ArticleBMJ open2026
More than biomechanics: how New Zealand manipulative physiotherapists and osteopaths conceptualise and manage upper back pain-a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore how physiotherapists and osteopaths who use manual therapy in New Zealand conceptualise, reason about and manage upper back pain (UBP), a clinically relevant but inconsistently defined musculoskeletal presentation.
designQualitative study using semistructured interviews and reflexive thematic analysis. The study was conducted and reported in accordance with best-practice qualitative guidance, including Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies.
settingPrivate and public musculoskeletal practice settings across New Zealand.
participants17 physiotherapists and osteopaths with a minimum of 2 years' clinical experience, recruited through national professional networks.
resultsData analysis resulted in the generation of four themes: (1) a fuzzy construct; (2) more than biomechanics; (3) hands-on leads to facilitate active care and (4) towards patient-centred care. The analysis revealed an interconnected progression across the key themes, which reflects not only the evolution of clinical practice but also the integration of contemporary evidence, highlighting a shift from intervention-focused to relationship-focused and collaborative care.
conclusionClinicians conceptualise UBP as a complex and multifaceted condition, increasingly managed through biopsychosocial reasoning, self-management strategies and patient-centred care. However, definitional ambiguity between UBP and thoracic spine pain, combined with profession-specific patterns, demonstrates the need for clearer terminology and greater interprofessional alignment. Further research incorporating patient perspectives is required to inform guideline development and promote coherent, evidence-informed care for UBP.
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.