ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
A multicenter trial-based economic evaluation of a mobile health intervention for individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain: randomized controlled trial protocol.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06651099 (A Multicenter Trial-based Economic Evaluation of a Mobile Health Intervention for Individuals With Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain), which is not on this 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.
A Multicenter Trial-based Economic Evaluation of a Mobile Health Intervention for Individuals With Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial (eBack Trial)
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Innovative mHealth for addressing low back pain-related factors amongst lower-limb amputees: A quasi-experimental.African journal of disability · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP) is a prevalent and costly condition that encourages research into self-management strategies. Mobile health (mhealth) applications are promising interventions, but current evidence on their effectiveness is still conflicting. The aim is to investigate the (cost-)effectiveness of a supervised and personalized mhealth intervention, compared with conventional exercise therapy in individuals with CNLBP.
methodsA multicentre trial-based economic evaluation was designed to compare a mhealth intervention with conventional exercise. Participants will be recruited from two physical therapy rehabilitation clinics located within the participating centres. Adults aged between 18 and 59 years and with self-reported LBP > 12 weeks will be included. Following the collection of baseline data, participants will be randomly assigned to one of two groups using a permuted block randomization: (1) mhealth; (2) Conventional exercise delivered through a booklet. Outcome assessments will be conducted following randomisation at five distinct time points, resulting in a total follow-up period of 12 months. The primary clinical outcome is disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), while secondary outcomes include pain (NRS), utility (Eq. 5D5L), fears and beliefs (FABQ), self-efficacy (PSEQ), and global perceived effect. A sample size of 146 participants was estimated (73 allocated to each group) to detect a 2-point between-groups difference on disability. A cost-effectiveness study will be conducted alongside the trial, comparing the two interventions in terms of costs and clinical outcomes. DISCUSSION: While mhealth applications show promise as interventions for people with LBP, there is still a gap regarding the type of delivery and personalisation strategies. This study investigates whether the implementation of stratified and tailored care within a mobile application, based on patient-reported outcome measures and supervised by a physiotherapist, is (cost-)effective.
trial registrationNCT06651099 (registration date 21/10/2024).
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.