Trial reportPain2025
Complementary, integrative, and standard rehabilitative therapies in a military population with chronic predominantly musculoskeletal pain: a pragmatic clinical trial with SMART design.
Trial report in Pain, 2025. 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.
- Association of physical function and sleep with oxidative stress in adults with chronic pain: A pragmatic clinical trial secondary analysis.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractThere is growing acceptance for combining complementary and integrative health (CIH) therapies with standard rehabilitative care (SRC) for chronic pain management, yet little evidence on the best sequence of therapies. We investigated whether starting with CIH therapies or SRC is more effective in reducing pain impact. Participants were 280 service members with predominantly (88%) musculoskeletal chronic pain referred to an interdisciplinary pain management center who were randomized to a twice weekly program of either CIH therapies (n = 140) or SRC (n = 140) for the 3-week first stage of treatment. The composition of a second 3-week treatment stage depended upon response to the first stage. The primary outcome measure was the impact score (range 8-50) from the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low-Back Pain. Outcomes were measured after 3 and 6 weeks of treatment and at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Most participants were men (76.8%) and mean age was 34.7 years (SD 8.0). At end of stage 1, pain impact decreased significantly more in the CIH group (29.8 points [SD 7.2] at baseline to 26.3 points [SD 7.9], change of -3.3 points [95% confidence interval, -4.2 to -2.5]) than in the SRC group (30.8 [SD 7.6] to 29.4 [SD 7.8], change of -0.9 points [95% confidence interval, -1.8 to -0.1]; P < 0.001). No significant between-group differences were observed after 6 weeks of treatment nor at 3- or 6-month follow-ups. Complementary and integrative health therapies may provide earlier improvement in pain impact than SRC, but this difference is not sustained.
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.