Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27496696›Full record

Trial reportClinical rehabilitation2016

Promoting physical activity in low back pain patients: six months follow-up of a randomised controlled trial comparing a multicomponent intervention with a low intensity intervention.

Andrea Schaller, Charalabos-Markos Dintsios, Andrea Icks, Nadine Reibling, Ingo Froboese

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical rehabilitation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrea SchallerInstitute of Health Promotion and Clinical Movement Science, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany IST-University of Applied Sciences, Duesseldorf, Germany a.schaller@dshs-koeln.de.
Charalabos-Markos DintsiosIST-University of Applied Sciences, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Andrea IcksIST-University of Applied Sciences, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Nadine ReiblingPublic Health Unit, Centre for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Ingo FroboeseInstitute of Health Promotion and Clinical Movement Science, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
German Sport University Cologne · DEHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess a comprehensive multicomponent intervention against a low intensity intervention for promoting physical activity in chronic low back pain patients.

designRandomised controlled trial.

settingInpatient rehabilitation and aftercare. SUBJECTS: A total of 412 patients with chronic low back pain.

interventionsA multicomponent intervention (Movement Coaching) comprising of small group intervention (twice during inpatient rehabilitation), tailored telephone aftercare (twice after rehabilitation) and internet-based aftercare (web 2.0 platform) versus a low level intensity intervention (two general presentations on physical activity, download of the presentations). MAIN MEASURES: Physical activity was measured using a questionnaire. Primary outcome was total physical activity; secondary outcomes were setting specific physical activity (transport, workplace, leisure time) and pain. Comparative group differences were evaluated six months after inpatient rehabilitation.

resultsAt six months follow-up, 92 participants in Movement Coaching (46 %) and 100 participants in the control group (47 %) completed the postal follow-up questionnaire. No significant differences between the two groups could be shown in total physical activity (P = 0.30). In addition to this, workplace (P = 0.53), transport (P = 0.68) and leisure time physical activity (P = 0.21) and pain (P = 0.43) did not differ significantly between the two groups. In both groups, physical activity decreased during the six months follow-up.

conclusionsThe multicomponent intervention was no more effective than the low intensity intervention in promoting physical activity at six months follow-up. The decrease in physical activity in both groups is an unexpected outcome of the study and indicates the need for further research.

Indexed as

ExerciseAdultAftercareChronic PainFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHospitalizationHumansLow Back PainMaleMentoringMiddle AgedTime FactorsTreatment Outcomelow back painPhysical activity promotionrehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID27496696
PMCPMC4976660
OpenAlexW2484827545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.