Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37420107›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2023

Randomized-controlled trial assessing a digital care program versus conventional physiotherapy for chronic low back pain.

Di Cui, Dora Janela, Fabíola Costa, Maria Molinos, Anabela C Areias, Robert G Moulder, Justin K Scheer, Virgílio Bento, Steven P Cohen, Vijay Yanamadala and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 5 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.

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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

11 authors.

Di CuiPhysical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, Georgia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2680-1813
Dora JanelaSword Health, Inc., Draper, UT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8440-2044
Fabíola CostaSword Health, Inc., Draper, UT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8981-7049
Maria MolinosSword Health, Inc., Draper, UT, USA.
Anabela C AreiasSword Health, Inc., Draper, UT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1807-7386
Robert G MoulderInstitute for Cognitive Science, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7504-9560
Justin K ScheerDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2536-601X
Virgílio BentoSword Health, Inc., Draper, UT, USA.
Steven P CohenDepartments of Anesthesiology & Critical Care Medicine, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Neurology, and Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Vijay YanamadalaDepartment of Surgery, Quinnipiac University Frank H. Netter School of Medicine, Hamden, CT, USA.
Fernando Dias CorreiaNeurology Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário do Porto, Porto, Portugal. fcorreia@swordhealth.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8028-926X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Low back pain (LBP) is the world's leading cause of years lived with disability. Digital exercise-based interventions have shown great potential in the management of musculoskeletal conditions, promoting access and easing the economic burden. However, evidence of their effectiveness for chronic LBP (CLBP) management compared to in-person physiotherapy has yet to be unequivocally established. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aims to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with CLBP following a digital intervention versus evidence-based in-person physiotherapy. Our results demonstrate that patient satisfaction and adherence were high and similar between groups, although a significantly lower dropout rate is observed in the digital group (11/70, 15.7% versus 24/70, 34.3% in the conventional group; P = 0.019). Both groups experience significant improvements in disability (primary outcome), with no differences between groups in change from baseline (median difference: -0.55, 95% CI: -2.42 to 5.81, P = 0.412) or program-end scores (-1.05, 95% CI: -4.14 to 6.37; P = 0.671). Likewise, no significant differences between groups are found for secondary outcomes (namely pain, anxiety, depression, and overall productivity impairment). This RCT demonstrates that a remote digital intervention for CLBP can promote the same levels of recovery as evidence-based in-person physiotherapy, being a potential avenue to ease the burden of CLBP.

Identifiers

PMID37420107
PMCPMC10329005

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.