Conventional Practitioners' Communication of Integrative Alternatives for Chronic Back Pain: An Evidence-based, Patient-centered Model.

Ruthann Russo

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Integrative medicine (Encinitas, Calif.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Characterizing modifications to a comparative effectiveness research study: the OPTIMIZE trial-using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Interventions (FRAME).Trials · 2023
Trial

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

1 author.

Ruthann Russois an integrative health practitioner in the Department of Integrative Health Programs at the New York University Langone Medical Center in New York, New York. She is also a teaching fellow in the Graduate School of Mind-Body Medicine at Saybrook University, San Francisco, CA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic back pain is one of the most common conditions treated in the United States. Informed consent is the communication of treatment alternatives, benefits, and risks and must be provided to patients in most instances. The alternatives provided during this discussion should include all options supported by research evidence and the patient's preferences. This article proposes a model for chronic back pain that includes the communication of complementary therapies as part of a patient-centered, integrative approach to informed consent. The content of informed consent is determined by common law (court cases), legislation, regulations, and evidence-based research. The practitioner's and patient's knowledge and the patient's values should be used to filter this information. Finally, shared decision making should be used to arrive at the patient's final decision regarding informed consent for treatment.

Identifiers

PMID26770090

PMCPMC4684128

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.