Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42616499›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2026

Lumbar Belt for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Laurent Grange, Paul Calmels, Yves-Marie Pers, Guillaume Laustriat, Valérie Wieczorek, Nassima Saih, Mathieu De-Sèze, Christelle Nguyen, Camille Daste, Isabelle Fayolle-Minon and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network 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 NCT04701073 (Lumbar Belt Benefit Compared to the Usual Care in the Treatment of Non-specific Low Back Pain -an Interventional, Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Open and Controlled Study), 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.

NCT04701073 nacompletednot on this map

Lumbar Belt Benefit Compared to the Usual Care in the Treatment of Non-specific Low Back Pain -an Interventional, Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Open and Controlled Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorThuasneRan2021 to 2024Enrolled168ConditionsLow Back PainArmsLombaStab belt
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

12 authors.

Laurent GrangeUniversity Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, Rheumatology Department, Sud Hospital, Grenoble, France.
Paul CalmelsInter-University Laboratory of Human Movement Biology, Physical Ability and Fatigue in Health and Disease Team (F-42023), Universities of Saint-Etienne Jean Monnet, Lyon 1, & Savoie Mont-Blanc, Saint-Etienne, France.
Yves-Marie PersInstitute for Regenerative Medicine and Biotherapy, Univ Montpellier, INSERM UMR 1183, Clinical Immunology and Osteoarticular Diseases Therapeutic Unit, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Guillaume LaustriatDepartment of Rheumatology, Tarbes-Lourdes Hospital, Tarbes, France.
Valérie WieczorekPôle RRSS, Lille CHU Hospital, Lille, France.
Nassima SaihRheumatology Department, Protestant Infirmary, Caluire-et-Cuire, France.
Mathieu De-SèzeDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Bordeaux CHU Hospital, Bordeaux, France.
Christelle NguyenAP-HP Paris City University: Rehabilitation Service for the Locomotor System and Spinal Pathologies, Cochin Hospital, Paris, France.
Camille DasteAP-HP Paris City University: Rehabilitation Service for the Locomotor System and Spinal Pathologies, Cochin Hospital, Paris, France.
Isabelle Fayolle-MinonDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne - Bellevue Hospital, Saint-Etienne, France.
Emmanuel CoudeyreDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation-INRAE, UNH, Clermont-Ferrand CHU Hospital, Clermont Auvergne University, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
François RannouAP-HP Paris City University: Rehabilitation Service for the Locomotor System and Spinal Pathologies, Cochin Hospital, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Nonspecific low back pain is highly prevalent and disabling. Most current guidelines state that evidence is insufficient to recommend lumbar belts for this condition. Objective: To determine whether a soft and extensible lumbar belt reduces functional disability and pain in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial was conducted at 17 medical centers across France from February 26, 2021, to March 28, 2024. Participants were adults with nonspecific low back pain lasting 1 to 6 months. Data were analyzed from August 7, 2024, to June 18, 2025. Interventions: Patients were randomized using an interactive web response system to wear a nonrigid lumbar belt for 12 weeks in addition to usual care or to receive usual care without a device. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the between-group difference in mean change in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score from baseline to week 12. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, week 4, and week 12; pain was also reported weekly using online questionnaires. Results: At total of 168 patients were randomized (mean [SD] age, 49.0 [13.7] years; 101 women [60.1%]), with 86 participants in the belt group and 82 participants in the usual care group. The primary analysis included 155 patients with at least 1 postrandomization assessment (81 patients in the belt group; 74 patients in the control group). ODI improvement from baseline to week 12 was greater in the belt group (change, -10.0 [95% CI, -13.0 to -7.0] points) than in the control group (change, -5.3 [95% CI, -8.6 to -2.1] points), with a between-group difference of -4.7 (95% CI, -8.4 to -0.9) points (P = .01). Reductions in pain at rest and during activity were also greater in the belt group, with between-group differences of -8.7 (95% CI, -16.1 to -1.3) points (P = .02) and -10.0 (95% CI, -18.3 to -1.6) points (P = .02), respectively. Over 12 weeks, medication use was lower in the belt group than in the control group (41 patients [50.6%] vs 50 patients [67.6%]; P = .03). No serious device-related adverse events occurred. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, adding a nonrigid lumbar belt to usual care resulted in improved pain and functional disability in patients with nonspecific low back pain lasting 1 to 6 months. These findings suggest that lumbar belts may be considered as a nonpharmacological option for symptom management. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04701073.

Indexed as

Low Back PainAdultDisability EvaluationFemaleFranceHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID42616499
PMCPMC13491113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.