Trial reportClinical rehabilitation2020
The effect of an integrated multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme alternating inpatient interventions with home-based activities for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Clinical rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Models of care for managing non-specific low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Evaluating relapse prophylaxis in addition to interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy for back pain: a randomised controlled trial.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2025Trial
- The effect of an integrated multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: Long-term follow up of a randomised controlled trial.Clinical rehabilitation · 2021Trial
- Risk-targeted behavioral activation for the management of work disability associated with comorbid pain and depression: a feasibility study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of an integrated rehabilitation programme with an existing rehabilitation programme in patients with chronic low back pain.
designA single-centre, pragmatic, two-arm parallel, randomized controlled trial (1:1 ratio).
settingA rheumatology inpatient rehabilitation centre in Denmark. SUBJECTS: A total of 165 adults (aged ⩾ 18 years) with chronic low back pain.
interventionsAn integrated rehabilitation programme comprising an alternation of three weeks of inpatient stay and 12 weeks of home-based activities was compared with an existing rehabilitation programme of four weeks of inpatient stay. MAIN MEASURES: Patient-reported outcomes were collected at baseline and at the 26-week follow-up. The primary outcome was back-specific disability (Oswestry Disability Index). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity (Numerical Rating Scale), pain self-efficacy (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire), health-related quality of life (EuroQol-5 Domain 5-level (EQ-5D)), and depression (Major Depression Inventory). A complete case analysis was performed.
resultsA total of 303 patients were assessed for eligibility of whom 165 (mean age: 50 years (SD 13) and mean Oswestry Disability Index score 42 (SD 11)) were randomized (83 to existing rehabilitation programme and 82 to integrated rehabilitation programme). Overall, 139 patients provided the 26-week follow-up data. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between programmes. The between-group difference in the Oswestry Disability Index score when adjusting for the corresponding baseline score was -0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI): -4.02, 3.45) which was neither statistically nor clinically significant. No significant differences were found in the secondary outcomes.
conclusionAn integrated rehabilitation programme was no more effective than an existing rehabilitation programme at the 26-week follow-up.
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.