↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Exercise therapy for treatment of acute non‐specific low back pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2023
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
161 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
344 Mendeley
Title
Exercise therapy for treatment of acute non‐specific low back pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2023
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009365.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wilhelmina IJzelenberg, Teddy Oosterhuis, Jill A Hayden, Bart W Koes, Maurits W van Tulder, Sidney M Rubinstein, Annemarie de Zoete

Abstract

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability globally. It generates considerable direct costs (healthcare) and indirect costs (lost productivity). The many available treatments for LBP include exercise therapy, which is practised extensively worldwide. To evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise therapy for acute non-specific low back pain in adults compared to sham/placebo treatment or no treatment at short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term follow-up. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. We conducted an updated search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two trial registers. We screened the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews published since 2004. We included RCTs that examined the effects of exercise therapy on non-specific LBP lasting six weeks or less in adults. Major outcomes for this review were pain, functional status, and perceived recovery. Minor outcomes were return to work, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. Our main comparisons were exercise therapy versus sham/placebo treatment and exercise therapy versus no treatment. We used standard Cochrane methods. We evaluated outcomes at short-term follow-up (time point within three months and closest to six weeks after randomisation; main follow-up), intermediate-term follow-up (between nine months and closest to six months), and long-term follow-up (after nine months and closest to 12 months); and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. We included 23 studies (13 from the previous review, 10 new studies) that involved 2674 participants and provided data for 2637 participants. Three small studies are awaiting classification, and four eligible studies are ongoing. Included studies were conducted in Europe (N = 9), the Asia-Pacific region (N = 9), and North America (N = 5); and most took place in a primary care setting (N = 12), secondary care setting (N = 6), or both (N = 1). In most studies, the population was middle-aged and included men and women. We judged 10 studies (43%) at low risk of bias with regard to sequence generation and allocation concealment. Blinding is not feasible in exercise therapy, introducing performance and detection bias. There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain scores in the short term (mean difference (MD) -0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.79 to 4.19; 1 study, 299 participants). The absolute difference was 1% less pain (95% CI 4% more to 6% less), and the relative difference was 4% less pain (95% CI 20% more to 28% less). The mean pain score was 20.1 (standard deviation (SD) 21) for the intervention group and 20.9 (SD 23) for the control group. There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on functional status scores in the short term (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.20 to 6.20; 1 study, 299 participants). The absolute difference was 2% worse functional status (95% CI 2% better to 6% worse), and the relative difference was 15% worse (95% CI 17% better to 47% worse). The mean functional status score was 15.3 (SD 19) for the intervention group and 13.3 (SD 18) for the control group. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for pain and functional status by one level for risk of bias and by two levels for imprecision (only one study with fewer than 400 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with no treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term (2 studies, 157 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by two levels for imprecision and by one level for inconsistency. One study associated exercise with small benefits and the other found no differences. The first study was conducted in an occupational healthcare centre, where participants received one exercise therapy session. The other study was conducted in secondary and tertiary care settings, where participants received treatment three times per week for six weeks. We did not pool data from these studies owing to considerable clinical heterogeneity. In two studies, there were no reported adverse events. One study reported adverse events unrelated to exercise therapy. The remaining studies did not report whether any adverse events had occurred. Owing to insufficient reporting of adverse events, we were unable to reach any conclusions on the safety or harms related to exercise therapy. Exercise therapy compared to sham/placebo treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. Exercise therapy compared to no treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low for inconsistency, risk of bias concerns, and imprecision (few participants).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 161 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 344 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 2%
United Kingdom 5 1%
Germany 2 <1%
New Zealand 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 323 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 13%
Unspecified 41 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 10%
Researcher 34 10%
Student > Bachelor 29 8%
Other 106 31%
Unknown 55 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 116 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 13%
Unspecified 41 12%
Sports and Recreations 20 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Other 45 13%
Unknown 69 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 98. 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 15 February 2024.
All research outputs
#436,111
of 25,641,627 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#760
of 13,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,203
of 356,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,641,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,153 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 356,714 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.