Cited by 71Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedical Practices and RehabilitationSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology

Prognostic factors for perceived recovery or functional improvement in non-specific low back pain: secondary analyses of three randomized clinical trials

Open access
Helmhout, Pieter H., Staal, J. Bart, Heymans, Martijn W., Harts, Chris C., Hendriks, Erik J. M., de Bie, Rob A.·2010·European Spine Journal

Abstract

The objective of this study was to report on secondary analyses of a merged trial dataset aimed at exploring the potential importance of patient factors associated with clinically relevant improvements in non-acute, non-specific low back pain (LBP). From 273 predominantly male army workers (mean age 39 +/- 10.5 years, range 20-56 years, 4 women) with LBP who were recruited in three randomized clinical trials, baseline individual patient factors, pain-related factors, work-related psychosocial factors, and psychological factors were evaluated as potential prognostic variables in a short-term (post-treatment) and a long-term logistic regression model (6 months after treatment). We found one dominant prognostic factor for improvement directly after treatment as well as 6 months later: baseline functional disability, expressed in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores. Baseline fear of movement, expressed in Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia scores, had also significant prognostic value for long-term improvement. Less strongly associated with the outcome, but also included in our final models, were supervisor social support and duration of complaints (short-term model), and co-worker social support and pain radiation (long-term model). Information about initial levels of functional disability and fear-avoidance behaviour can be of value in the treatment of patient populations with characteristics comparable to the current army study population (e.g., predominantly male, physically active, working, moderate but chronic back problems). Individuals at risk for poor long-term LBP recovery, i.e., individuals with high initial level of disability and prominent fear-avoidance behaviour, can be distinguished that may need additional cognitive-behavioural treatment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00586-009-1254-8

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Musculoskeletal pain, rheumatoid arthritis, gastrointestinal, neuropathic, facial pain, and headache are all more prevalent in females than males.

    “musculoskeletal pain, rheumatoid arthritis, gastrointestinal, neuropathic, facial pain and headache are all more prevalent among females compared to males 156–160.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Helmhout, P. H., Staal, J. B., Heymans, M. W., Harts, C. C., Hendriks, E. J. M., & de Bie, R. A.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Helmhout, Pieter H.
Venue
European Spine Journal
Published
2009-12-25
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
650-659
ISSN
  • 0940-6719 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0932
OpenAlex
W2116353772
Cited by
71
References
69
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
4.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • European Spine Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Keywords
non-specific low back pain, prognostic factors, functional recovery, functional disability, fear-avoidance beliefs, kinesiophobia, social support, radiating pain, cognitive-behavioral intervention, long-term outcomes
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Prognosis, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Severity of Illness Index, Low Back Pain, Recovery of Function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review