SynthesisDer Orthopade2013
[Subgroup-specific therapy of low back pain: description and validity of two classification systems].
Synthesis in Der Orthopade, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01796496 (Short-term Effect of Manipulative Therapy Techniques in People With Chronic Low Back Pain), which is not on this 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.
Short-term Effect of Manipulative Therapy Techniques in People With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application and utility of a clinical framework for spinally referred neck-arm pain: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study protocol.PloS one · 2020Article
- Pain and functional outcomes after outpatient physiotherapy in patients with low back pain.Der Orthopade · 2017Article
- Acute Lumbar Back Pain.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn spite of profound advances in the diagnosis and therapy, low back pain (LBP) remains one of the main challenges for health systems in western industrialized countries. Clinical trials and meta-analyses typically show heterogeneous evidence and small effect sizes. One explanation for this phenomenon is the heterogeneous nature of the population of patients with LBP, not adequately considered in clinical practice and research. Recent studies and one meta-analysis show that therapy which is specifically directed at well defined subgroups leads to improved effectiveness of interventions, especially for non-surgical interventions such as manual therapy or physiotherapy.
aimThis article aims to describe the process of classification and to critically evaluate the underlying evidence.
methodsTwo validated and commonly used classification systems were selected and their reliability and validity were critically appraised.
resultsThe treatment-based classification system was primarily developed and validated for patients with acute LBP. Based on prognostic factors and clinical prediction rules, patients are classified into one of four treatment based categories: traction, manipulation, specific exercises and stabilization. The movement and motor control impairment classification system is based on movement-related, cognitive and psychosocial factors and was developed for patients with chronic LBP. Maladaptive movement and motor control impairments are considered as underlying mechanisms. Three broad subgroups are proposed: firstly, a group with specific pathologies, such as spinal stenosis or disc prolapse with radiculopathy, secondly a group with dominant psychosocial factors and thirdly a group with maladaptive motor control patterns that drive the disorder with either movement impairments or motor control impairments.
conclusionThe reliability of the described classification systems is moderate to good, aspects of validity have been shown. Their implementation in clinical practice seems recommendable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.