OBJECTIVES: Criteria for evaluating the results of treating low back pain vary widely. We examined the methods measuring the outcome in the papers of Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society. METHODS: We selected all published articles describing the methods measuring the outcome of low back pain in the journal. They were classified into 3 periods such as period 1 for volume 1-20, 2 for volume 21-25, and 3 for volume 26-28. RESULTS: There are 25 articles in period 1, 44 in period 2, and 30 in period 3. The outcome was classified into 0 to 5 classes by more than 15 different methods. Although the terms and descriptive criteria differ, 4 classes were the most common classification, being 16 in period 1, 39 in period 2, and 19 in period 3. The outcome was usually measured by authors' own method in period 1. In period 2, criteria by Gill et al was most commonly used along with many different criteria. Criteria by Prolo et al became a common method in period 3. CONCLUSION: Varying methods compromised comparative analyses of outcome. A more simple and universally applicable criteria is necessary to facilitate comparisons among various methods of treatment.