OBJECTIVE: To compare and contrast the diagnostic codes for spinal causes of low back pain (LBP) in 3 disease classification systems (International Classification of Diseases [ICD]-10, International Classification of Primary Care [ICPC]-2 PLUS and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms - Australia [SNOMED CT-AU]) and consider how well they are aligned with the diagnostic approach recommended in contemporary clinical practice guidelines for LBP.
METHODS: This was a descriptive study which included 3 disease classification systems: ICD-10, ICPC-2 PLUS and SNOMED CT-AU. Two independent authors extracted relevant LBP codes from each system and mapped the codes to 3 guideline-endorsed categories of spine-related diagnoses for LBP (specific spinal pathology, radicular syndromes, and non-specific LBP) and the various clinical conditions (sub-categories) within each of the 3 categories.
RESULTS: ICD-10, ICPC-2 PLUS, and SNOMED CT-AU had 126, 118 and 100 codes for LBP, respectively. All systems provided codes that would cover the 3 guideline-endorsed categories of spine-related diagnoses for LBP. On the basis of contemporary guidelines, the authors developed lists of discrete sub-categories of specific spinal pathology (56 sub-categories), radicular syndromes (7 sub-categories), and non-specific LBP (10 sub-categories). Each of the classification systems was then mapped against these sub-categories to tally redundancy and determine exhaustiveness. However, no system covered all 73 sub-categories of LBP, and within each system, there was substantial redundancy with up to 22 codes for the same clinical condition.
CONCLUSIONS: LBP diagnostic codes used in popular disease classification systems are out of touch with current approaches to diagnosis, as reflected in contemporary LBP guidelines. Our findings suggest these disease classification systems need revision, but precisely how they should be revised is unclear.

The number of meta-analyses published annually has increased more than 20-fold between 1994 (n = 386) and 2014 (n = 8203). In examining how much of this increase in meta-analysis publication has genuinely represented novel contributions to clinical medicine and public health, it became clear that there was an abundance of redundant and disorganized meta-analyses, creating confusion and generating considerable debate. Ironically, meta-analyses, which should prevent redundant research, have become a victim of it. Recently, 17 meta-analyses were published based on the results of only 3 randomized controlled trials that studied the role of transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale for prevention of cryptogenic stroke. In our search of the published literature, we identified at least 10 topics that were the subject of 10 meta-analyses. In the context of overlapping meta-analyses, one questions what needs to be done to put this \"runaway train\" back on track. In this review we examine the practice of redundant meta-analyses and the reasons for its disturbing \"popularity.\" The registration of systematic reviews should be mandatory in prospective registries, such as PROSPERO, and the PRISMA checklist should be updated to incorporate new evidence and mandate the reference of previously published reviews and rationale for any new study.