Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42103375›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Comparing Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy with generalised exercise for chronic spinal pain in surgeons: protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

Claus Kjærgaard, Pascal Madeleine, Annett Dalbøge, Benjamin Steinhilber, Anne Vingaard Olesen, Tommy Kjærgaard Nielsen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07293130 (Protocol for a Pragmatic, Randomized Controlled, Parallel-group Superiority Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy Versus Generalized Exercise for Reducing Pain in Surgeons With Chronic Spinal Pain and a Directional Preference), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

NCT07293130 nanot yet recruitingnot on this map

Protocol for a Pragmatic, Randomized Controlled, Parallel-group Superiority Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy Versus Generalized Exercise for Reducing Pain in Surgeons With Chronic Spinal Pain and a Directional Preference

TypeinterventionalSponsorClaus KjærgaardRan2026 to 2027Enrolled62ConditionsChronic Spinal PainArmsMechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT), Generalized Exercise
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Claus KjærgaardDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark clauskja@dcm.aau.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-6251-0310
Pascal MadeleineDepartment of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Annett DalbøgeDepartment of Occupational Medicine, Danish Ramazzini Centre, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N, Denmark.
Benjamin SteinhilberInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Anne Vingaard OlesenResearch Data and Biostatistics, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Tommy Kjærgaard NielsenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionChronic musculoskeletal pain is an occupational health concern among surgeons, with spinal pain being commonly reported. Exercise-based physiotherapy is recommended for reducing chronic spinal pain; however, the treatment effects are modest and may vary across clinical subgroups. Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) is a classification-based approach that uses a standardised clinical examination to guide exercise-based interventions and self-management strategies, and may offer advantages over non-direction-specific generalised exercise in selected patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled superiority trial will compare MDT with generalised exercise in surgeons with chronic spinal pain and a confirmed directional preference, with a planned recruitment of 62 participants (31 per group). Participants will be randomised 1:1 using a computer-generated allocation sequence in Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), with stratification by sex and permuted blocks of undisclosed size. Interventions will be delivered in routine physiotherapy practice with flexible scheduling within predefined boundaries (maximum six supervised sessions; most expected within the first 12 weeks), with a follow-up period of 26 weeks.The primary outcome is the between-group difference in average pain intensity over the preceding 7 days at 12 weeks, measured using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale and adjusted for baseline pain intensity.The secondary and exploratory outcomes include functional limitations, health-related quality of life, fear of movement, pain catastrophising, pain self-efficacy, therapeutic alliance, exercise adherence and patient global impression of change, assessed at baseline and at 4, 12 and 26 weeks (where applicable). Treatment effects will be analysed using linear mixed-effects models under the intention-to-treat principle. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the North Denmark Region Committee on Health Research Ethics (N-20240046). The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT07293130.

Indexed as

Back PainChronic PainExercise TherapyOccupational DiseasesSurgeonsAdultEquivalence Trials as TopicFemaleHumansMaleMusculoskeletal PainPain MeasurementPragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicSpineBack painChronic PainExerciseMusculoskeletal disordersPAIN MANAGEMENT

Identifiers

PMID42103375
PMCPMC13157731

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.