Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12892566›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2003

UK Back pain Exercise And Manipulation (UK BEAM) trial--national randomised trial of physical treatments for back pain in primary care: objectives, design and interventions [ISRCTN32683578].

S Brealey, K Burton, S Coulton, A Farrin, A Garratt, E Harvey, L Letley, J Martin, Moffett J Klaber, I Russell and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Cost-effectiveness of general practice care for low back pain: a systematic review.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 · 2011
    Pooled it
  4. Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011
    Pooled it
  5. Combined chiropractic interventions for low-back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010
    Pooled it
  6. 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
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Usual care in back pain trials.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2009
    Article
  16. Article
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

16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S BrealeyInstitute of Community Health Sciences, Barts and the London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, Mile End, London, UK. m.underwood@qmul.ac.uk
K Burton
S Coulton
A Farrin
A Garratt
E Harvey
L Letley
J Martin
Moffett J Klaber
I Russell
D Torgerson
M Underwood
M Vickers
K Whyte
M Williams
UK Back pain Exercise And Manipulation (UK BEAM) Trial Team
Queen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow back pain has major health and social implications. Although there have been many randomised controlled trials of manipulation and exercise for the management of low back pain, the role of these two treatments in its routine management remains unclear. A previous trial comparing private chiropractic treatment with National Health Service (NHS) outpatient treatment, which found a benefit from chiropractic treatment, has been criticised because it did not take treatment location into account. There are data to suggest that general exercise programmes may have beneficial effects on low back pain. The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) has funded this major trial of physical treatments for back pain, based in primary care. It aims to establish if, when added to best care in general practice, a defined package of spinal manipulation and a defined programme of exercise classes (Back to Fitness) improve participant-assessed outcomes. Additionally the trial compares outcomes between participants receiving the spinal manipulation in NHS premises and in private premises.

designRandomised controlled trial using a 3 x 2 factorial design.

methodsWe sought to randomise 1350 participants with simple low back pain of at least one month's duration. These came from 14 locations across the UK, each with a cluster of 10-15 general practices that were members of the MRC General Practice Research Framework (GPRF). All practices were trained in the active management of low back pain. Participants were randomised to this form of general practice care only, or this general practice care plus manipulation, or this general practice care plus exercise, or this general practice care plus manipulation followed by exercise. Those randomised to manipulation were further randomised to receive treatment in either NHS or private premises. Follow up was by postal questionnaire one, three and 12 months after randomisation. The primary analysis will consider the main treatment effects before interactions between the two treatment packages. Economic analysis will estimate the cost per unit of health utility gained by adding either or both of the treatment packages to general practice care.

Indexed as

Exercise TherapyManipulation, SpinalAdultFamily PracticeFollow-Up StudiesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansLow Back PainMiddle AgedPrimary Health CarePrivate PracticeQuality-Adjusted Life YearsState MedicineSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment OutcomeUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID12892566
PMCPMC194218
OpenAlexW1487432611

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.