Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35212635›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2022

The 3-Month Effectiveness of a Stratified Blended Physiotherapy Intervention in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Tjarco Koppenaal, Martijn F Pisters, Corelien Jj Kloek, Remco M Arensman, Raymond Wjg Ostelo, Cindy Veenhof

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 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. Mobile technologies for rehabilitation in non-specific spinal disorders: a systematic review of the efficacy and potential for implementation in low- and middle-income countries.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tjarco KoppenaalResearch Group Empowering Healthy Behaviour, Department of Health Innovations and Technology, Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5319-4588
Martijn F PistersResearch Group Empowering Healthy Behaviour, Department of Health Innovations and Technology, Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2875-1709
Corelien Jj KloekCenter for Physical Therapy Research and Innovation in Primary Care, Julius Health Care Centers, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7426-7141
Remco M ArensmanCenter for Physical Therapy Research and Innovation in Primary Care, Julius Health Care Centers, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9462-963X
Raymond Wjg OsteloDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences research institute Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7679-7210
Cindy VeenhofCenter for Physical Therapy Research and Innovation in Primary Care, Julius Health Care Centers, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0970-2896
Utrecht University · NLUniversity of Applied Sciences Utrecht · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient education, home-based exercise therapy, and advice on returning to normal activities are established physiotherapeutic treatment options for patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on health-related outcomes largely depends on patient self-management and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations. e-Exercise LBP is a recently developed stratified blended care intervention comprising a smartphone app integrated with face-to-face physiotherapy treatment. Following the promising effects of web-based applications on patients' self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations, it is hypothesized that e-Exercise LBP will improve patients' physical functioning.

objectiveThis study aims to investigate the short-term (3 months) effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) on physical functioning in comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP.

methodsThe study design was a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Patients with nonspecific LBP aged ≥18 years were asked to participate in the study. The patients were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy or face-to-face physiotherapy. Both interventions were conducted according to the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients' risk of developing persistent LBP using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index, range 0-100). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, fear-avoidance beliefs, and self-reported adherence. Measurements were taken at baseline and at the 3-month follow-up.

resultsBoth the stratified blended physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) and the face-to-face physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) had improved clinically relevant and statistically significant physical functioning; however, there was no statistically significant or clinically relevant between-group difference (mean difference -1.96, 95% CI -4.47 to 0.55). For the secondary outcomes, stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in fear-avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. In patients with a high risk of developing persistent LBP (13/208, 6.3%), stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in physical functioning (mean difference -16.39, 95% CI -27.98 to -4.79) and several secondary outcomes.

conclusionsThe stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is not more effective than face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP in improving physical functioning in the short term. For both stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy, within-group improvements were clinically relevant. To be able to decide whether e-Exercise LBP should be implemented in daily physiotherapy practice, future research should focus on the long-term cost-effectiveness and determine which patients benefit most from stratified blended physiotherapy.

trial registrationISRCTN Registry 94074203; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN94074203. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-3174-z.

Indexed as

Low Back PainAdolescentAdultExerciseHumansPain MeasurementPhysical Therapy ModalitiesSurveys and Questionnairesblended careeHealthmobile phonenonspecific low back painphysiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID35212635
PMCPMC8917429
OpenAlexW4205287740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.