Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28442069›Full record

ReviewBrazilian journal of physical therapy

Reassurance for patients with non-specific conditions - a user's guide.

Adrian C Traeger, Edel T O'Hagan, Aidan Cashin, James H McAuley

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Brazilian journal of physical therapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Experiences of pain communication in endometriosis: A meta-synthesis.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

4 authors.

Adrian C TraegerNeuroscience Research Australia, Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: a.traeger@neura.edu.au.
Edel T O'HaganNeuroscience Research Australia, Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Aidan CashinNeuroscience Research Australia, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
James H McAuleyNeuroscience Research Australia, Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionReassurance is the removal of fears and concerns about illness. In practice reassurance for non-specific conditions, where a diagnosis is unclear or unavailable, is difficult and can have unexpected effects. Many clinical guidelines for non-specific conditions such as low back pain recommend reassurance. Until recently, there was little evidence on how to reassure patients effectively.

resultsHigh distress causes patients to consult more often for low back pain. To reduce distress, clinicians should provide structured education, which is effective in the short- and long-term. A newly developed online prognostic tool has the potential to improve the quality of reassurance and reduce the number of inappropriate interventions provided for low back pain.

conclusionTargeted reassurance, including enhanced, prognosis-specific education, could optimize reassurance and possibly prevent disabling symptoms.

Indexed as

HumansLow Back PainPatient Education as TopicPrognosisStress, PsychologicalEmotionsLow back painPatient educationPreventive health services

Identifiers

PMID28442069
PMCPMC5537438

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.