ArticleJournal of physiotherapy2012
Targeted physiotherapy treatment for low back pain based on clinical risk can improve clinical and economic outcomes when compared with current best practice.
Article in Journal of physiotherapy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Walking away from back pain: one step at a time - a community-based randomised controlled trial.BMC public health · 2015Trial
- Self-reported use of family physician, chiropractor and physiotherapy services among adult Canadians with chronic back disorders: an observational study.BMC health services research · 2018Observational
- Clinical Decision Support Tools for Selecting Interventions for Patients with Disabling Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Scoping Review.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
questionDoes a stratified primary care approach for patients with low back pain result in clinical and economic benefits when compared with current best practice?
designA randomised, controlled trial with stratification for three risk groups and a targeted treatment according to the risk profile. Group allocation was carried out by computer-generated block randomisation in a 2:1 ratio.
settingTen general practices in England.
participantsMen and women at least 18 years old with low back pain of any duration, with or without associated radiculopathy. Exclusion criteria were potentially serious disorders, serious illness or comorbidity, spinal surgery in the past 6 months, pregnancy, and receiving back treatments (except primary care).
interventionsIn the intervention group decisions about referral to risk group were made by use of the STarT Back Screening Tool. The 30-min assessment and initial treatment focused on promotion of appropriate levels of activity, including return to work, a pamphlet about local exercise venues and self-help groups, the Back Book, and a 15-min educational video Get Back Active. Low-risk patients were only given this clinic session. Medium-risk patients were referred for standardised physiotherapy to address symptoms and function. High-risk patients were referred for psychologically informed physiotherapy to address physical symptoms and function, and psychosocial obstacles to recovery. In the control group a 30-min physiotherapy assessment and initial treatment including advice and exercises was provided, with the option of onward referral to further physiotherapy, based on the physiotherapist's clinical judgement. OUTCOME MEASURES: The 12 months score of Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Secondary measures were referral for further physiotherapy, back pain intensity, pain catastrophising, fear-avoidance beliefs, anxiety, depression, health-related quality of life, reduction of risk-subgroup, global change of pain, number of physiotherapy treatment sessions, adverse events, health-care resource use and costs over 12 months, number of days off work because of back pain, and satisfaction with care.
resultsOf 851 patients assigned to the intervention (n=568) and control groups (n=283) a total of 649 completed the 12 months follow-up. Adjusted mean changes in RMDQ scores were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group at 4 months (4.7 [SD 5.9] vs 3.0 [5.9], between-group difference 1.8 [95% CI 1.6 to 2.6]) and at 12 months (4.3 [6.4] vs 3.3 [6.2], 1.1 [0.6 to 1.9]). At 12 months, stratified care was associated with a mean increase in generic health benefit (0.039 additional QALYs) and cost savings (£240.01 vs £274.40) compared with the control group. There were significant differences in favour of the intervention group in many of the secondary outcomes.
conclusionA stratified management approach including a prognostic screening and treatment targeting, showed improved clinical and economic benefits when compared with current best practice.
Identifiers
22341383What OpenQuestion holds
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.