The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Low back pain of mechanical origin: randomised comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient treatment.
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE--To compare chiropractic and hospital outpatient treatment for managing low back pain of mechanical origin. DESIGN--Randomised controlled trial. Allocation to chiropractic or hospital management by minimisation to establish groups for analysis of results according to initial referral clinic, length of current episode, history, and severity of back pain. Patients were followed up for up two years. SETTING--Chiropractic and hospital outpatient clinics in 11 centres. PATIENTS--741 Patients aged 18-65 who had no contraindications to manipulation and who had not been treated within the past month. INTERVENTIONS--Treatment at the discretion of the chiropractors, who used chiropractic manipulation in most patients, or of the hospital staff, who most commonly used Maitland mobilisation or manipulation, or both. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Changes in the score on the Oswestry pain disability questionnaire and in the results of tests of straight leg raising and lumbar flexion. RESULTS--Chiropractic treatment was more effective than hospital outpatient management, mainly for patients with chronic or severe back pain. A benefit of about 7% points on the Oswestry scale was seen at two years. The benefit of chiropractic treatment became more evident throughout the follow up period. Secondary outcome measures also showed that chiropractic was more beneficial. CONCLUSIONS--For patients with low back pain in whom manipulation is not contraindicated chiropractic almost certainly confers worthwhile, long term benefit in comparison with hospital outpatient management. The benefit is seen mainly in those with chronic or severe pain. Introducing chiropractic into NHS practice should be considered.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire
Fairbank, J. C. T., Couper, J., Davies, J. B., & O'Brien, J. P. (2020) · PsycTESTS Dataset · doi:10.1037/t04205-000 · Cited by 2,033
Cited by
Fairbank, J. C. T., & Pynsent, P. B. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017 · Cited by 5,851
Kalauokalani, D., Cherkin, D. C., Sherman, K. J., Koepsell, T. D., & Deyo, R. A. (2001) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200107010-00005 · Cited by 407
A Comparison of Osteopathic Spinal Manipulation with Standard Care for Patients with Low Back Pain
Andersson, G. B. J., Lucente, T., Davis, A. M., Kappler, R. E., Lipton, J. A., & Leurgans, S. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199911043411903 · Cited by 332
Smith, B. H. (1999) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/16.5.475 · Cited by 104
Chronic pain and the use of conventional and alternative therapy
Haetzman, M., Elliott, A., Smith, B., Hannaford, P., & Chambers, W. (2003) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/20.2.147 · Cited by 94
Metadata
- Authors
- Meade, T. W., Dyer, S., Browne, W., Townsend, J., & Frank, A. O.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1990-06-02
- Volume
- 300
- Issue
- 6737
- Pages
- 1431-1437
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W1986135335
- Cited by
- 425
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 26.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Low back pain of mechanical origin: randomised comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient treatment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.300.6737.1431
- The paper
- Meade, T. W., Dyer, S., Browne, W., Townsend, J., & Frank, A. O. (1990). Low back pain of mechanical origin: randomised comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient treatment. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.300.6737.1431
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.