Skip to main content
Log in

A critical appraisal of the quality of low back pain practice guidelines using the AGREE II tool and comparison with previous evaluations: a EuroAIM initiative

European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the methodologic quality of guidelines for the management of low back pain (LBP) and compare their recommendations.

Methods

No ethics committee approval was needed for this systematic review. In March 2017, a systematic search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to find practice guidelines of assessment and management of LBP. The evaluation of guidelines quality was performed independently by four authors using the AGREE II tool, and the results were compared with previous appraisals performed in 2004 and 2009.

Results

Of 114 retrieved guidelines, eight were appraised. All except one reached the level of “acceptable” in overall result, with two of them reaching the highest scores. Only two guidelines reached a level of “acceptable” in every domain; the others had at least one domain with low scores. The guidelines had the higher scores (range = 63–94%) on “Scope and purpose” and “Clarity of presentation” (47–89%). “Stakeholder Involvement” has the highest variability between the guidelines results (40–96%). “Rigor of Development” reached an intermediate mean result (34–90%), “Applicability” (42–70%), and “Editorial Independence” (38–85%). Only three guidelines had a radiologist among authors and reached higher scores compared to guidelines without a radiologist among the authors. Compared to previous assessments, low-level guidelines were 53% in 2004, 36% in 2009, and 13% in 2017.

Conclusions

Considering all guidelines, only one had a “low” overall score, while half of them were rated as of “high” quality. Future guidelines might take this into account to improve clinical applicability.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Deyo RA, Weinstein JN (2001) Low back pain. N Engl J Med 344:363–370. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200102013440508

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hoy D, March L, Brooks P et al (2014) The global burden of low back pain: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis 73:968–974. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Croft PR, Macfarlane GJ, Papageorgiou AC et al (1998) Outcome of low back pain in general practice: a prospective study. BMJ 316:1356–1359. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7141.1356

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Artus M, van der Windt D, Jordan KP et al (2014) The clinical course of low back pain: a meta-analysis comparing outcomes in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:68. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-68

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Breen A (2017) Low back pain: identifying sub-groups, clinical prediction rules and measuring results. Complement Ther Clin Pract. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2017.07.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chou R, Deyo RA, Jarvik JG (2012) Appropriate use of lumbar imaging for evaluation of low back pain. Radiol Clin N Am 50:569–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2012.04.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Andersen JC (2011) Is immediate imaging important in managing low back pain? J Athl Train 46:99–102. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-46.1.99

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Lavelle LP, Dunne RM, Carroll AG et al (2015) Evidence-based practice of radiology. Radiographics 35:1802–1813. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2015150027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG (2008) Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. BMJ Books, London. ISBN 978-0-727-91488-0

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sardanelli F, Bashir H, Berzaczy D et al (2014) The role of imaging specialists as authors of systematic reviews on diagnostic and interventional imaging and its impact on scientific quality: report from the EuroAIM evidence-based radiology working group. Radiology 272:533–540. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14131730

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shaneyfelt TM, Mayo-Smith MF, Rothwangl J (1999) Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature. JAMA 281:1900–1905. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.281.20.1900

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Grilli R, Magrini N, Penna A et al (2000) Practice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal. Lancet 355:103–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(99)02171-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. van Tulder MW, Tuut M, Pennick V et al (2004) Quality of primary care guidelines for acute low back pain. Spine 29:E357–E362. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000137056.64166.51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bouwmeester W, van Enst A, van Tulder M (2009) Quality of low back pain guidelines improved. Spine 34:2562–2567. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3181b4d50d

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dagenais S, Tricco AC, Haldeman S (2010) Synthesis of recommendations for the assessment and management of low back pain from recent clinical practice guidelines. Spine J 10:514–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP et al (2010) AGREE II: Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare. CMAJ 182:E839–E842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.20

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. AGREE Next Steps Consortium (2017) The AGREE II Instrument [Electronic version]. http://www.agreetrust.org. Accessed 13 June 2018

  18. Messina C, Bignotti B, Tagliafico A et al (2017) A critical appraisal of the quality of adult musculoskeletal ultrasound guidelines using the AGREE II tool: an EuroAIM initiative. Insights Imaging 8:491–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-017-0563-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Messina C, Bignotti B, Bazzocchi A et al (2017) A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: an EuroAIM initiative. Insights Imaging 8:311–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-017-0553-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Sekercioglu N, Al-Khalifah R, Ewusie JE et al (2017) A critical appraisal of chronic kidney disease mineral and bone disorders clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE II instrument. Int Urol Nephrol 49:273–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-016-1436-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chiodo AE, Alvarez DJ, Graziano GP et al (2010) Acute low back pain. Clinical alignment and performance excellence. Updated 2010. http://www.med.umich.edu/1info/FHP/practiceguides/back/back.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2018

