Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28550009›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2017

Digital Support Interventions for the Self-Management of Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.

Barbara I Nicholl, Louise F Sandal, Mette J Stochkendahl, Marianne McCallum, Nithya Suresh, Ottar Vasseljen, Jan Hartvigsen, Paul J Mork, Per Kjaer, Karen Søgaard and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 108 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
108citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
11.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

108 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 200 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

48 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Barbara I NichollGeneral Practice & Primary Care, Institute of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5639-0130
Louise F SandalDepartment of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-8436-1046
Mette J StochkendahlDepartment of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-0297-8267
Marianne McCallumGeneral Practice & Primary Care, Institute of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6664-2485
Nithya SureshGeneral Practice & Primary Care, Institute of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3919-5234
Ottar VasseljenDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-6287-5871
Jan HartvigsenDepartment of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5876-7410
Paul J MorkDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-3355-2680
Per KjaerDepartment of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-5340-8649
Karen SøgaardDepartment of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-3968-6364
Frances S MairGeneral Practice & Primary Care, Institute of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9780-1135
University of Southern Denmark · DKUniversity of Glasgow · GBNorwegian University of Science and Technology · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a common cause of disability and is ranked as the most burdensome health condition globally. Self-management, including components on increased knowledge, monitoring of symptoms, and physical activity, are consistently recommended in clinical guidelines as cost-effective strategies for LBP management and there is increasing interest in the potential role of digital health.

objectiveThe study aimed to synthesize and critically appraise published evidence concerning the use of interactive digital interventions to support self-management of LBP. The following specific questions were examined: (1) What are the key components of digital self-management interventions for LBP, including theoretical underpinnings? (2) What outcome measures have been used in randomized trials of digital self-management interventions in LBP and what effect, if any, did the intervention have on these? and (3) What specific characteristics or components, if any, of interventions appear to be associated with beneficial outcomes?

methodsBibliographic databases searched from 2000 to March 2016 included Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, DoPHER and TRoPHI, Social Science Citation Index, and Science Citation Index. Reference and citation searching was also undertaken. Search strategy combined the following concepts: (1) back pain, (2) digital intervention, and (3) self-management. Only randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocols or completed RCTs involving adults with LBP published in peer-reviewed journals were included. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane risk of bias tool. An independent third reviewer adjudicated on disagreements. Data were synthesized narratively.

resultsOf the total 7014 references identified, 11 were included, describing 9 studies: 6 completed RCTs and 3 protocols for future RCTs. The completed RCTs included a total of 2706 participants (range of 114-1343 participants per study) and varied considerably in the nature and delivery of the interventions, the duration/definition of LBP, the outcomes measured, and the effectiveness of the interventions. Participants were generally white, middle aged, and in 5 of 6 RCT reports, the majority were female and most reported educational level as time at college or higher. Only one study reported between-group differences in favor of the digital intervention. There was considerable variation in the extent of reporting the characteristics, components, and theories underpinning each intervention. None of the studies showed evidence of harm.

conclusionsThe literature is extremely heterogeneous, making it difficult to understand what might work best, for whom, and in what circumstances. Participants were predominantly female, white, well educated, and middle aged, and thus the wider applicability of digital self-management interventions remains uncertain. No information on cost-effectiveness was reported. The evidence base for interactive digital interventions to support patient self-management of LBP remains weak.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansInternetLow Back PainMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareSelf-ManagementTelemedicineeHealthlow back painmHealthself-management

Identifiers

PMID28550009
PMCPMC5466697
OpenAlexW2618889646

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.