↓ Skip to main content

Behavioural treatment for chronic low-back pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
5 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
19 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
270 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
478 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Behavioural treatment for chronic low-back pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002014.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas Henschke, Raymond WJG Ostelo, Maurits W van Tulder, Johan WS Vlaeyen, Stephen Morley, Willem JJ Assendelft, Chris J. Main

Abstract

Behavioural treatment is commonly used in the management of chronic low-back pain (CLBP) to reduce disability through modification of maladaptive pain behaviours and cognitive processes. Three behavioural approaches are generally distinguished: operant, cognitive, and respondent; but are often combined as a treatment package. To determine the effects of behavioural therapy for CLBP and the most effective behavioural approach. The Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched up to February 2009. Reference lists and citations of identified trials and relevant systematic reviews were screened. Randomised trials on behavioural treatments for non-specific CLBP were included. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in each study and extracted the data. If sufficient homogeneity existed among studies in the pre-defined comparisons, a meta-analysis was performed. We determined the quality of the evidence for each comparison with the GRADE approach. We included 30 randomised trials (3438 participants) in this review, up 11 from the previous version. Fourteen trials (47%) had low risk of bias. For most comparisons, there was only low or very low quality evidence to support the results. There was moderate quality evidence that:i) operant therapy was more effective than waiting list (SMD -0.43; 95%CI -0.75 to -0.11) for short-term pain relief;ii) little or no difference exists between operant, cognitive, or combined behavioural therapy for short- to intermediate-term pain relief;iii) behavioural treatment was more effective than usual care for short-term pain relief (MD -5.18; 95%CI -9.79 to -0.57), but there were no differences in the intermediate- to long-term, or on functional status;iv) there was little or no difference between behavioural treatment and group exercise for pain relief or depressive symptoms over the intermediate- to long-term;v) adding behavioural therapy to inpatient rehabilitation was no more effective than inpatient rehabilitation alone. For patients with CLBP, there is moderate quality evidence that in the short-term, operant therapy is more effective than waiting list and behavioural therapy is more effective than usual care for pain relief, but no specific type of behavioural therapy is more effective than another. In the intermediate- to long-term, there is little or no difference between behavioural therapy and group exercises for pain or depressive symptoms. Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect and may change the estimates.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 478 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 1%
Australia 3 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
New Zealand 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 455 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 82 17%
Student > Bachelor 67 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 61 13%
Researcher 47 10%
Other 35 7%
Other 132 28%
Unknown 54 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 174 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 65 14%
Unspecified 61 13%
Psychology 54 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 4%
Other 53 11%
Unknown 54 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. 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 17 May 2018.
All research outputs
#254,734
of 13,019,888 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#679
of 10,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,433
of 106,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,019,888 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 10,444 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 106,811 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 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.