Observational studyJournal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.)2018
A Multidisciplinary Integrative Medicine Team in the Treatment of Chronic Low-Back Pain: An Observational Comparative Effectiveness Study.
Observational study in Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Practiced-Based Research of Complementary and Integrative Health Therapies as Provided for Pain Management in Clinical Settings: Recommendations for the Future and a Call to Action.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2022Pooled it
- Multidisciplinary integrative care versus chiropractic care for low back pain: a randomized clinical trial.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2022Trial
- The Science of Tai Chi and Qigong as Whole Person Health-Part II: Evidence Gaps and Opportunities for Future Research and Implementation.Journal of integrative and complementary medicine · 2025Review
- Cost-Effectiveness of a Team-Based Integrative Medicine Approach to the Treatment of Back Pain.Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.) · 2019Observational
- Whole Systems Research Methods in Health Care: A Scoping Review.Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.) · 2019Article
- Nonpharmacologic Back Pain Treatment Use and Associated Patient Reported Outcomes in US-Based Integrative Medicine Clinics.Global advances in integrative medicine and healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesChronic low-back pain (CLBP) is burdensome and costly, and a common condition for which adults use integrative therapies. The effectiveness of multidisciplinary integrative approaches has not been well studied. The purpose of this observational study was to compare characteristics and outcomes of CLBP patients treated at the Osher Clinical Center (OCC) versus other clinics at Brigham and Women's Hospital.
designObservational comparative effectiveness study.
settingTertiary care hospital. SUBJECTS: Patients ≥21 years with 3+ months of CLBP or 6+ months of intermittent low-back pain.
interventionAll patients were observed for 12 months. OCC patients received care at the integrative clinic (7.3 visits on average over 13 weeks); non-OCC patients received usual care at other clinics of the same hospital. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes: change from baseline to 6 months in functional status (Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]) and bothersomeness of pain (BOP). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: change in RDQ and BOP at 3 and 12 months, percentages of patients with clinically meaningful (≥30%) improvements.
resultsOne hundred fifty-six OCC and 153 non-OCC participants were enrolled; follow-up was 90.4 and 98.0%, respectively, at 12 months. There were substantial differences in baseline characteristics between groups. For RDQ, the adjusted mean group difference was nonsignificant at 6 months; for BOP, the differences were significant, but clinically small. At 12 months, the observed benefit on RDQ was significant and clinically meaningful; for BOP, there were significant, but clinically small differences. Percentages of patients with ≥30% improvements in RDQ were significantly greater in the OCC group only at 12 months, and both 6 and 12 months for BOP.
conclusionsBaseline characteristics can differ between those who select different sources of healthcare for CLBP. While benefits seen in the OCC versus non-OCC clinics were not large, further evaluation through randomized trials might be warranted to provide a more definitive evaluation.
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.