Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33734088›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

In-Clinic Versus Web-Based Multidisciplinary Exercise-Based Rehabilitation for Treatment of Low Back Pain: Prospective Clinical Trial in an Integrated Practice Unit Model.

Kamshad Raiszadeh, Jonathan Tapicer, Lissa Taitano, Jonathan Wu, Bahar Shahidi

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04081896 (Evaluation of the Effects of Exercise-based Rehabilitation in Individuals with Spine Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04081896 recruitingnot on this map

Evaluation of the Effects of Exercise-based Rehabilitation in Individuals with Spine Pain

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorSpineZone Medical Fitness, IncRan2019 to 2029Enrolled5,000ConditionsNeck Pain, Low Back Pain, Scoliosis, Thoracic InjuriesArmsExercise
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors.

Kamshad RaiszadehSpinezone Medical Fitness, San Diego, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7362-1428
Jonathan TapicerSpinezone Medical Fitness, San Diego, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8265-9081
Lissa TaitanoSpinezone Medical Fitness, San Diego, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4846-6796
Jonathan WuSpinezone Medical Fitness, San Diego, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7976-0210
Bahar ShahidiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7532-6940

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe recent onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to reduce barriers to access physical therapy and associated care through the use of web-based programs and telehealth for those seeking treatment for low back pain (LBP). Despite this need, few studies have compared the effectiveness of clinic-based versus web-based or telehealth services.

objectiveThis study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of clinic-based multidisciplinary therapy in an integrated practice unit (C-IPU) model with online integrated multidisciplinary therapy (O-IPU) in individuals undergoing conservative care for LBP.

methodsA total of 1090 participants were prospectively recruited to participate in a clinical trial registry (NCT04081896) through the SpineZone rehabilitation IPU program. All participants provided informed consent. Participants were allocated to the C-IPU (N=988) or O-IPU (N=102) groups based on their personal preferences. The C-IPU program consisted of a high-intensity machine-based core muscle resistance training program, whereas the O-IPU program consisted of therapist-directed home core strengthening exercises through a web-based platform. Changes in LBP symptom severity (Numeric Pain Rating Scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), goal achievement (Patient-Specific Functional Scale), and frequency of opioid use were compared between the C-IPU and O-IPU groups using multivariate linear regression modeling adjusted for age, gender, treatment number, program duration, and baseline pain and disability.

resultsApproximately 93.03% (1014/1090) of the participants completed their recommended programs, with no group differences in dropout rates (P=.78). The C-IPU group showed greater pain relief (P<.001) and reductions in disability (P=.002) than the O-IPU group, whereas the O-IPU group reported greater improvements in goal achievement (P<.001). Both programs resulted in reduced opioid use frequency, with 19.0% (188/988) and 21.5% (22/102) of participants reporting cessation of opioid use for C-IPU and O-IPU programs, respectively, leaving only 5.59% (61/1090) of participants reporting opioid use at the end of their treatment.

conclusionsBoth in-clinic and web-based multidisciplinary programs are beneficial in reducing pain, disability, and opioid use and in improving goal achievement. The differences between these self-selected groups shed light on patient characteristics, which require further investigation and could help clinicians optimize these programs.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04081896; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04081896.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesExercise TherapyFemaleHumansInternetLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeYoung Adultintegrated practice unitlow back painonline therapyphysical therapyrehabilitationtelehealth

Identifiers

PMID33734088
PMCPMC8074858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.