Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23537462›Full record

Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2013

Electrical stimulation for chronic non-specific low back pain in a working-age population: a 12-week double blinded randomized controlled trial.

Matthew S Thiese, Matthew Hughes, Jeremy Biggs

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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.

NCT01658735 nacompletednot on this map

Electrical Stimulation for Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain in a Working-Age Population: A 12-Week Double Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of UtahRan2012 to 2013Enrolled113ConditionsNon-specific Chronic Low Back PainArmsH-Wave, Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS), Sham
NCT02297685 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness of Two Electrotherapy Techniques to Treat Chronic Low Back Pain

TypeinterventionalSponsorCamilo Jose Cela UniversityRan2014 to 2015Enrolled60ConditionsChronic Low Back PainArmsSham Transcutaneous nerve stimulation, Transcutaneous nerve stimulation, Interferential currents
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew S ThieseRocky Mountain Center for Occupational & Environment Health, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, 391 Chipeta Way, Suite C, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA. matt.thiese@hsc.utah.edu
Matthew Hughes
Jeremy Biggs
Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions · USUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-invasive electrotherapy is commonly used for treatment of chronic low back pain. Evidence for efficacy of most electrotherapy modalities is weak or lacking. This study aims to execute a high-quality, double-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial comparing 1) H-Wave(®) Device stimulation plus usual care with 2) transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) plus usual care, and 3) Sham electrotherapy plus usual care to determine comparative efficacy for treatment of chronic non-specific low back pain patients. METHODS/

designPATIENTS: Chronic non-specific low back pain patients between ages of 18-65 years, with pain of at least 3 months duration and minimal current 5/10 VAS pain. Patients will have no significant signs or symptoms of lumbosacral nerve impingement, malignancy, spinal stenosis, or mood disorders. STUDY

designDouble blind RCT with 3 arms and 38 subjects per arm. Randomization by permuted blocks of random length, stratified by Workers Compensation claim (yes vs. no), and use of opioids. The null hypothesis of this study is that there are no statistically significant differences in functional improvement between treatment types during and at the end of a 12-week week treatment period. DATA COLLECTION: Subjective data will be collected using Filemaker Pro™ database management collection tools. Objective data will be obtained through functional assessments. Data will be collected at enrollment and at 1, 4, 8, and 12 weeks for each participant by a blinded assessor.

interventionsH-Wave(®) device stimulation (Intervention A) plus usual care, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) (Intervention B) plus usual care, and sham electrotherapy plus usual care (control). Each treatment arm will have identical numbers of visits (4) and researcher contact time (approximately 15 hours). OUTCOMES: PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary measures include: Rowland Morris Instrument, VAS pain score, functional evaluation including strength when pushing and pulling, pain free range of motion in flexion and extension. Outcome measures assessed at baseline, 1, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Treatment failure will be defined if patient terminates assigned treatment arm for non-efficacy or undergoes invasive procedure or other excluded cointerventions. Data will be analyzed using intention-to-treat analysis and adjusted for covariates related to LBP (e.g. age) as needed. DISCUSSION: Study strengths include complex randomization, treatment group allocation concealment, double blinding, controlling for co-interventions, rigorous inclusion criteria, assessment of compliance, plans for limiting dropout, identical assessment methods and timing for each treatment arm, and planned intention-to-treat analyses.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedChronic PainDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementTranscutaneous Electric Nerve StimulationTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID23537462
PMCPMC3626857
OpenAlexW2128181139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.