Trial reportPM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation2023
Treatment preference changes after exposure to treatment in adults with chronic low back pain.
Trial report in PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Receiving preferred treatments may improve low back pain outcomes: a non-randomized comparative study.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients' pretreatment preferences can influence outcomes of nonpharmacologic treatments for musculoskeletal pain. Less is known about how patients' treatment preferences change following exposure to treatment.
objectiveTo examine the effect of exposure to treatment and change in disability and pain on treatment preference ratings of two exercise-based treatments for people with chronic low back pain (LBP).
designSecondary analysis of a subsample of participants from a randomized clinical trial.
settingAcademic research setting.
participantsIndividuals with chronic LBP (n = 83).
interventions6 weekly sessions of motor skill training (MST) or strength and flexibility exercise (SFE).
main outcome measuresPrior to treatment, participants completed a treatment preference assessment measure (TPA) describing MST and SFE. Participants rated four attributes (effectiveness, acceptability/logicality, suitability/appropriateness, convenience) of each treatment on a 5-point Likert scale (0-4) with higher scores indicating higher ratings. An overall preference rating was calculated as the mean of the attribute ratings. The TPA was administered 12 months post treatment to reassess participants' ratings of the treatment they received.
resultsParticipants who received MST rated their preference for MST higher 12 months post treatment and participants who received SFE rated their preference for SFE lower. Smaller improvements (to worsening) in pain were associated with a reduction in preference ratings in the SFE group, whereas the MST group generally increased their ratings regardless of pain. Changes in disability were not related to changes in preference ratings.
conclusionsParticipants changed their preference ratings of two exercise-based treatments for LBP after exposure to the treatment. Participants who received the less familiar MST viewed this treatment more favorably 12 months post treatment, and this change was less contingent on changes in disability/pain than for participants in the SFE group. Assessing preference ratings at various times during treatment is crucial to understand a person's preference for and perceptions of a treatment.
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.