Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26646534›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2015

A Randomized, Single-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study on the Efficacy of the Arthrokinematic Approach-Hakata Method in Patients with Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain.

Akira Kogure, Kazuhiko Kotani, Shigehiko Katada, Hiroshi Takagi, Masahiro Kamikozuru, Takashi Isaji, Setsuo Hakata

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Impact of education in patients undergoing physiotherapy for lower back pain: a level I systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Manual Therapy Effect in Placebo-Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Akira KogurePhysical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Sakura Orthopedic Hospital, Chiba, Japan.
Kazuhiko KotaniDivision of Community and Family Medicine, Jichi Medical University, Tochigi, Japan.
Shigehiko KatadaOrthopedics Division, Katada Orthopedic Clinic, Kanagawa, Japan.
Hiroshi TakagiDepartment of Orthopedics, Saitama Prefectural Rehabilitation Center, Saitama, Japan.
Masahiro KamikozuruDepartment of Orthopedics, Oka Orthopedic Hospital, Kanagawa, Japan.
Takashi IsajiDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Setsuo HakataPhysical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Japanese Medical Society of Arthrokinematic Approach, Yamanashi, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designCized, single-blind, controlled trial.

objectiveTo investigate the efficacy of the Arthrokinematic approach (AKA)-Hakata (H) method for chronic low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The AKA-H method is used to manually treat abnormalities of intra-articular movement.

methodsOne hundred eighty-six patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain randomly received either the AKA-H method (AKA-H group) or the sham technique (S group) monthly for 6 months. Data were collected at baseline and once a month. Outcome measures were pain intensity (visual analogue scale [VAS]) and quality of life (the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RDQ] and Short Form SF-36 questionnaire [SF-36]).

resultsAt baseline, the VAS, RDQ, and SF-36 scores showed similar levels between the groups. After 6 months, the AKA-H group had more improvement in the VAS (42.8% improvement) and RDQ score (31.1% improvement) than the sham group (VAS: 10.4% improvement; RDQ: 9.8% improvement; both, P < 0.001). The respective scores for the SF-36 subscales (physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, social functioning, general health perception, role emotional, and mental health) were also significantly more improved in the AKA-H group than in the sham group (all, P < 0.001). The scores for the physical, psychological, and social aspects of the SF-36 subscales showed similar improvement in the AKA-H group.

conclusionThe AKA-H method can be effective in managing chronic low back pain.

trial registrationUMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) UMIN000006250.

Indexed as

HumansLow Back PainPlacebosSingle-Blind MethodPlacebos

Identifiers

PMID26646534
PMCPMC4672908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.