↓ Skip to main content

The Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioural Treatment for Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2015
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 (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
74 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
259 Mendeley
Title
The Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioural Treatment for Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0134192
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Richmond, Amanda M. Hall, Bethan Copsey, Zara Hansen, Esther Williamson, Nicolette Hoxey-Thomas, Zafra Cooper, Sarah E Lamb

Abstract

To assess whether cognitive behavioural (CB) approaches improve disability, pain, quality of life and/or work disability for patients with low back pain (LBP) of any duration and of any age. Nine databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to November 2014. Two independent reviewers rated trial quality and extracted trial data. Standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for individual trials. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model for two contrasts: CB versus no treatment (including wait-list and usual care (WL/UC)), and CB versus other guideline-based active treatment (GAT). The review included 23 studies with a total of 3359 participants. Of these, the majority studied patients with persistent LBP (>6 weeks; n=20). At long term follow-up, the pooled SMD for the WL/UC comparison was -0.19 (-0.38, 0.01) for disability, and -0.23 (-0.43, -0.04) for pain, in favour of CB. For the GAT comparison, at long term the pooled SMD was -0.83 (-1.46, -0.19) for disability and -0.48 (-0.93, -0.04) for pain, in favour of CB. While trials varied considerably in methodological quality, and in intervention factors such as provider, mode of delivery, dose, duration, and pragmatism, there were several examples of lower intensity, low cost interventions that were effective. CB interventions yield long-term improvements in pain, disability and quality of life in comparison to no treatment and other guideline-based active treatments for patients with LBP of any duration and of any age. PROSPERO protocol registration number: CRD42014010536.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 74 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 259 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 255 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 59 23%
Student > Bachelor 41 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 9%
Other 21 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 8%
Other 51 20%
Unknown 44 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 52 20%
Psychology 25 10%
Sports and Recreations 12 5%
Social Sciences 12 5%
Other 19 7%
Unknown 61 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 03 January 2021.
All research outputs
#546,443
of 17,641,103 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#8,591
of 166,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,929
of 241,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#271
of 6,021 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,641,103 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 166,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. 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 241,409 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 6,021 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 95% of its contemporaries.