Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24337423›Full record

Trial reportSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2013

[Effects of interdisciplinary functional restoration treatment with cognitive behavior therapy in patients with chronic back pain: healthcare research in the context of selective contracts].

K Hafenbrack, M Heinrich, G Müller, U Marnitz, J Mallwitz, R Klinger

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. [Musculoskeletal pain].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2015
    Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

K HafenbrackRückenzentrum Am Michel, Ludwig-Erhard-Str. 18, 20459, Hamburg, Deutschland, praxis.hafenbrack@t-online.de.
M Heinrich
G Müller
U Marnitz
J Mallwitz
R Klinger

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe efficacy of functional restoration programs for the treatment of chronic back pain is well documented. Nevertheless, there are only a few such centres in Germany and few trials have been conducted in German-speaking regions to demonstrate that implementing such programs in everyday clinical settings with large numbers of patients is just as effective as in a research setting. The present study examined whether the positive effects of such programs can also be observed in the clinically relevant context of a standardized day clinic treatment regimen. MATERIAL AND

methodsA total of 681 back pain patients in 2 German cities were examined at 4 measurement points (before and immediately after the program, as well as 6 and 12 months after treatment) using a comprehensive questionnaire on perceived pain and symptoms of anxiety and depression, as well as the work situation.

resultsIn both cities significant and long-term improvements in back pain, pain-related impairment and degree of chronification were observed, as well as a high return-to-work rate after treatment. Hence, the quality of such programs was also confirmed for a large patient population.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorDay Care, MedicalHealth Services ResearchInterdisciplinary CommunicationAdultAnxiety DisordersBack PainCognitive Behavioral TherapyCombined Modality TherapyComorbidityDepressive DisorderDisability EvaluationFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGermanyHospitals, University

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.