Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
2,280
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
2,280 results for “back pain”
EaseVRx-8w+ for the Treatment of Chronic Lower Back Pain
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05263037. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 3.
Implementation of the ACP Guideline for Low Back Pain (IMPACt-LBP)
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05626049. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Chiropractic Manipulation and Medical Care for Low Back Pain
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01211613. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 2.
Spinal Cord Stimulation vs. Medical Management for Low Back Pain (DISTINCT)
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04479787. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 2.
Chronic Low Back Pain Research Project
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00108550. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
The Glucosamine-study: The Effect of Glucosamine in Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00404079. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 3.
Examining Racial and SocioEconomic Disparities (ERASED) in Chronic Low Back Pain Study
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03338192. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 4.
Visceral Manipulation in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03101020. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 9.
Effects of Vertebral Axial Loading Walking Combined With Core Stabilization Exercises in Individuals With Chronic Low Back Pain
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT07334782. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 5.
Placebo In Chronic Back Pain (Phase 2)
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02986334. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Evaluating the Role of Neuroinflammation in Low Back Pain
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03106740. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 4.
Management Strategies for Patients With Low Back Pain and Sciatica
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02391350. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Mechanisms of Specific Trunk Exercises in Low Back Pain
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01362049. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 12.
A Randomized Study of Three Medication Regimens for Acute Low Back Pain
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01587274. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Serum proteomic analysis of sex differences during an acute low back pain episode
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Does the performance of five back-associated exercises relate to the presence of low back pain? A cross-sectional observational investigation in regional Australian council workers
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Tables S2-S3. SMR-HEIDI results for 8q24.21 locus between back pain and other phenotypes.
<p><strong>Supplementary Table S2. SMR-HEIDI results for 8q24.21 locus between back pain and other complex traits. </strong></p> <p><strong>Column headers of Tables S2:</strong></p> <p>Secondary Trait Name: Name of complex trait<br> Dataset: Name of dataset (UKB Neale's lab or UKB Gene Atlas)<br> Index_SNP: RsID of SNP used as target in SMR-HEID analysis<br> Proxy_SNP: RsID of top SNP in the selected locus - SNP presented in both GWAS data with minimum P-values in back pain GWAS<br> r(proxy_SNP,index_SNP): linkage disequilibrium coefficient between index and proxy SNP<br> beta_SMR: Beta SMR for proxy SNP<br> p_SMR: P-value of beta SMR<br> qFDR-BH SMR: P-value of beta SMR after Bonferroni correction<br> p_HEIDI: P-value of HEIDI test<br> n_HEIDI: Number of SNPs used in HEIDI test<br> SNPs_HEIDI: List of rsID of SNPs used in HEIDI test</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Supplementary Table S3.</strong> <strong>SMR-HEIDI results for 8q24.21 locus between back pain and expression of genes.</strong></p> <p><strong>Column headers of Tables S3:</strong></p> <p>Secondary Trait Name: Name of complex trait<br> Tissue: Name of the tissue from which the samples were taken to study gene expression<br> Gene_name: Gene name corresponding to the transcript name<br> Transcript Name: Transcript name (ID)<br> Dataset: Name of dataset (CEDAR, GTEx_v6)<br> beta_SMR: Beta SMR for proxy SNP<br> p_SMR: P-value of beta SMR<br> qFDR-BH SMR: P-value of beta SMR after Bonferroni correction<br> p_HEIDI: P-value of HEIDI test<br> n_HEIDI: Number of SNPs used in HEIDI test<br> SNPs_HEIDI: List of rsID of SNPs used in HEIDI test</p> <p> </p> <p>Part of the article: Williams FMK et al. "Sequence variation at 8q24.21 and risk of back pain"</p>
Data from: Randomized study of the impact of a therapeutic education program on patients suffering from chronic low-back pain who are treated with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
Background: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is often used for the treatment of low-back pain (LBP). However, its effectiveness is controversial. Objective: To determine the efficacy of TENS in the treatment LBP when associated to a therapeutic education program (TEP). Design: Open randomized monocentric study. Setting: University hospital between 2010 and 2014. Patients: A total of 97 patients suffering from LBP. Interventions: Routine care (TENS group) or routine care plus a therapeutic education program (TENS-TEP group) based on consultation support by a pain resource nurse Main outcome measures: EIFEL and Dallas Pain Questionnaire scores. Results: Twenty-two patients (44%) were still assessable at the end-of-study visit, whereas 33 (70%) were assessable at the same time point in the TENS-TEP group (P = 0.013). The EIFEL score and the Dallas score had a similar evolution over time between groups (p = 0.18 and p = 0.50 respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences between the groups with respect to resting pain scores (p = 0.94 for back pain and p = 0.16 for leg pain) and movement pain scores (p = 0.52 for back pain and p = 0.56 for leg pain). At Month 6, there was no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.85) with regard to analgesics and social impact. Two patients presented a serious adverse event during the study (one in each group) but non-attributable to the treatment studied. Conclusion: This study does not support the use of TENS in the treatment of patients with chronic LBP even though patients benefited from a therapeutic education program by a pain resource nurse. However, the higher number of premature withdrawals in the TENS group may be due to early withdrawal of patients who did not experience improvement of their symptoms.
