS uptake, and this rate did not increase over time. Most registry entries that planned to measure physical functioning (n = 152) used the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (n = 74; 48.7%); a small percentage used the numeric rating scale (n = 60; 27.3%) or Short Form-12 (n = 5; 8.3%) if they planned to measure pain intensity (n = 220) or health-related quality of life (n = 60), respectively. Only the planned sample size (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.01, 1.03) showed a significant but small association with COS uptake. The uptake of the COS for NSLBP is poor. Only 21% of the randomized controlled trials aimed to measure all COS domains in their study registration and COS uptake is not increased over time. Great heterogeneity in measurement instruments was also observed, revealing poor core outcome measurement set uptake. <p><strong>Perspective</strong></p> The Core Outcome Set (COS) for non-specific low back pain was published more than 20 years ago. We evaluated whether trial registrations are using this set of outcomes when testing interventions for low back pain. Full uptake was found only in 21% of the sample, and this is not increasing over time. Researchers should use the COS to ensure that trials measure relevant outcomes consistently.
first_indexed 2024-03-07T08:25:09Z
format Journal article
id oxford-uuid:b84ada79-479c-4920-b078-1ef2f8d0e482
institution University of Oxford
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-07T08:25:09Z
publishDate 2023
publisher Elsevier
record_format dspace
spelling oxford-uuid:b84ada79-479c-4920-b078-1ef2f8d0e4822024-02-13T10:06:54ZThe uptake of the core outcome set for non-specific low back pain clinical trials is poor: a meta-epidemiological study of trial registrationsJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:b84ada79-479c-4920-b078-1ef2f8d0e482EnglishSymplectic ElementsElsevier2023Innocenti, TSalvioli, SLogullo, PGiagio, SOstelo, RChiarotto, AWe conducted a meta-epidemiological study on all non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) trial registrations on the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. We aimed to 1) assess the uptake of the core outcome set (COS) for NSLBP in clinical trials; 2) assess the uptake of the core outcome measurement set for NSLBP in clinical trials; and 3) determine whether specific study characteristics are associated with the COS uptake. After applying the relevant filters for the condition, study type, and phase of the trial, 240 registry entries were included in this study. Only 50 (20.8%) entries showed a full COS uptake, and this rate did not increase over time. Most registry entries that planned to measure physical functioning (n = 152) used the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (n = 74; 48.7%); a small percentage used the numeric rating scale (n = 60; 27.3%) or Short Form-12 (n = 5; 8.3%) if they planned to measure pain intensity (n = 220) or health-related quality of life (n = 60), respectively. Only the planned sample size (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.01, 1.03) showed a significant but small association with COS uptake. The uptake of the COS for NSLBP is poor. Only 21% of the randomized controlled trials aimed to measure all COS domains in their study registration and COS uptake is not increased over time. Great heterogeneity in measurement instruments was also observed, revealing poor core outcome measurement set uptake. <p><strong>Perspective</strong></p> The Core Outcome Set (COS) for non-specific low back pain was published more than 20 years ago. We evaluated whether trial registrations are using this set of outcomes when testing interventions for low back pain. Full uptake was found only in 21% of the sample, and this is not increasing over time. Researchers should use the COS to ensure that trials measure relevant outcomes consistently.
spellingShingle Innocenti, T
Salvioli, S
Logullo, P
Giagio, S
Ostelo, R
Chiarotto, A
The uptake of the core outcome set for non-specific low back pain clinical trials is poor: a meta-epidemiological study of trial registrations
title The uptake of the core outcome set for non-specific low back pain clinical trials is poor: a meta-epidemiological study of trial registrations
title_full The uptake of the core outcome set for non-specific low back pain clinical trials is poor: a meta-epidemiological study of trial registrations
title_fullStr The uptake of the core outcome set for non-specific low back pain clinical trials is poor: a meta-epidemiological study of trial registrations
title_full_unstemmed The uptake of the core outcome set for non-specific low back pain clinical trials is poor: a meta-epidemiological study of trial registrations
title_short The uptake of the core outcome set for non-specific low back pain clinical trials is poor: a meta-epidemiological study of trial registrations
title_sort uptake of the core outcome set for non specific low back pain clinical trials is poor a meta epidemiological study of trial registrations
work_keys_str_mv AT innocentit theuptakeofthecoreoutcomesetfornonspecificlowbackpainclinicaltrialsispoorametaepidemiologicalstudyoftrialregistrations
AT salviolis theuptakeofthecoreoutcomesetfornonspecificlowbackpainclinicaltrialsispoorametaepidemiologicalstudyoftrialregistrations
AT logullop theuptakeofthecoreoutcomesetfornonspecificlowbackpainclinicaltrialsispoorametaepidemiologicalstudyoftrialregistrations
AT giagios theuptakeofthecoreoutcomesetfornonspecificlowbackpainclinicaltrialsispoorametaepidemiologicalstudyoftrialregistrations
AT ostelor theuptakeofthecoreoutcomesetfornonspecificlowbackpainclinicaltrialsispoorametaepidemiologicalstudyoftrialregistrations
AT chiarottoa theuptakeofthecoreoutcomesetfornonspecificlowbackpainclinicaltrialsispoorametaepidemiologicalstudyoftrialregistrations
AT innocentit uptakeofthecoreoutcomesetfornonspecificlowbackpainclinicaltrialsispoorametaepidemiologicalstudyoftrialregistrations
AT salviolis uptakeofthecoreoutcomesetfornonspecificlowbackpainclinicaltrialsispoorametaepidemiologicalstudyoftrialregistrations
AT logullop uptakeofthecoreoutcomesetfornonspecificlowbackpainclinicaltrialsispoorametaepidemiologicalstudyoftrialregistrations
AT giagios uptakeofthecoreoutcomesetfornonspecificlowbackpainclinicaltrialsispoorametaepidemiologicalstudyoftrialregistrations
AT ostelor uptakeofthecoreoutcomesetfornonspecificlowbackpainclinicaltrialsispoorametaepidemiologicalstudyoftrialregistrations
AT chiarottoa uptakeofthecoreoutcomesetfornonspecificlowbackpainclinicaltrialsispoorametaepidemiologicalstudyoftrialregistrations