ArticleBMJ open2016
Development of an optimised 1:1 physiotherapy intervention post first-time lumbar discectomy: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Physiotherapy Post Lumbar Discectomy: Prospective Feasibility and Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial.PloS one · 2015Trial
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop an optimised 1:1 physiotherapy intervention that reflects best practice, with flexibility to tailor management to individual patients, thereby ensuring patient-centred practice.
designMixed-methods combining evidence synthesis, expert review and focus groups.
settingSecondary care involving 5 UK specialist spinal centres.
participantsA purposive panel of clinical experts from the 5 spinal centres, comprising spinal surgeons, inpatient and outpatient physiotherapists, provided expert review of the draft intervention. Purposive samples of patients (n=10) and physiotherapists (n=10) (inpatient/outpatient physiotherapists managing patients with lumbar discectomy) were invited to participate in the focus groups at 1 spinal centre.
methodsA draft intervention developed from 2 systematic reviews; a survey of current practice and research related to stratified care was circulated to the panel of clinical experts. Lead physiotherapists collaborated with physiotherapy and surgeon colleagues to provide feedback that informed the intervention presented at 2 focus groups investigating acceptability to patients and physiotherapists. The focus groups were facilitated by an experienced facilitator, recorded in written and tape-recorded forms by an observer. Tape recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data analysis, conducted by 2 independent researchers, employed an iterative and constant comparative process of (1) initial descriptive coding to identify categories and subsequent themes, and (2) deeper, interpretive coding and thematic analysis enabling concepts to emerge and overarching pattern codes to be identified.
resultsThe intervention reflected best available evidence and provided flexibility to ensure patient-centred care. The intervention comprised up to 8 sessions of 1:1 physiotherapy over 8 weeks, starting 4 weeks postsurgery. The intervention was acceptable to patients and physiotherapists.
conclusionsA rigorous process informed an optimised 1:1 physiotherapy intervention post-lumbar discectomy that reflects best practice. The developed intervention was agreed on by the 5 spinal centres for implementation in a randomised controlled trial to evaluate its effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.