Cited by 24Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedical Practices and RehabilitationSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology

The effectiveness of physiotherapy functional restoration for post-acute low back pain: A systematic review

Richards, Matthew C., Ford, Jon J., Slater, Sarah L., Hahne, Andrew J., Surkitt, Luke D., Davidson, Megan, McMeeken, Joan M.·2013·Manual Therapy

Abstract

Background The effectiveness of multidisciplinary treatment for post-acute (>6 weeks) low back pain (LBP) has been established. Physiotherapists have sufficient training to conduct less intensive functional restoration. The effectiveness of physiotherapy functional restoration (PFR) has not been evaluated using current systematic review methodology.Objectives To determine the effects of PFR for post-acute LBP.Data sources Electronic databases searched include: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro and Cochrane CENTRAL. TRIAL ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy treatment for post-acute LBP combining exercise and cognitive-behavioural intervention compared with other intervention, no intervention or placebo. TRIAL APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two authors independently extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the PEDro scale and overall quality of the body of evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Treatment effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for pain, function and sick leave.Results Sixteen trials were included. Heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis for most comparisons. Meta-analyses showed moderate to high quality evidence of significant but small effects favouring PFR compared with advice for intermediate term function and intermediate and long term pain. There was however low to moderate quality evidence that PFR was no more effective than a range of other treatment types. Heterogeneous trials frequently contributed to very low quality evidence.Conclusions Moderate to high quality evidence was found of small effects favouring PFR compared with advice. Preliminary evidence suggested PFR is not different to other treatment types. Further high quality research is required replicating existing trial protocols.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.math.2012.06.005

Cites

102 of 102 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Richards, M. C., Ford, J. J., Slater, S. L., Hahne, A. J., Surkitt, L. D., Davidson, M., & McMeeken, J. M.
Affiliations
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Venue
Manual Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-02
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
4-25
ISSN
1356-689X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2080812660
Cited by
24
References
102
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Manual Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
physiotherapy, functional restoration, exercise therapy, cognitive-behavioural intervention, multidisciplinary treatment, pain, functions, sick leave, treatment effectiveness
MeSH terms
Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Low Back Pain, Physical Therapy Modalities

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