↓ Skip to main content

A randomized clinical trial and subgroup analysis to compare flexion–distraction with active exercise for chronic low back pain

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, December 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
226 Mendeley
Title
A randomized clinical trial and subgroup analysis to compare flexion–distraction with active exercise for chronic low back pain
Published in
European Spine Journal, December 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00586-005-0021-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maruti Ram Gudavalli, Jerrilyn A. Cambron, Marion McGregor, James Jedlicka, Michael Keenum, Alexander J. Ghanayem, Avinash G. Patwardhan

Abstract

Many clinical trials on chiropractic management of low back pain have neglected to include specific forms of care. This study compared two well-defined treatment protocols. The objective was to compare the outcome of flexion-distraction (FD) procedures performed by chiropractors with an active trunk exercise protocol (ATEP) performed by physical therapists. A randomized clinical trial study design was used. Subjects, 18 years of age and older, with a primary complaint of low back pain (>3 months) were recruited. A 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) for perceived pain, the Roland Morris (RM) Questionnaire for low back function, and the SF-36 for overall health status served as primary outcome measures. Subjects were randomly allocated to receive either FD or ATEP. The FD intervention consisted of the application of flexion and traction applied to specific regions in the low back, with the aid of a specially designed manipulation table. The ATEP intervention included stabilizing and flexibility exercises, the use of modalities, and cardiovascular training. A total of 235 subjects met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and signed the informed consent. Of these, 123 were randomly allocated to FD and 112 to the ATEP. Study patients perceived significantly less pain and better function after intervention, regardless of which group they were allocated to (P<0.01). Subjects randomly allocated to the flexion-distraction group had significantly greater relief from pain than those allocated to the exercise program (P=0.01). Subgroup analysis indicated that subjects categorized as chronic, with moderate to severe symptoms, improved most with the flexion-distraction protocol. Subjects categorized with recurrent pain and moderate to severe symptoms improved most with the exercise program. Patients with radiculopathy did significantly better with FD. There were no significant differences between groups on the Roland Morris and SF-36 outcome measures. Overall, flexion-distraction provided more pain relief than active exercise; however, these results varied based on stratification of patients with and without radiculopathy and with and without recurrent symptoms. The subgroup analysis provides a possible explanation for contrasting results among randomized clinical trials of chronic low back pain treatments and these results also provide guidance for future work in the treatment of chronic low back pain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 220 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 16%
Researcher 27 12%
Student > Bachelor 26 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 7%
Other 45 20%
Unknown 53 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 19%
Sports and Recreations 15 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 61 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 May 2023.
All research outputs
#4,179,534
of 23,717,467 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#434
of 4,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,598
of 151,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#6
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,717,467 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,864 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 151,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.