ArticleMusculoskeletal care2022
The effectiveness of post-professional physical therapist training in the treatment of chronic low back pain using a propensity score approach with machine learning.
Article in Musculoskeletal care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The educational pathway to Advanced Practice for the physiotherapist: A systematic mixed studies review.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Use of machine learning to identify prognostic variables for outcomes in chronic low back pain treatment: a retrospective analysis.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleLow back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability in the United States creating substantial hardships through negative social, financial, and health effects. Chronic low back pain (CLBP) accounted for above half of patients treated in physical therapy (PT) clinics for LBP. However, research shows small benefit from PT in CLBP treatment. Preliminary evidence suggests clinician-level training variables may affect outcomes, but requires further investigation to determine whether patients with CLBP benefit from treatment by providers with post-professional training. This study examined the relationship between clinician training levels and patient-reported outcomes in CLBP treatment.
methodsPhysical therapies were surveyed using a large patient outcome assessment system to determine and categorise them by level of post-professional education. To account for the possibility that clinicians with higher levels of training are referred more-complex patients, a machine learning approach was used to identify predictive variables for clinician group, then to construct propensity scores to account for differences between groups. Differences in functional status score change among pooled data were analysed using linear models adjusted for propensity scores.
resultsThere were no clinically meaningful differences in patient outcomes when comparing clinician post-professional training level. The propensity score method proved to be a valuable way to account for differences at baseline between groups.
conclusionPost-professional training does not appear to contribute to improved patient outcomes in the treatment of CLBP. This study demonstrates that propensity score analysis can be used to ensure that differences observed are true and not due to differences at baseline.
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.