Cited by 124Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedical Practices and RehabilitationPain Management and Treatment

Effect of a Long-lasting Multidisciplinary Program on Disability and Fear-Avoidance Behaviors in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: [RETRACTED]: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Monticone, Marco, Ferrante, Simona, Rocca, Barbara, Baiardi, Paola, Farra, Fulvio Dal, Foti, Calogero·2013·The Clinical Journal of Pain

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the effect on disability, kinesiophobia, pain, and the quality of life of a long-lasting multidisciplinary program based on cognitive-behavioral therapy and targeted against fear-avoidance beliefs in patients with chronic low back pain. Methods Study design parallel-group, randomized, superiority controlled study. Ninety patients were randomly assigned to a multidisciplinary program consisting of cognitive-behavior therapy and exercise training (experimental group, 45 patients) or exercise training alone (control group, 45 patients). Before treatment (T1), 5 weeks later (instructive phase, T2), and 12 (posttreatment analysis, T3) and 24 months after the end of the instructive phase (1-year follow-up, T4), all of the patients completed a booklet containing the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire Scale (primary outcome), the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, a pain numerical rating scale, and the Short-Form Health Survey. A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used to analyze each outcome measure, and the reliable change index/clinically significant change method was used to assess the clinical significance of the changes. Results The linear mixed model analysis showed a remarkable group, time, and interaction effect for group * time in all of the primary and secondary outcomes (P always Conclusions The long-lasting multidisciplinary program was superior to the exercise program in reducing disability, fear-avoidance beliefs and pain, and enhancing…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ajp.0b013e31827fef7eThis paper is marked retracted.

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • The review initially included three additional CBT versus AC studies (401 participants) and one CBT versus TAU study (92 participants) in analyses.

    “We initially included three additional CBT versus AC studies (401 participants) in our analyses (Monticone 2013; Monticone 2016; Monticone 2017), and one study of 92 participants in CBT versus TAU (Castel 2012)”
  • For Monticone 2013, Monticone 2016, and Monticone 2017, no explanations were offered by the authors as to why the data were major outliers from all other studies, why the efficacy estimates were so positive, and why there was no attrition.

    “For Monticone 2013, Monticone 2016, and Monticone 2017, no explanations were oFered by the authors as to why the data were major outliers from all other studies in the field and, in particular, why the eFicacy estimates were so positive and why there was no attrition, unlike other studies.”
  • The review wrote to the authors for comment on its proposed strategy of exclusion from the main findings; it received no answer from one (Castel 2012), and no satisfactory explanation was given for the anomalous sizes of outcome and completeness of follow-up data in the remaining three (Monticone 2013; Monticone 2016; Monticone 2017).

    “We wrote to the authors for comment on our proposed strategy of exclusion from the main findings. We received no answer from one (Castel 2012), and no satisfactory explanation was given for the anomalous sizes of outcome and completeness of follow-up data in the remaining three (Monticone 2013; Monticone 2016; Monticone 2017).”
  • For Monticone 2013, selective reporting was judged unclear risk because the trial was not pre-registered.

    “Unclear risk Trial not pre-registered”
  • For Monticone 2013, blinding of outcome assessment was judged low risk because the Principal Investigator obtaining and assessing outcome data, and the biostatisticians making analyses, were all blinded to treatments.

    “Low risk”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Monticone, M., Ferrante, S., Rocca, B., Baiardi, P., Farra, F. D., & Foti, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Rome Tor Vergata (IT)
  • Politecnico di Milano (IT)
  • University of Pavia (IT)
Corresponding author
  • Monticone, Marco
  • Ferrante, Simona
  • Rocca, Barbara
Venue
The Clinical Journal of Pain
Published
2013-11
Volume
29
Issue
11
Pages
929-938
ISSN
0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2017033206
Cited by
124
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
8.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Status
Retracted
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • 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 › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
chronic low back pain, multidisciplinary pain management, cognitive behavioral therapy, fear-avoidance beliefs, kinesiophobia, disability, exercise training, quality of life, long-term follow-up, pain intensity
MeSH terms
Adult, Disability Evaluation, Double-Blind Method, Exercise Therapy, Fear, Female, Persons with Disabilities, Disabled Persons, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Retrospective Studies, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Low Back 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