↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review on the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
7 policy sources
twitter
16 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
13 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
545 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1369 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
A systematic review on the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain
Published in
European Spine Journal, July 2010
DOI 10.1007/s00586-010-1518-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marienke van Middelkoop, Sidney M. Rubinstein, Ton Kuijpers, Arianne P. Verhagen, Raymond Ostelo, Bart W. Koes, Maurits W. van Tulder

Abstract

Low back pain (LBP) is a common and disabling disorder in western society. The management of LBP comprises a range of different intervention strategies including surgery, drug therapy, and non-medical interventions. The objective of the present study is to determine the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions (i.e. exercise therapy, back school, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), low level laser therapy, education, massage, behavioural treatment, traction, multidisciplinary treatment, lumbar supports, and heat/cold therapy) for chronic LBP. The primary search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PEDro up to 22 December 2008. Existing Cochrane reviews for the individual interventions were screened for studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. The search strategy outlined by the Cochrane Back Review Groups (CBRG) was followed. The following were included for selection criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials, (2) adult (≥ 18 years) population with chronic (≥ 12 weeks) non-specific LBP, and (3) evaluation of at least one of the main clinically relevant outcome measures (pain, functional status, perceived recovery, or return to work). Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes at short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up. The GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence. In total 83 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria: exercise therapy (n = 37), back school (n = 5), TENS (n = 6), low level laser therapy (n = 3), behavioural treatment (n = 21), patient education (n = 1), traction (n = 1), and multidisciplinary treatment (n = 6). Compared to usual care, exercise therapy improved post-treatment pain intensity and disability, and long-term function. Behavioural treatment was found to be effective in reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Finally, multidisciplinary treatment was found to reduce pain intensity and disability at short-term follow-up compared to no treatment/waiting list controls. Overall, the level of evidence was low. Evidence from randomized controlled trials demonstrates that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of exercise therapy compared to usual care, there is low evidence for the effectiveness of behavioural therapy compared to no treatment and there is moderate evidence for the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary treatment compared to no treatment and other active treatments at reducing pain at short-term in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Based on the heterogeneity of the populations, interventions, and comparison groups, we conclude that there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusion on the clinical effect of back schools, low-level laser therapy, patient education, massage, traction, superficial heat/cold, and lumbar supports for chronic LBP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 1,369 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 <1%
Switzerland 3 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Netherlands 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Other 12 <1%
Unknown 1333 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 227 17%
Student > Master 225 16%
Researcher 115 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 111 8%
Student > Postgraduate 102 7%
Other 304 22%
Unknown 285 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 487 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 202 15%
Sports and Recreations 112 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 3%
Psychology 37 3%
Other 156 11%
Unknown 337 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 06 October 2022.
All research outputs
#715,365
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#58
of 5,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,899
of 109,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#3
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,388 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 109,466 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.