Skip to main content
Journal cover image

Clinical guidelines for low back pain: A critical review of consensus and inconsistencies across three major guidelines.

Publication ,  Journal Article
O'Connell, NE; Cook, CE; Wand, BM; Ward, SP
Published in: Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol
December 2016

Given the scale and cost of the low back pain problem, it is imperative that healthcare professionals involved in the care of people with low back pain have access to up-to-date, evidence-based information to assist them in treatment decision-making. Clinical guidelines exist to promote the consistent best practice, to reduce unwarranted variation and to reduce the use of low-value interventions in patient care. Recent decades have witnessed the publication of a number of such guidelines. In this narrative review, we consider three selected international interdisciplinary guidelines for the management of low back pain. Guideline development methods, consistent recommendations and inconsistencies between these guidelines are critically discussed.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol

DOI

EISSN

1532-1770

Publication Date

December 2016

Volume

30

Issue

6

Start / End Page

968 / 980

Location

Netherlands

Related Subject Headings

  • Practice Guidelines as Topic
  • Low Back Pain
  • Humans
  • Decision Making
  • Consensus
  • Arthritis & Rheumatology
  • 3202 Clinical sciences
  • 1117 Public Health and Health Services
  • 1103 Clinical Sciences
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
O’Connell, N. E., Cook, C. E., Wand, B. M., & Ward, S. P. (2016). Clinical guidelines for low back pain: A critical review of consensus and inconsistencies across three major guidelines. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol, 30(6), 968–980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2017.05.001
O’Connell, Neil E., Chad E. Cook, Benedict M. Wand, and Stephen P. Ward. “Clinical guidelines for low back pain: A critical review of consensus and inconsistencies across three major guidelines.Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 30, no. 6 (December 2016): 968–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2017.05.001.
O’Connell NE, Cook CE, Wand BM, Ward SP. Clinical guidelines for low back pain: A critical review of consensus and inconsistencies across three major guidelines. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2016 Dec;30(6):968–80.
O’Connell, Neil E., et al. “Clinical guidelines for low back pain: A critical review of consensus and inconsistencies across three major guidelines.Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol, vol. 30, no. 6, Dec. 2016, pp. 968–80. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/j.berh.2017.05.001.
O’Connell NE, Cook CE, Wand BM, Ward SP. Clinical guidelines for low back pain: A critical review of consensus and inconsistencies across three major guidelines. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2016 Dec;30(6):968–980.
Journal cover image

Published In

Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol

DOI

EISSN

1532-1770

Publication Date

December 2016

Volume

30

Issue

6

Start / End Page

968 / 980

Location

Netherlands

Related Subject Headings

  • Practice Guidelines as Topic
  • Low Back Pain
  • Humans
  • Decision Making
  • Consensus
  • Arthritis & Rheumatology
  • 3202 Clinical sciences
  • 1117 Public Health and Health Services
  • 1103 Clinical Sciences