Trial reportEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2026
Effectiveness of Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pragmatic Study With a Waiting List Control Group.
Trial report in European journal of pain (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pragmatic Study With a Waiting List Control Group.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Trial
- Efficacy of Superficial Acupuncture Stimulation with Dynamic Mobilization in Chronic Neck Pain: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of pain 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSmall-scale care providers often encounter challenges in demonstrating the effectiveness of treatments through randomised controlled trials (RCTs) because of the high costs and organisational demands of RCTs. The current study examines the feasibility of evaluating a multidisciplinary treatment for chronic low back pain using a waiting list as a control group. MATERIAL AND
methodsOf 344 chronic pain patients referred to a Dutch outpatient rehabilitation clinic, 123 received treatment, while 88 were on a waiting list. The main effect parameters were pain (visual analogue scale), daily limitations (Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale), and fear of motion (Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia). Data were collected at the beginning of treatment, after 8 weeks, and after 3 months (follow-up), or after another 8 weeks for waitlist patients receiving treatment after the waiting list period.
resultsThe intervention group showed significant persistent improvement in relation to pain (54.1 ± 22.0 to 34.8 ± 23.6), daily limitations (45.1 ± 15.3 to 32.9 ± 15.4), and fear of motion (36.5 ± 8.5 to 30.0 ± 7.3). Subsequently, 51 subjects on the waiting list received treatment, with results similar to those of the initial intervention group. Dysfunctional pain coping strategies diminished during therapy. DISCUSSION: Multidisciplinary rehabilitation was shown to be more effective than being placed on a waiting list, even when participants were receiving other treatments. Small-scale, high-quality effect studies using a waiting list control group may have scientific potential. SIGNIFICANCE: RCT's are considered the gold standard in effect studies; however, due to financial, organisational, and ethical concerns, performing RCT's can be difficult for small-sized care settings that provide multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic back pain. As a result, these treatment options often do not receive sufficient scientific or clinical attention. This study demonstrates that alternative methodologically transparent effect studies using a "waiting list" control can be conducted in small-scale clinical settings with limited means.
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.