Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 448

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Identifying Subgroups of Patients With Acute/Subacute “Nonspecific” Low Back Pain: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Brennan, Gerard P., Fritz, Julie M., Hunter, Stephen J., Thackeray, Anne, Delitto, Anthony, Erhard, Richard E.·2006·Spine

Abstract

In Brief Study Design. Randomized clinical trial. Objective. Compare outcomes of patients with low back pain receiving treatments matched or unmatched to their subgrouping based on initial clinical presentation. Summary of Background Data. Patients with “nonspecific” low back pain are often viewed as a homogeneous group, equally likely to respond to any particular intervention. Others have proposed methods for subgrouping patients as a means for determining the treatment most likely to benefit patients with particular characteristics. Methods. Patients with low back pain of less than 90 days’ duration referred to physical therapy were examined before treatment and classified into one of three subgroups based on the type of treatment believed most likely to benefit the patient (manipulation, stabilization exercise, or specific exercise). Patients were randomly assigned to receive manipulation, stabilization exercises, or specific exercise treatment during a 4-week treatment period. Disability was assessed in the short-term (4 weeks) and long-term (1 year) using the Oswestry. Comparisons were made between patients receiving treatment matched to their subgroup, versus those receiving unmatched treatment. Results. A total of 123 patients participated (mean age, 37.7 ± 10.7 years; 45% female). Patients receiving matched treatments experienced greater short- and long-term reductions in disability than those receiving unmatched treatments. After 4 weeks, the difference favoring the matched treatment group was 6.6 Oswestry points (95% CI, 0.70–12.5), and at long-term follow-up the difference was 8.3 points (95% CI, 2.5–14.1). Compliers-only analysis of long-term outcomes yielded a similar result. Conclusions. Nonspecific low back pain should not be viewed as a homogenous condition. Outcomes can be improved when subgrouping is used to guide treatment decision-making. This randomized trial found that improving clinical outcomes was most related to the interaction between a patient’s pretreatment subgrouping and the treatment received instead of the subgrouping or treatment alone in patients with acute/subacute low back pain. The results support the hypothesis that outcomes of patients with “nonspecific” low back pain can be improved through clinical classification into subgroups that determine the treatment to be used.

Overview

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 · 10.1097/01.brs.0000202807.72292.a8

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 52 references

Cited by

See all 448

Metadata

Authors
Brennan, G. P., Fritz, J. M., Hunter, S. J., Thackeray, A., Delitto, A., & Erhard, R. E.
Venue
Spine
Published
2006-03
Volume
31
Issue
6
Pages
623-631
ISSN
0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2053849576
Cited by
448
References
52
FWCI
19.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Identifying Subgroups of Patients With Acute/Subacute “Nonspecific” Low Back Pain: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.brs.0000202807.72292.a8
The paper
Brennan, G. P., Fritz, J. M., Hunter, S. J., Thackeray, A., Delitto, A., & Erhard, R. E. (2006). Identifying Subgroups of Patients With Acute/Subacute “Nonspecific” Low Back Pain: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000202807.72292.a8

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.