Cited by 451Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedical Practices and RehabilitationWorkplace Health and Well-being

A Population-Based, Randomized Clinical Trial on Back Pain Management

Loisel, Patrick, Abenhaim, Lucien, Durand, Pierre, Esdaile, John M., Suissa, Samy, Gosselin, Lise, Simard, Robert, Turcotte, Jean +1 more·1997·Spine

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: Population-based randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To develop and test a model of management of subacute back pain, to prevent prolonged disability. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The present management of back pain seems inadequate, and development of innovative models has been urged. METHODS: A model for the treatment of subacute work-related back pain has been developed and evaluated in a population-based randomized clinical trial. Workers (n = 130) from eligible workplaces in the Sherbrooke area (N = 31), who had been absent from work for more than 4 weeks for back pain, were randomized, based on their workplace, in one of four treatment groups: usual care, clinical intervention, occupational intervention, and full intervention (a combination of the last two). The duration of absence from regular work and from any work was evaluated using survival analysis. Functional status and pain were compared at study entry and after 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: The full intervention group returned to regular work 2.41 times faster than the usual care intervention group (95% confidence interval 1.19-4.89; P < 0.01). The specific effect of the occupational intervention accounted for the most important part of this result, with a rate ratio of return to regular work of 1.91 (95% confidence interval = 1.18-3.10; P < 0.01). Pain and disability scales demonstrated either a statistically significant reduction or a trend toward reduction in the three intervention groups, compared with the trend in the usual care intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Close association of occupational intervention with clinical care is of primary importance in impeding progression toward chronicity of low back pain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00007632-199712150-00014

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 17 · Cited by 451

Authors
Loisel, P., Abenhaim, L., Durand, P., Esdaile, J. M., Suissa, S., Gosselin, L., Simard, R., Turcotte, J., & Lemaire, J.
Affiliations
  • Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
  • Jewish General Hospital (CA)
  • Université de Montréal (CA)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Loisel, Patrick
Venue
Spine
Published
1997-12
Volume
22
Issue
24
Pages
2911-2918
ISSN
0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2000040333
Cited by
451
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 16
FWCI
5.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Spine (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 › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
subacute low back pain, work-related back pain, return to work, occupational intervention, clinical intervention, disability prevention, absenteeism
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Back Pain, Decision Support Techniques, Disability Evaluation, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Occupational Diseases, Proportional Hazards Models, Treatment Outcome, Disease Management

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