↓ Skip to main content

Back Schools for chronic non-specific low back pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
45 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
193 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Back Schools for chronic non-specific low back pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011674.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrícia Parreira, Martijn W Heymans, Maurits W van Tulder, Rosmin Esmail, Bart W Koes, Nolwenn Poquet, Chung-Wei Christine Lin, Christopher G Maher

Abstract

Many people with low back pain (LBP) become frequent users of healthcare services in their attempt to find treatments that minimise the severity of their symptoms. Back School consists of a therapeutic programme given to groups of people that includes both education and exercise. However, the content of Back School has changed over time and appears to vary widely today. This review is an update of a Cochrane review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of Back School. We split the Cochrane review into two reviews, one focusing on acute and subacute LBP, and one on chronic LBP. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effect of Back School on pain and disability for adults with chronic non-specific LBP; we included adverse events as a secondary outcome. In trials that solely recruited workers, we also examined the effect on work status. We searched for trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, two other databases and two trials registers to 15 November 2016. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers and consulted experts in the field of LBP management to identify any potentially relevant studies we may have missed. We placed no limitations on language or date of publication. We included only RCTs and quasi-RCTs evaluating pain, disability, and/or work status as outcomes. The primary outcomes for this update were pain and disability, and the secondary outcomes were work status and adverse events. Two review authors independently performed the 'Risk of bias' assessment of the included studies using the 'Risk of bias' assessment tool recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. We summarised the results for the short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-ups. We evaluated the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. For the outcome pain, at short-term follow-up, we found very low-quality evidence that Back School is more effective than no treatment (mean difference (MD) -6.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.18 to -2.01). However, we found very low-quality evidence that there is no significant difference between Back School and no treatment at intermediate-term (MD -4.34, 95% CI -14.37 to 5.68) or long-term follow-up (MD -12.16, 95% CI -29.14 to 4.83). There was very low-quality evidence that Back School reduces pain at short-term follow-up compared to medical care (MD -10.16, 95% CI -19.11 to -1.22). Very low-quality evidence showed there to be no significant difference between Back School and medical care at intermediate-term (MD -9.65, 95% CI -22.46 to 3.15) or long-term follow-up (MD -5.71, 95% CI -20.27 to 8.84). We found very low-quality evidence that Back School is no more effective than passive physiotherapy at short-term (MD 1.96, 95% CI -9.51 to 13.43), intermediate-term (MD -16.89, 95% CI -66.56 to 32.79), or long-term follow-up (MD -12.86, 95% CI -61.22 to 35.50). There was very low-quality evidence that Back School is no better than exercise at short- term follow-up (MD -2.06, 95% CI -14.58 to 10.45). There was low-quality evidence that Back School is no better than exercise at intermediate-term (MD -4.46, 95% CI -19.44 to 10.52) and long-term follow-up (MD 4.58, 95% CI -0.20 to 9.36).For the outcome disability, we found very low-quality evidence that Back School is no more effective than no treatment at intermediate-term (MD -5.92, 95% CI -12.08 to 0.23) and long-term follow-up (MD -7.36, 95% CI -22.05 to 7.34); medical care at short-term (MD -1.19, 95% CI -7.02 to 4.64) and long-term follow-up (MD -0.40, 95% CI -7.33 to 6.53); passive physiotherapy at short-term (MD 2.57, 95% CI -15.88 to 21.01) and intermediate-term follow-up (MD 6.88, 95% CI -4.86 to 18.63); and exercise at short-term (MD -1.65, 95% CI -8.66 to 5.37), intermediate-term (MD 1.57, 95% CI -3.86 to 7.00), and long-term follow-up (MD 4.54, 95% CI -4.44 to 13.52). We found very low-quality evidence of a small difference between Back School and no treatment at short-term follow-up (MD -3.38, 95% CI -6.70 to -0.05) and medical care at intermediate-term follow-up (MD -6.34, 95% CI -10.89 to -1.79). Still, at long-term follow-up there was very low-quality evidence that passive physiotherapy is better than Back School (MD 9.60, 95% CI 3.65 to 15.54).Few studies measured adverse effects. The results were reported as means without standard deviations or group size was not reported. Due to this lack of information, we were unable to statistically pool the adverse events data. Work status was not reported. Due to the low- to very low-quality of the evidence for all treatment comparisons, outcomes, and follow-up periods investigated, it is uncertain if Back School is effective for chronic low back pain. Although the quality of the evidence was mostly very low, the results showed no difference or a trivial effect in favour of Back School. There are myriad potential variants on the Back School approach regarding the employment of different exercises and educational methods. While current evidence does not warrant their use, future variants on Back School may have different effects and will need to be studied in future RCTs and reviews.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 193 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Unknown 189 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 21%
Unspecified 24 12%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Researcher 20 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Other 67 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 22%
Unspecified 31 16%
Psychology 12 6%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Other 25 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 26 January 2019.
All research outputs
#410,819
of 12,452,184 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,130
of 8,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,605
of 263,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#34
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,452,184 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 8,628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 263,512 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.