Trial reportArthritis care & research2026
Testing a Personalized Approach to Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Older Veterans.
Trial report in Arthritis care & research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to test the efficacy of personalized treatment of older veterans with chronic low back pain (CLBP) delivered by Aging Back Clinics (ABCs) as compared with usual care (UC).
methodsTwo hundred ninety-nine veterans aged 65 to 89 with CLBP from three Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers underwent baseline testing, randomization to ABC or UC, and 12 months of follow-up. ABC care was guided by trained physicians and published algorithms targeting key conditions contributing to CLBP (eg, hip osteoarthritis, depression, fibromyalgia). UC was guided by the participant's primary care provider. The primary outcome was six-month change in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Among multiple secondary outcomes were pain intensity, quality of life (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]-Global Health), self-reported physical function (PROMIS-29), falls, life space, and health care utilization collected at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Analyses were conducted according to intention-to-treat.
resultsThere were no significant group differences in ODI change. Greater improvement with ABC in the PROMIS-29 physical function scale was observed at 12 months (1.7 vs -0.4 points), PROMIS Global physical health at 6 (1.3 vs -1.2) and 12 months (0.7 vs -1.5), PROMIS Global mental health at 6 months (0.2 vs -2.3), and present and prior week average/worst pain over 12 months (all P < 0.05). There were marginally fewer falls over 12 months (P = 0.0527).
conclusionWe did not find confirmatory evidence that personalized care (ABC) was superior with respect to ODI. We did find preliminary evidence that ABC was superior in other respects including improved self-reported physical health, less pain, and fewer falls.
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.