  22. Delitto A, George SZ, Van Dillen LR et al (2012) Low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 42:A1–A57. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2012.0301

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Goertz M, Thorson D, Bonsell J et al (2012) Adult acute and subacute low back pain. Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  24. Toward Optimized Practice (TOP) Low Back Pain Working Group (2015) Evidence-informed primary care management of low back pain: clinical practice guideline. Edmonton, AB: Toward optimized practice. http://www.topalbertadoctors.org/cpgs/885801. Accessed 13 June 2018

  25. The National Guideline Centre (UK) (2016) Low back pain and sciatica in over 16 s: assessment and management. 2016, NICE, London. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng59. Accessed 13 June 2018

  26. Allegri M, Montella S, Salici F et al (2016) Mechanisms of low back pain: a guide for diagnosis and therapy. Version 2. F1000Res. https://f1000research.com/articles/5-1530/v2#article-reports. Accessed 13 June 2018

  27. Stochkendahl MJ, Kjaer P, Hartvigsen J et al (2018) National clinical guidelines for non-surgical treatment of patients with recent onset low back pain or lumbar radiculopathy. Eur Spine J 27:60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5099-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, McLean RM et al (2017) Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Internal Med 166:514–530. https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Spitzer WO, LeBlanc FE, Dupuis M et al (1987) Scientific approach to the assessment and management of activity-related spinal disorders. Spine 12:S1–S59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bigos S, Bowyer O, Braen G (1994) Acute low back problems in adults. Clinical practice guideline no. 14. AHCPR Publication No. 95-0642. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

  31. Faas A, Chavannes AW, Koes BW et al (1996) NHG-Standard ‘lage-rugpijn’. Huisarts Wet 39:18–31

    Google Scholar 

  32. Borkan JM, Reis S, Werner S et al (1996) Guidelines for the treatment of low back pain in primary care. Harefuah 130:145–151

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. National Health Committee. National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability, Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation (1997) New Zealand acute low back pain guide. Wellington, New Zealand. https://www.healthnavigator.org.nz/media/1006/nz-acute-low-back-pain-guide-acc.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2018

  34. Kendall NAS, Linton SJ, Main CJ (1997) Guide to assessing psychosocial yellow flags in acute low back pain: risk factors for long-term disability and work loss. Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation of New Zealand and the National Health Committee, Wellington, New Zealand

  35. Malmivaara A, Kotilainen E, Laasonen E et al (1999) Clinical practice guidelines of the Finnish medical association duodecim. Diseases of the Low Back, Finland

    Google Scholar 

  36. Keel P, Weber M, Roux E et al (1998) Kreuzschmerzen: Hintergrunde, Pravention, Behandlung. Verbindung der Schweizer rzte, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  37. Veterans Health Administration (2001) Low back pain or sciatica in the primary care setting. Department of veterans affairs, office of quality and performance, Washington, DC. https://www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/Pain/lbp/VADoDLBPCPG092917.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2018

  38. Agency for Health Care Administration and the Florida Department of Health (1999) University of Florida patients with low back pain or injury: medical practice guidelines

  39. Nachemson AL, Jonsson E (2000) Neck and back pain: the scientific evidence of causes, diagnosis, and treatment. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  40. Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment (2000) Low back pain: frequency, management and prevention from a health technology perspective. National Board of Health, Copenhagen, Denmark. http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/GUIDELINES/FULL/Low_Back_Pain_Frequency_Management.shtml. Accessed 13 June 2018

  41. Arzneimittelkommission der deutschen rtzeschaft (2000) Empfehlungen zur Therapie von Kreuzschmerzen. Koln, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  42. Abenhaim L, Rossignol M, Valat JP et al (2000) The role of activity in the therapeutic management of back pain. Report of the international Paris task force on back pain. Spine 25:1S–33S

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Hutchinson A, Waddell G, Feder G et al (1996) Clinical guidelines for the management of acute low back pain. Royal College of General Practitioners, London. http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/GUIDELINES/FULL/Royal_College/index.html

  44. Bekkering GE, Hendriks HJM, Koes BW et al (2001) KNGF-richtlijn lage rugpijn. Ned Tijdschr Fysiother 111:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  45. Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (2001) Health care guideline: adult low back pain. Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  46. Philadelphia panel (2001) Philadelphia panel evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on selected rehabilitation interventions for low back pain. Phys Ther 81:1641–1674