Data from: The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to management of low back pain in general practice: a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial
Background: Effective and cost-effective primary care treatments for low back pain (LBP) are required to reduce the burden of the world's most disabling condition. This study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to LBP (intervention) with usual general practitioner (GP) care (control). Methods and findings: This pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial with process evaluation and parallel economic evaluation was conducted in the Hutt Valley, New Zealand. Eight general practices were randomly assigned (stratified by practice size) with a 1:1 ratio to intervention (4 practices; 34 GPs) or control group (4 practices; 29 GPs). Adults presenting to these GPs with LBP as their primary complaint were recruited. GPs in the intervention practices were trained in the FREE approach, and patients presenting to these practices received care based on the FREE approach. The FREE approach restructures LBP consultations to prioritise early identification and management of barriers to recovery. GPs in control practices did not receive specific training for this study, and patients presenting to these practices received usual care. Between 23 September 2016 and 31 July 2017, 140 eligible patients presented to intervention practices (126 enrolled) and 110 eligible patients presented to control practices (100 enrolled). Patient mean age was 46.1 years (SD 14.4), and 46% were female. The duration of LBP was less than 6 weeks in 88% of patients. Primary outcome was change from baseline in patient participant Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 6 months. Secondary patient outcomes included pain, satisfaction, and psychosocial indices. GP outcomes included attitudes, knowledge, confidence, and GP LBP management behaviour. There was active and passive surveillance of potential harms. Patients and outcome assessors were blind to group assignment. Analysis followed intention-to-treat principles. A total of 122 (97%) patients from 32 GPs in the intervention group and 99 (99%) patients from 25 GPs in the control group were included in the primary outcome analysis. At 6 months, the groups did not significantly differ on the primary outcome (adjusted mean RMDQ score difference 0.57, 95% CI −0.64 to 1.78; p = 0.354) or secondary patient outcomes. The RMDQ difference met the predefined criterion to indicate noninferiority. One control group participant experienced an activity-related gluteal tear, with no other adverse events recorded. Intervention group GPs had improvements in attitudes, knowledge, and confidence compared with control group GPs. Intervention group GP LBP management behaviour became more guideline concordant than the control group. In cost-effectiveness, the intervention dominated control with lower costs and higher Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gains. Limitations of this study were that although adequately powered for primary outcome assessment, the study was not powered for evaluating some employment, healthcare use, and economic outcomes. It was also not possible for research nurses (responsible for patient recruitment) to be masked on group allocation for practices. Conclusions: Findings from this study suggest that the FREE approach improves GP concordance with LBP guideline recommendations but does not improve patient recovery outcomes compared with usual care. The FREE approach may reduce unnecessary healthcare use and produce economic benefits. Work participation or health resource use should be considered for primary outcome assessment in future trials of undifferentiated LBP.
Management of persistent non-specific low back pain in primary care: A review of current guideline recommendations
<p>AGREE II Summary Score Sheets</p>
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.