ArticleGlobal advances in integrative medicine and health
Nonpharmacologic Back Pain Treatment Use and Associated Patient Reported Outcomes in US-Based Integrative Medicine Clinics.
Article in Global advances in integrative medicine and health. 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.
- An introduction to implementation science in rehabilitation medicine.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The integrative medicine (IM) clinic is an innovative care model that may increase access to guideline-concordant nonpharmacologic treatment use in healthcare delivery systems for prevalent conditions such as low back pain (LBP). Objective: To describe the use and effectiveness of IM services for LBP in IM clinics. Research Design: Prospective cohort study. Subjects: Adult patients with LBP enrolled at seventeen IM clinics. Measures: Patterns of IM service use were assessed over 12 months. Changes in clinical outcomes were assessed between index visit and 12-month follow-up using linear mixed-effects models. Primary (pain interference, physical function) and secondary (pain intensity, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, social participation) outcomes were obtained from the PROMIS-29 instrument. Results: We identified 660 participants with LBP (mean age = 51.6 years, 75% female). Over the 12-month study period, common IM services were IM consults (56%), acupuncture (44%), chiropractic care (24%), physical therapy (19%), and massage (17%). Over two-thirds (70%) of participants received at least one guideline-concordant nonpharmacologic treatment. Participants with follow-up outcome data (n = 443, 67%) reported a modest reduction in pain interference with life activities in the short- and long-term (2-month mean difference [MD] = -1.47, 95%CI = -2.98, -0.64; 12-month MD = -1.98, 95%CI = -3.12, -0.88). By contrast, improvements in physical function were not statistically or clinically significant (2-month MD = 0.37, 95%CI = -0.28, 1.01; 12-month MD = 0.69, 95%CI = -0.31, 1.69). At 12 months, small improvements were observed on all secondary outcomes (pain intensity, anxiety, depression, and social participation) except fatigue and sleep disturbance. Conclusions: Most patients with LBP receiving care at IM clinics received at least one guideline-recommended nonpharmacologic treatment. However, improvements on clinical outcomes were relatively small. Additional multi-site studies are needed to explore the optimal implementation approach.
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.