Cited by 107Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedical Practices and RehabilitationSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology

A multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme improves disability, kinesiophobia and walking ability in subjects with chronic low back pain: results of a randomised controlled pilot study

Open access
Monticone, Marco, Ambrosini, Emilia, Rocca, Barbara, Magni, Silvia, Brivio, Flavia, Ferrante, Simona·2014·European Spine Journal

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the effect of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme on disability, kinesiophobia, catastrophizing, pain, quality of life and gait disturbances in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).Methods This was a parallel-group, randomised, superiority-controlled pilot study in which 20 patients were randomly assigned to a programme consisting of motor training (spinal stabilising exercises plus usual-care) and cognitive-behavioural therapy (experimental group, 10 subjects) or usual-care alone (control group, 10 subjects). Before treatment, 8 weeks later (post-treatment), and 3 months after the end of treatment, the Oswestry Disability Index, the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, a pain numerical rating scale, and the Short-Form Health Survey were assessed. Spatio-temporal gait parameters were also measured by means of an electronic walking mat. A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used for each outcome measure.Results The programme had significant group (p = 0.027), time (p < 0.001), and time-by-group interaction (p < 0.001) effects on disability, with the experimental group showing an improvement after training of about 61 % (25 % in the control group). The analyses of kinesiophobia, catastrophizing, and the quality of life also revealed significant time, group, and time-by-group interaction effects in favour of the experimental group, and there was a significant effect of time on pain. Both groups showed a general improvement in gait parameters, with the experimental group increasing cadence significantly more.Conclusion The multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme including cognitive-behavioural therapy was superior to the exercise programme in reducing disability, kinesiophobia, catastrophizing, and enhancing the quality of life and gait cadence of patients with CLBP.

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/s00586-014-3478-5

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • Kinesiophobia is a strong predictor for long-term pain disability and pain chronicity, and is associated with higher rates of sick leave, pain vigilance, disability, and decreased physical activity.

    “It has been demonstrated that kinesiophobia has shown to be a strong predictor for pain disability and pain chronicity in the longer term [73] associated with higher rates of sick-leaves [74], pain vigilance and disability as well as decreased physical activity levels [75–77].”

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Monticone, M., Ambrosini, E., Rocca, B., Magni, S., Brivio, F., & Ferrante, S.
Affiliations
  • Fondazione Salvatore Maugeri (IT)
  • Politecnico di Milano (IT)
Corresponding author
Monticone, Marco
Venue
European Spine Journal
Published
2014-07-27
Volume
23
Issue
10
Pages
2105-2113
ISSN
  • 0940-6719 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0932
OpenAlex
W1967577185
Cited by
107
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1
FWCI
7.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Spine Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Virtual Community of Pathological Anatomy (University of Castilla La Mancha) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Brescia) (submittedVersion)
  • UNICA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Cagliari) (submittedVersion)
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
chronic low back pain, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, cognitive behavioral therapy, kinesiophobia, pain catastrophizing, disability, quality of life, gait cadence, exercise therapy
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Disability Evaluation, Exercise Therapy, Female, Persons with Disabilities, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Patient Care Team, Pilot Projects, Quality of Life, Program Evaluation, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Walking, Treatment Outcome, Low Back Pain, Catastrophization, Chronic Pain

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