Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24906419›Full record

Trial reportTrials2014

Comparison of complementary and alternative medicine with conventional mind-body therapies for chronic back pain: protocol for the Mind-body Approaches to Pain (MAP) randomized controlled trial.

Daniel C Cherkin, Karen J Sherman, Benjamin H Balderson, Judith A Turner, Andrea J Cook, Brenda Stoelb, Patricia M Herman, Richard A Deyo, Rene J Hawkes

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01467843 (Comparison of CAM and Conventional Mind-Body Therapies for Chronic Back Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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.

NCT01467843 phase3completednot on this map

Comparison of CAM and Conventional Mind-Body Therapies for Chronic Back Pain

TypeinterventionalSponsorKaiser PermanenteRan2012 to 2015Enrolled342ConditionsLow Back PainArmsCognitive Behavioral Therapy, Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

9 authors.

Daniel C CherkinGroup Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101, USA. cherkin.d@ghc.org.
Karen J Sherman
Benjamin H Balderson
Judith A Turner
Andrea J Cook
Brenda Stoelb
Patricia M Herman
Richard A Deyo
Rene J Hawkes

Funding

Comparison of CAM and Conventional Mind-Body Therapies for Chronic Back PainR01AT006226 · NCCIH · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI CHERKIN, DANIEL C. · 2011 to 2014
$2.9M
NCCIH NIH HHS R01 AT006226
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe self-reported health and functional status of persons with back pain in the United States have declined in recent years, despite greatly increased medical expenditures due to this problem. Although patient psychosocial factors such as pain-related beliefs, thoughts and coping behaviors have been demonstrated to affect how well patients respond to treatments for back pain, few patients receive treatments that address these factors. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which addresses psychosocial factors, has been found to be effective for back pain, but access to qualified therapists is limited. Another treatment option with potential for addressing psychosocial issues, mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), is increasingly available. MBSR has been found to be helpful for various mental and physical conditions, but it has not been well-studied for application with chronic back pain patients. In this trial, we will seek to determine whether MBSR is an effective and cost-effective treatment option for persons with chronic back pain, compare its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness compared with CBT and explore the psychosocial variables that may mediate the effects of MBSR and CBT on patient outcomes. METHODS/

designIn this trial, we will randomize 397 adults with nonspecific chronic back pain to CBT, MBSR or usual care arms (99 per group). Both interventions will consist of eight weekly 2-hour group sessions supplemented by home practice. The MBSR protocol also includes an optional 6-hour retreat. Interviewers masked to treatment assignments will assess outcomes 5, 10, 26 and 52 weeks postrandomization. The primary outcomes will be pain-related functional limitations (based on the Roland Disability Questionnaire) and symptom bothersomeness (rated on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale) at 26 weeks. DISCUSSION: If MBSR is found to be an effective and cost-effective treatment option for patients with chronic back pain, it will become a valuable addition to the limited treatment options available to patients with significant psychosocial contributors to their pain.

trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01467843.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBack PainChronic PainCognitive Behavioral TherapyComplementary TherapiesCost-Benefit AnalysisFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedMind-Body TherapiesMindfulnessOutcome Assessment, Health CareResearch DesignStress, PsychologicalYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24906419
PMCPMC4052284

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.