Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15556955›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2004

United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care.

UK BEAM Trial Team

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readClinical TrialMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04744883 (Evaluating Specific and Non-Specific Mechanisms in Two Distinct Complementary/Integrative Interventions for Chronic Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 121 papers, 19 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
121citing papers in PubMed, 19 pooled it
27.0field-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.

NCT04744883 early_phase1active not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Evaluating Specific and Non-Specific Mechanisms in Two Distinct Complementary/Integrative Interventions for Chronic Pain

TypeinterventionalSponsorRush University Medical CenterRan2020 to 2026Enrolled140ConditionsChronic Low-back PainArmsSpinal Manipulation Therapy (SMT), Naloxone, Placebo, Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction Therapy (MT)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

121 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 514 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Manipulation and mobilization for treating chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2018
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. 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
  14. Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011
    Pooled it
  15. A systematic review on the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine for chronic non-specific low-back pain.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 · 2010
    Pooled it
  16. Combined chiropractic interventions for low-back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010
    Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Trial

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

UK BEAM Trial Team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo estimate the effect of adding exercise classes, spinal manipulation delivered in NHS or private premises, or manipulation followed by exercise to "best care" in general practice for patients consulting with back pain. [See figure].

designPragmatic randomised trial with factorial design.

setting181 general practices in Medical Research Council General Practice Research Framework; 63 community settings around 14 centres across the United Kingdom.

participants1334 patients consulting their general practices about low back pain.

main outcome measuresScores on the Roland Morris disability questionnaire at three and 12 months, adjusted for centre and baseline scores.

resultsAll groups improved over time. Exercise improved mean disability questionnaire scores at three months by 1.4 (95% confidence interval 0.6 to 2.1) more than "best care." For manipulation the additional improvement was 1.6 (0.8 to 2.3) at three months and 1.0 (0.2 to 1.8) at 12 months. For manipulation followed by exercise the additional improvement was 1.9 (1.2 to 2.6) at three months and 1.3 (0.5 to 2.1) at 12 months. No significant differences in outcome occurred between manipulation in NHS premises and in private premises. No serious adverse events occurred.

conclusionsRelative to "best care" in general practice, manipulation followed by exercise achieved a moderate benefit at three months and a small benefit at 12 months; spinal manipulation achieved a small to moderate benefit at three months and a small benefit at 12 months; and exercise achieved a small benefit at three months but not 12 months.

Indexed as

AdultBack PainExercise TherapyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleManipulation, SpinalPrivate SectorPublic SectorTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID15556955
PMCPMC535454
OpenAlexW2095734644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.