Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40618179›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2025

Virtual Intervention for Vertebral frActures (VIVA): protocol for a feasibility study of a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

Ada Sevinc, Alexandra Papaioannou, Suzanne N Morin, Jennifer A Watt, Raheem B Kherani, Sheila Brien, Larry Funnell, Lehana Thabane, Lauren A Beaupre, Jenna C Gibbs and 10 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06650410 (Virtual Intervention for Vertebral frActure), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT06650410 nacompletednot on this map

Virtual Intervention for Vertebral frActure: a Pilot, Feasibility Study for a Multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of WaterlooRan2025 to 2026Enrolled34ConditionsOsteoporosis, Fractures, SpinalArmsVirtual Intervention for Vertebral Fractures (VIVA)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

20 authors.

Ada SevincDepartment of Kinesiology and Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Alexandra PapaioannouDivision of Geriatric Medicine & Rheumatology and Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Suzanne N MorinDepartment of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Jennifer A WattDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Raheem B KheraniDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Arthritis Research Canada, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Sheila BrienOsteoporosis Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Larry FunnellOsteoporosis Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Lehana ThabaneDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Lauren A BeaupreDepartment of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Jenna C GibbsDepartment of Kinesiology and Physical Education, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Heather KellerSchlegel Research Institute for Aging and Department of Kinesiology and Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Caitlin McArthurSchool of Physiotherapy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Matteo PonzanoSchool of Health and Exercise Sciences and International Collaboration On Repair Discoveries (ICORD), Blusson Spinal Cord Centre (BSCC), The University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC, Canada.
Sonia SinghDepartment of Family Practice, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Sharon StrausGeriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Knowledge Translation Program, St. Michael's Hospital, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jenny ThainDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Zachary J WestonCanadian Society for Exercise Physiology, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Timothy H WidemanSchool of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Christopher D WitiwDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Lora GiangregorioSchlegel Research Institute for Aging and Department of Kinesiology and Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada. lora.giangregorio@uwaterloo.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3739-1805

Funding

CIHR SCT-191277
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVertebral fractures due to osteoporosis cause significant pain and disability. There is guidance available on the management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures, informed by systematic reviews and a consensus process. However, few studies examine whether implementing pragmatic and patient-oriented rehabilitation interventions can improve outcomes for individuals with a vertebral fracture.

methodsThe purpose of the study is to investigate the feasibility of a multicentre randomized controlled trial of an 8-week virtual rehabilitation intervention for people with an osteoporotic vertebral fracture in Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec. The design is a multicentre randomized controlled trial with two parallel groups randomized in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by centre to immediate or delayed (10 weeks after randomization) receipt of the Virtual Intervention for Vertebral frActures (VIVA). Four centres will each recruit eight individuals (total n = 32) over the age of 50 who have had at least one vertebral fracture in the past 2 years confirmed by a radiology report. VIVA involves once weekly virtual rehabilitation sessions delivered over 8 weeks by an exercise professional, covering four areas: pain management, safe movement, exercise, and nutrition. Exercise professional provides resources and prescribes exercise therapy for participants to implement outside of the scheduled sessions. The primary feasibility outcomes are recruitment, retention, and adherence, and criteria for success are as follows: (a) recruiting eight people per site in 5 months, (b) 80% of participants completing the trial, and (c) 75% adherence to the virtual rehabilitation sessions. The secondary outcomes include costs relative to benefit, effects on health-related outcomes (e.g. 30-s chair stand, Brief Pain Inventory, Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis-41, SCREEN-14), and outcomes related to implementation (e.g. participant and provider experience using semi-structured interviews, fidelity, number of screened and enrolled participants by referral source, fracture verification process). Descriptive analyses (e.g. mean, count, percentage) will be performed for primary feasibility outcomes and secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: The results will establish the feasibility of a future trial investigating the effectiveness of the VIVA intervention in people with an osteoporotic vertebral fracture.

trial registrationThe trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on October 21, 2024 (NCT06650410), https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06650410 .

Indexed as

ExerciseFeasibilityOsteoporosisRehabilitationVertebral fracture

Identifiers

PMID40618179
PMCPMC12228205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.