Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20466596›Full record

Trial reportThe journal of pain2010

Preference, expectation, and satisfaction in a clinical trial of behavioral interventions for acute and sub-acute low back pain.

Steven Z George, Michael E Robinson

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The journal of pain, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Treatment preference changes after exposure to treatment in adults with chronic low back pain.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2023
    Trial
  11. Expectations affect pain sensitivity changes during massage.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2023
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. 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
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Steven Z GeorgeDepartment of Physical Therapy, Center for Pain Research and Behavioral Health, PO Box 100154, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-0154, USA. szgeorge@phhp.ufl.edu
Michael E Robinson

Funding

Behavioral Interventions for Low Back PainR03AR051128 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI GEORGE, STEVEN Z · 2005 to 2007
$213k
NIAMS NIH HHS AR051128NIAMS NIH HHS R03 AR051128
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledThe equivalency of behavioral interventions has led to the consideration of whether patient-related factors influence clinical trial outcomes. The primary purpose of this secondary analysis was to determine if treatment preference and patient expectation were predictors of trial outcomes and if selected patient-satisfaction items were appropriate as outcome measures. Perceived effectiveness, treatment preference, and patient expectation were assessed before random assignment, and patient satisfaction was assessed 6 months later. Patient preference was associated with perceived effectiveness for those with no treatment preference and those preferring graded exposure. Higher patient expectation was associated with higher perceived effectiveness ratings for all treatments in the clinical trial. Patients with no strong treatment preferences had larger 6-month improvements in pain intensity and disability, while patients with higher expectations had lower disability at baseline, 4 weeks, and 6 months. Patient satisfaction rates did not differ based on treatment received. Patient satisfaction was highest with treatment delivery and much lower with treatment effect. Patient satisfaction was uniformly associated with expectations being met, but only satisfaction with treatment effect was associated with lower pain and disability scores. These data support assessment of treatment preference and patient expectation as predictors and patient satisfaction as an outcome measure in low back pain (LBP) clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: These data indicate treatment preference potentially impacts rate of improvement for patients with low back pain. Patient expectation did not impact rate of improvement, but those with higher expectations had lower pain and disability scores throughout the trial. Optimal assessment of patient satisfaction should include items that separately consider treatment delivery and effect.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAcute DiseaseAdultBehavior TherapyDisability EvaluationFemaleHumansLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePain MeasurementPatient PreferencePredictive Value of TestsSeverity of Illness IndexYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID20466596
PMCPMC2921587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.