Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32765057›Full record

Trial reportJournal of pain research2020

Digital Treatment of Back Pain versus Standard of Care: The Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial, Rise-uP.

Janosch A Priebe, Katharina K Haas, Leida F Moreno Sanchez, Karin Schoefmann, Daniel A Utpadel-Fischler, Paul Stockert, Reinhard Thoma, Christine Schiessl, Linda Kerkemeyer, Volker Amelung and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readCase ReportsClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of pain research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Models of care for managing non-specific low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Janosch A PriebeCenter of Interdisciplinary Pain Medicine, Department of Neurology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Katharina K HaasCenter of Interdisciplinary Pain Medicine, Department of Neurology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Leida F Moreno SanchezCenter of Interdisciplinary Pain Medicine, Department of Neurology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Karin SchoefmannCenter of Interdisciplinary Pain Medicine, Department of Neurology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Daniel A Utpadel-FischlerCenter of Interdisciplinary Pain Medicine, Department of Neurology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0809-0242
Paul StockertCenter of Interdisciplinary Pain Medicine, Department of Neurology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Reinhard ThomaPain Clinic, Algesiologikum Pain Center, Munich, Germany.
Christine SchiesslPain Clinic, Algesiologikum Pain Center, Munich, Germany.
Linda KerkemeyerInstitute for Applied Health Services Research, inav GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Volker AmelungInstitute for Applied Health Services Research, inav GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Siegfried JedamzikBayerische TelemedAllianz (BTA), Ingolstadt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1029-5722
Jan ReichmannStatConsult GmbH Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.
Ursula MarschallBarmer Hauptverwaltung, Wuppertal, Germany.
Thomas R ToelleCenter of Interdisciplinary Pain Medicine, Department of Neurology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
TUM Klinikum · DEBARMER GEK · DEInfoConsult (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeNon-specific low back pain (NLBP) causes an enormous burden to patients and tremendous costs for health care systems worldwide. Frequently, treatments are not oriented to existing guidelines. In the future, digital elements may be promising tools to support guideline-oriented treatment in a broader range of patients. The cluster-randomized controlled "Rise-uP" trial aims to support a General Practitioner (GP)-centered back pain treatment (Registration No: DRKS00015048) and includes the following digital elements: 1) electronic case report form (eCRF), 2) a treatment algorithm for guideline-based clinical decision making of GPs, 3) teleconsultation between GPs and pain specialists for patients at risk for development of chronic back pain, and 4) a multidisciplinary mobile back pain app for all patients (Kaia App).

methodsIn the Rise-uP trial, 111 GPs throughout Bavaria (southern Germany) were randomized either to the Rise-uP intervention group (IG) or the control group (CG). Rise-uP patients were treated according to the guideline-oriented Rise-uP treatment algorithm. Standard of care was applied to the CG patients with consideration given to the "National guideline for the treatment of non-specific back pain". Pain rating on the numeric rating scale was the primary outcome measure. Psychological measures (anxiety, depression, stress), functional ability, as well as physical and mental wellbeing, served as secondary outcomes. All values were assessed at the beginning of the treatment and at 3-month follow-ups.

resultsIn total, 1245 patients (IG: 933; CG: 312) with NLBP were included in the study. The Rise-uP group showed a significantly stronger pain reduction compared to the control group after 3 months (IG: M=-33.3% vs CG: M=-14.3%). The Rise-uP group was also superior in secondary outcomes. Furthermore, high-risk patients who received a teleconsultation showed a larger decrease in pain intensity (-43.5%) than CG patients (-14.3%). ANCOVA analysis showed that the impact of teleconsultation was mediated by an increased training activity in the Kaia App.

conclusionOur results show the superiority of the innovative digital treatment algorithm realized in Rise-uP, even though the CG also received relevant active treatment by their GPs. This provides clear evidence that digital treatment may be a promising tool to improve the quality of treatment of non-specific back pain. In 2021, analyses of routine data from statutory health insurances will enable us to investigate the cost-effectiveness of digital treatment.

Indexed as

chronic paindigital medicineeHealthguideline-oriented treatmentmHealthNLBPSTarT Back

Identifiers

PMID32765057
PMCPMC7381830
OpenAlexW3043388653

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.