Cited by 217Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentPregnancy-related medical research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cognitive functional therapy compared with a group-based exercise and education intervention for chronic low back pain: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT)

Open access
O'Keeffe, Mary, O'Sullivan, Peter, Purtill, Helen, Bargary, Norma, O'Sullivan, Kieran·2020·British Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract

Background: One-size-fits-all interventions reduce chronic low back pain (CLBP) a small amount. An individualised intervention called cognitive functional therapy (CFT) was superior for CLBP compared with manual therapy and exercise in one randomised controlled trial (RCT). However, systematic reviews show group interventions are as effective as one-to-one interventions for musculoskeletal pain. This RCT investigated whether a physiotherapist-delivered individualised intervention (CFT) was more effective than physiotherapist-delivered group-based exercise and education for individuals with CLBP. Methods: 206 adults with CLBP were randomised to either CFT (n=106) or group-based exercise and education (n=100). The length of the CFT intervention varied according to the clinical progression of participants (mean=5 treatments). The group intervention consisted of up to 6 classes (mean=4 classes) over 6–8 weeks. Primary outcomes were disability and pain intensity in the past week at 6 months and 12months postrandomisation. Analysis was by intention-to-treat using linear mixed models. Results: CFT reduced disability more than the group intervention at 6 months (mean difference, 8.65; 95% CI 3.66 to 13.64; p=0.001), and at 12 months (mean difference, 7.02; 95% CI 2.24 to 11.80; p=0.004). There were no between-group differences observed in pain intensity at 6 months (mean difference, 0.76; 95% CI -0.02 to 1.54; p=0.056) or 12 months (mean difference, 0.65; 95% CI -0.20 to 1.50; p=0.134). Conclusion: CFT reduced disability, but not pain, at 6 and 12 months compared with the group-based exercise and education intervention. Future research should examine whether the greater reduction in disability achieved by CFT renders worthwhile differences for health systems and patients. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT02145728 ).

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 · 10.1136/bjsports-2019-100780

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 CONSORT flow diagram. CFT, cognitive functional therapy; CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials
Figure 1 CONSORT flow diagram. CFT, cognitive functional therapy; CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsCC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Mean disability for CFT (individualised) versus group. *Data are adjusted means from the linear mixed-effects models. Error bars show standard errors (SE).
Figure 2 Mean disability for CFT (individualised) versus group. *Data are adjusted means from the linear mixed-effects models. Error bars show standard errors (SE).CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Mean pain intensity for CFT (individualised) versus group. *Data are adjusted means from the linear mixed-effects models. Error bars show standard errors (SE).
Figure 3 Mean pain intensity for CFT (individualised) versus group. *Data are adjusted means from the linear mixed-effects models. Error bars show standard errors (SE).CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

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

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?

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

Show all 54 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Cohen J . Pp. 79–81 in statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 217

Metadata

Authors
O'Keeffe, M., O'Sullivan, P., Purtill, H., Bargary, N., & O'Sullivan, K.
Affiliations
  • Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Shenton Park, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
  • University of Limerick (IE)
  • Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
Venue
British Journal of Sports Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2019-10-19
Volume
54
Issue
13
Pages
782-789
ISSN
  • 0306-3674 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-0480
OpenAlex
W2981005913
Cited by
217
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 1
FWCI
10.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Sports Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Cork Open Research Archive (University College Cork, Ireland) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Limerick Institutional Repository (University of Limerick) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • University of Limerick Institutional Repository (University of Limerick) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Lenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • University of Limerick Institutional Repository (University of Limerick)
Funders
  • University of Limerick
  • Irish Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy-related medical research
Keywords
cognitive functional therapy, chronic low back pain, disability, pain intensity, musculoskeletal pain
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Combined Modality Therapy, Exercise Therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Low Back Pain, Intention to Treat Analysis, 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