Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021
A randomized controlled trial investigating effects of an individualized pedometer driven walking program on chronic low back pain.
Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02284958 (A Single-centre, Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating Clinical Utility and Cost-effectiveness of an Individualized Pedometer Driven Walking Programme for People With Chronic Low Back Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 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.
A Single-centre, Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating Clinical Utility and Cost-effectiveness of an Individualized Pedometer Driven Walking Programme for People With Chronic Low Back Pain
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Structured Exercise Programs for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2023Pooled it
- The Influence of Wearables on Health Care Outcomes in Chronic Disease: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- Effectiveness of physical activity monitors in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Pooled it
- (Cost-)effectiveness of a combined lifestyle intervention integrated into standard care for low back pain compared to usual care for people with persistent non-specific low back pain who are overweight or obese: Protocol for a randomised controlled trial with parallel economic and process evaluations (Back2Health).Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2026Article
- Chronic low back pain: assessment of mental distress, quality of life and pain-related activity patterns.Central European journal of public health · 2026Article
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of the Serbian Version of the Back Beliefs Questionnaire in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- The MyRelief Digital Educational Self-Management Program for Persistent Low Back Pain: Feasibility Uncontrolled Trial.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Assessing Walking Programs in Fibromyalgia: A Concordance Study between Measures.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWalking is an easily prescribed physical activity for people with low back pain (LBP). However, the evidence for its effectiveness to improve pain and disability levels for people with chronic low back pain (CLBP) within a community setting has not been evaluated. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a clinician guided, pedometer-driven, walking intervention for increasing physical activity and improving clinical outcomes compared to education and advice.
methodsRandomized controlled trial recruiting N = 174 adults with CLBP. Participants were randomly allocated into either a standardized care group (SG) or pedometer based walking group (WG) using minimization allocation with a 2:1 ratio to the WG. Prior to randomization all participants were given a standard package of education and advice regarding self-management and the benefits of staying active. Following randomization the WG undertook a physiotherapist guided pedometer-driven walking program for 12 weeks. This was individually tailored by weekly negotiation of daily step targets. Main outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) recorded at baseline, 12 weeks, 6 and 12 months. Other outcomes included, numeric pain rating, International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), Back Beliefs questionnaire (BBQ), Physical Activity Self-efficacy Scale, and EQ-5D-5L quality of life estimate.
resultsN = 138 (79%) participants completed all outcome measures at 12 weeks reducing to N = 96 (55%) at 12 months. Both observed and intention to treat analysis did not show any statistically significant difference in ODI change score between the WG and the SG at all post-intervention time points. There were also no significant between group differences for change scores in all secondary outcome measures. Post hoc sensitivity analyses revealed moderately disabled participants (baseline ODI ≥ 21.0) demonstrated a greater reduction in mean ODI scores at 12 months in the WG compared to SG, while WG participants with a daily baseline step count < 7500 steps demonstrated a greater reduction in mean ODI scores at 12 weeks.
conclusionsOverall, we found no significant difference in change of levels of (ODI) disability between the SG and WG following the walking intervention. However, ODI responses to a walking program for those with moderate levels of baseline disability and those with low baseline step count offer a potential future focus for continued research into the benefit of walking as a management strategy for chronic LBP.
trial registrationUnited States National Institutes of Health Clinical Trails registry (http://ClinicalTrials.gov/) No. NCT02284958 (27/10/2014).
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.