Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29525768›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2018

Using an internet intervention to support self-management of low back pain in primary care: findings from a randomised controlled feasibility trial (SupportBack).

Adam W A Geraghty, Rosie Stanford, Beth Stuart, Paul Little, Lisa C Roberts, Nadine E Foster, Jonathan C Hill, Elaine M Hay, David Turner, Wansida Malakan and 2 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Models of care for managing non-specific low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Future challenges in rheumatology - is telemedicine the solution?Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2022
    Review
  20. Review
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

12 authors.

Adam W A GeraghtyPrimary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Rosie StanfordPrimary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Beth StuartPrimary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Paul LittlePrimary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Lisa C RobertsHealth Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Nadine E FosterInstitute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Jonathan C HillInstitute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Elaine M HayInstitute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.
David TurnerNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Wansida MalakanNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Linda LeighPatient and Public Involvement Representative, Southampton, UK.
Lucy YardleySchool of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-011-015Department of Health PB-PG-1111-26080
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of an internet intervention for low back pain (LBP) using three arms: (1) usual care, (2) usual care plus an internet intervention or (3) usual care plus an internet intervention with additional physiotherapist telephone support. DESIGN AND

settingA three-armed randomised controlled feasibility trial conducted in 12 general practices in England.

participantsPrimary care patients aged over 18 years, with current LBP, access to the internet and without indicators of serious spinal pathology or systemic illness.

interventionsThe 'SupportBack' internet intervention delivers a 6-week, tailored programme, focused on graded goal setting, self-monitoring and provision of tailored feedback to encourage physical activity. Additional physiotherapist telephone support consisted of three brief telephone calls over a 4-week period, to address any concerns and provide reassurance. OUTCOMES: The primary outcomes were the feasibility of the trial design including recruitment, adherence and retention at follow-up. Secondary descriptive and exploratory analyses were conducted on clinical outcomes including LBP-related disability at 3 months follow-up.

resultsPrimary outcomes: 87 patients with LBP were recruited (target 60-90) over 6 months, and there were 3 withdrawals. Adherence to the intervention was higher in the physiotherapist-supported arm, compared with the stand-alone internet intervention. Trial physiotherapists adhered to the support protocol. Overall follow-up rate on key clinical outcomes at 3 months follow-up was 84%.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated the feasibility of a future definitive randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the SupportBack intervention in primary care patients with LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN31034004; Results.

Indexed as

ExerciseAdultAgedFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansInternetLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareQuality of LifeSelf-ManagementSurveys and QuestionnairesTelephoneTreatment Adherence and Complianceinternet interventionlow back painprimary careself-management

Identifiers

PMID29525768
PMCPMC5879455

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.