    Google Scholar 

  47. The Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement (2003) Clinical guideline for non-specific low back pain. Ned Tijdschr Fys 113:1–24 (in Dutch)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Australian Acute Musculoskeletal Pain Guidelines Group (2003) Management of acute musculoskeletal pain (National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication). Brisbane, Australia: Australian Academic Press. http://www.sif-fisioterapia.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Acute-Musculoscheletral-Pain-Australia-2003.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2018

  49. Airaksinen O, Brox JI, Cedraschi C et al (2006) European guidelines for the management of chronic non-specific low back pain. Eur Spine J 15:S192–S300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-1072-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Van Tulder MW, Becker A, Bekkering T et al (2006) European guidelines for the management of acute low back pain in primary care. Eur Spine J 15(Suppl 2):S169–S191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-1071-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. National Health Committee (2004) New Zealand acute low back pain guide. National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability, Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation, Wellington, New Zealand. https://www.healthnavigator.org.nz/media/1006/nz-acute-low-back-pain-guide-acc.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2018

  52. Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI) (2005) Adult low back pain. ICSI, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  53. Bekkering GE, Hendriks HJM, Koes BW et al (2003) National practice guideline for the physiotherapeutic management of patients with low back pain. Physiotherapy 89:82–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9406(05)60579-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Chavannes AW, Mens JMA, Koes BW et al (2005) Dutch general practice guideline for non-specific low back pain. Huisarts Wet 48:113–123 (in Dutch)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Negrini S, Giovannoni S, Minozzi S et al (2006) Diagnostic therapeutic flow-charts for low back pain patients: the Italian clinical guidelines. Euro Medicophys 42:151–170

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Drug Committee of the German Medical Society (2007) Recommendations for treatment of low back pain. Koln, Germany (in German)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the American College of Physicians, American College of Physicians, American Pain Society Low Back Pain Guidelines Panel et al (2007) Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Intern Med 147:478–491. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-7-200710020-00006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Friedrich M, Likar R (2007) Evidenz- und konsensusbasierte osterreichische Leitlinien fur das Management akuter und chronischer unspezifischer Kreuzschmerzen. Wien Klin Wochenschr 119:189–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Rossignol M, Arsenault B, Dionne C et al (2007) Clinic on Low-back pain in interdisciplinary practice (CLIP) guidelines. http://www.santpub-mtl.qc.ca/clip. Accessed 13 June 2018

  60. Stubbs B, Koyanagi A, Thompson T et al (2016) The epidemiology of back pain and its relationship with depression, psychosis, anxiety, sleep disturbances, and stress sensitivity: data from 43 low- and middle-income countries. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 43:63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2016.09.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Rego MH, Nagiah S (2016) Over-imaging in uncomplicated low back pain: a 12-month audit of a general medical unit. Intern Med J 46:1437–1439. https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.13279

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Jame SZ, Sari AA, Majdzadeh R et al (2014) The extent of inappropriate use of magnetic resonance imaging in low back pain and its contributory factors. Int J Prev Med 5:1029–1036

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Gidwani R, Sinnott P, Avoundjian T et al (2016) Inappropriate ordering of lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging: are providers Choosing Wisely? Am J Manag Care 22:e68–e76

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Emery DJ, Shojania KG, Forster AJ et al (2013) Overuse of magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA Intern Med 173:823–825. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.3804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Avoundjian T, Gidwani R, Yao D et al (2016) Evaluating two measures of lumbar spine MRI overuse: administrative data versus chart review. J Am Coll Radiol 13:1057–1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.04.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Oikarinen H, Meriläinen S, Pääkkö E et al (2009) Unjustified CT examinations in young patients. Eur Radiol 19:1161–1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1256-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. MacDermid JC, Brooks D, Solway S et al (2005) Reliability and validity of the AGREE instrument used by physical therapists in assessment of clinical practice guidelines. BMC Health Serv Res 5:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-5-18

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been conducted within the framework of the Network for Assessment of Imaging in Medicine (EuroAIM), research platform of the European Institute for Biomedical Research under the umbrella of the European Society of Radiology (http://www.eibir.org/scientific-activities/jointinitiatives/euroaim/). Francesco Sardanelli is chair of the EuroAIM initiative, Luca Maria Sconfienza is the coordinator of the guideline evaluation project, while the other authors are members of the EuroAIM working group.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Moreno Zanardo.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

Authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose related to the present paper.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 139 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Doniselli, F.M., Zanardo, M., Manfrè, L. et al. A critical appraisal of the quality of low back pain practice guidelines using the AGREE II tool and comparison with previous evaluations: a EuroAIM initiative. Eur Spine J 27, 2781–2790 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5763-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5763-1

Keywords

Navigation