↓ Skip to main content

Short-term effect on pain and function of neurophysiological education and sensorimotor retraining compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with chronic or recurrent non-specific low back pain, a…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
484 Mendeley
Title
Short-term effect on pain and function of neurophysiological education and sensorimotor retraining compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with chronic or recurrent non-specific low back pain, a pilot randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12891-015-0533-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philipp Wälti, Jan Kool, Hannu Luomajoki

Abstract

Non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) is a major health problem. Identification of subgroups and appropriate treatment regimen was proposed as a key priority by the Cochrane Back Review Group. We developed a multimodal treatment (MMT) for patients with moderate to severe disability and medium risk of poor outcome. MMT includes a) neurophysiological education on the perception of pain to decrease self-limitation due to catastrophizing believes about the nature of NSCLBP, b) sensory training of the lower trunk because these patients predominantly show poor sensory acuity of the trunk, and c) motor training to regain definite movement control of the trunk. A pilot study was conducted to investigate the feasibility of MMT, prior to a larger RCT, with focus on patients' adherence and the evaluation of short-term effects on pain and disability of MMT when compared to usual physiotherapy. We conducted a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in a primary care physiotherapy centre in Switzerland. Outcome assessment was 12 weeks after baseline. Patients with NSCLBP, considerable disability (five or more points on the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and medium or high risk of poor outcome on the Keele Start Back Tool (KSBT) were randomly allocated to either MMT or usual physiotherapy treatment (UPT) by an independent research assistant. Treatment included up to 16 sessions over 8 to 12 weeks. Both groups were given additional home training of 10 to 30 minutes to be performed five times per week. Adherence to treatment was evaluated in order to assess the feasibility of the treatment. Assessments were conducted by an independent blinded person. The primary outcome was pain (NRS 0-10) and the secondary outcome was disability (RMDQ). Between-group effects with Student's t-test or the Mann-Whitney U test and the standardized mean difference of the primary outcome were calculated. Twenty-eight patients (46% male, mean age 41.5 years (SD 10.6)) were randomized to MMT (n = 14) or UPT (n = 14). Patients' adherence to treatment was >80% in both groups. Pain reduction (NRS; [95%CI]) was 2.14 [1.0 to 3.5] in the MMT and 0.69 [-2.0 to 2.5.] in the UPT. The between-group difference was 1.45 [0.0 to 4.0] (p = 0.03), representing a moderate effect size of 0.66 [-0.1 to 1.5]. Reduction in disability on the RMDQ was 6.71 [4.2 to 9.3] in MMT and 4.69 [1.9 to 7.4] in UPT, with a non-significant between-group difference of 2.02 [-1.5 to 5.6] (p = 0.25). The required sample size for a RCT with six months follow-up was estimated at 170 patients. MMT was found to be feasible and to significantly reduce pain in the short term when compared with UPT. A future RCT with a six-month follow-up would require approximately 170 patients. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66262199 . Registered 8 January 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 484 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 472 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 94 19%
Student > Bachelor 75 15%
Researcher 40 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 7%
Student > Postgraduate 26 5%
Other 89 18%
Unknown 126 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 129 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 101 21%
Sports and Recreations 29 6%
Neuroscience 13 3%
Unspecified 12 2%
Other 57 12%
Unknown 143 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 April 2017.
All research outputs
#13,958,854
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,030
of 4,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,435
of 264,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#33
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,045 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 264,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.