Literature DB >> 21671419

Predicting response to a cognitive-behavioral approach to treating low back pain: Secondary analysis of the BeST data set.

Martin Underwood1, Dipesh Mistry, Ranjit Lall, Sallie Lamb.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Identifying factors that predict who is likely to gain the greatest benefit from different treatments for low back pain is an important research priority. Here we report moderator analyses of the Back Skills Training Trial (BeST) that tested a cognitive-behavioral approach for low back pain.
METHODS: We recruited 701 participants ages ≥18 years with at least moderately troublesome low back pain present for >6 weeks from 56 general practices in 7 localities across England to a trial adding a group cognitive-behavioral approach to active management advice. The cognitive-behavioral package had a moderate effect on primary outcomes (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ] and modified Von Korff scales). At 12-month followup, we tested for interaction between randomized groups on 2 prespecified baseline variables (troublesomeness and fear avoidance) and 10 post hoc (exploratory) variables identified from previous studies.
RESULTS: Neither troublesomeness nor fear avoidance moderated treatment effect on any of our primary outcomes. In the final model, the only moderation by baseline variables of the effect of randomization was on the RMDQ outcome. Being younger and currently working both moderated treatment effect, resulting in larger improvements as a response to treatment.
CONCLUSION: Although BeST is one of the larger trials of back pain treatment, it is still too small to reliably detect moderation if it exists. Since the significant moderation effects were only observed for 1 outcome measure in 3 of 10 post-hoc analyses, we cannot conclude that these are true moderation effects.
Copyright © 2011 by the American College of Rheumatology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21671419     DOI: 10.1002/acr.20518

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)        ISSN: 2151-464X            Impact factor:   4.794


  6 in total

Review 1.  The effect of journal impact factor, reporting conflicts, and reporting funding sources, on standardized effect sizes in back pain trials: a systematic review and meta-regression.

Authors:  Robert Froud; Tom Bjørkli; Philip Bright; Dévan Rajendran; Rachelle Buchbinder; Martin Underwood; David Evans; Sandra Eldridge
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 2.362

2.  Rational and design of an individual participant data meta-analysis of spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain-a protocol.

Authors:  A de Zoete; M R de Boer; M W van Tulder; S M Rubinstein; M Underwood; J A Hayden; J Kalter; R Ostelo
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2017-01-26

3.  Do recommended interventions widen or narrow inequalities in musculoskeletal health? An equity-focussed systematic review of differential effectiveness.

Authors:  G Peat; K P Jordan; R Wilkie; N Corp; D A van der Windt; D Yu; G Narle; N Ali
Journal:  J Public Health (Oxf)       Date:  2022-08-25       Impact factor: 5.058

4.  Results of a 2-week inpatient stay at the department for internal and integrative medicine: an observational study.

Authors:  Romy Lauche; Holger Cramer; Susanne Moebus; Anna Paul; Andreas Michalsen; Jost Langhorst; Gustav Dobos
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2012-10-24       Impact factor: 2.629

5.  Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain: protocol for an individual participant data meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jill A Hayden; Jennifer L Cartwright; Richard D Riley; Maurits W Vantulder
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2012-12-21

6.  Matching patients to an intervention for back pain: classifying patients using a latent class approach.

Authors:  Martine J Barons; Frances E Griffiths; Nick Parsons; Anca Alba; Margaret Thorogood; Graham F Medley; Sarah E Lamb
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2014-03-24       Impact factor: 2.431

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.