Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10426734›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1999

Randomised controlled trial of exercise for low back pain: clinical outcomes, costs, and preferences.

J K Moffett, D Torgerson, S Bell-Syer, D Jackson, H Llewlyn-Phillips, A Farrin, J Barber

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 379 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for subacute low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Content and outcome of usual primary care for back pain: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2008
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Exercise therapy for treatment of non-specific low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2005
    Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Can we predict response to the McKenzie method in patients with acute low back pain? A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2012
    Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

J K MoffettCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom. j.a.moffett@medschool.hull.ac.uk
D Torgerson
S Bell-Syer
D Jackson
H Llewlyn-Phillips
A Farrin
J Barber
University of York · GBUniversity of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate effectiveness of an exercise programme in a community setting for patients with low back pain to encourage a return to normal activities.

designRandomised controlled trial of progressive exercise programme compared with usual primary care management. Patients' preferences for type of management were elicited independently of randomisation.

participants187 patients aged 18-60 years with mechanical low back pain of 4 weeks to 6 months' duration.

interventionsExercise classes led by a physiotherapist that included strengthening exercises for all main muscle groups, stretching exercises, relaxation session, and brief education on back care. A cognitive-behavioural approach was used.

main outcome measuresAssessments of debilitating effects of back pain before and after intervention and at 6 months and 1 year later. Measures included Roland disability questionnaire, Aberdeen back pain scale, pain diaries, and use of healthcare services.

resultsAt 6 weeks after randomisation, the intervention group improved marginally more than the control group on the disability questionnaire and reported less distressing pain. At 6 months and 1 year, the intervention group showed significantly greater improvement in the disability questionnaire score (mean difference in changes 1.35, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 2.57). At 1 year, the intervention group also showed significantly greater improvement in the Aberdeen back pain scale (4.44, 1.01 to 7.87) and reported only 378 days off work compared with 607 in the control group. The intervention group used fewer healthcare resources. Outcome was not influenced by patients' preferences.

conclusionsThe exercise class was more clinically effective than traditional general practitioner management, regardless of patient preference, and was cost effective.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultCosts and Cost AnalysisExercise TherapyFemaleHumansLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient SatisfactionTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID10426734
PMCPMC28176
OpenAlexW2150640684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.