ArticleBMJ open2020
Comparative efficacy of different exercise interventions in chronic non-specific low back pain: protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07399145 (Comparison of the Effects of Prolotherapy and Rehabilitation Treatments in Low Back Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Comparison of the Effects of Prolotherapy and Rehabilitation Treatments in Low Back Pain
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physical activity improves the visual-spatial working memory of individuals with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2024Pooled it
- 4-Week Comparative Outcomes of Standard Physiotherapy, Balneotherapy Plus Physiotherapy and Dextrose Prolotherapy in Patients with Low Back Pain: A Non-Randomized Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Trial
- A non-linear relationship between blood pressure and mild cognitive impairment in elderly individuals: A cohort study based on the Chinese longitudinal healthy longevity survey (CLHLS).Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024Article
- Network meta-analysis for comparative effectiveness of treatments for chronic low back pain disorders: systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChronic non-specific low back pain is a major public health problem. Evidence supports the effectiveness of exercise as an intervention. Due to a paucity of direct comparisons of different exercise categories, medical guidelines were unable to make specific recommendations regarding the type of exercise working best in improving chronic low back pain. This network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials aims to investigate the comparative efficacy of different exercise interventions in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, SPORTDiscus, Clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal were searched on November 2019 and without language restrictions. The search will be updated after data analysis. Studies on adults with non-specific low back pain of at least 12 weeks duration comparing exercise to either no specific intervention (ie, no treatment, wait-list or usual care at the treating physician's discretion) and/or functionally inert interventions (ie, sham or attention control interventions) will be eligible. Pain intensity and back-specific disability are defined as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes will include health-related physical and mental quality of life, work disability, frequency of analgesic use and adverse events. All outcomes will be analysed short-term, intermediate-term and long-term. Data will be extracted independently by two review authors. Risk of bias will be assessed using the recommendations by the Cochrane Back and Neck Group and be based on an adaptation of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This NMA will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses_NMA checklist. The results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals, implemented in existing national and international guidelines and will be presented to health care providers and decision makers. The planned completion date of the study is 1 July 2021. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020151472.
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.