Cited by 941Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedical Practices and RehabilitationPain Management and Treatment

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review

Open access
Guzmán, Jaime, Esmail, Rosmin, Karjalainen, Kaija, Malmivaara, Antti, Irvin, Emma, Bombardier, Claire·2001·BMJ

Abstract

Objective: To assess the effect of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation on clinically relevant outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain. Design: Systematic literature review of randomised controlled trials. Participants: A total of 1964 patients with disabling low back pain for more than three months. Main outcome measures: Pain, function, employment, quality of life, and global assessments. Results: Ten trials reported on a total of 12 randomised comparisons of multidisciplinary treatment and a control condition. There was strong evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration improves function when compared with inpatient or outpatient non-multidisciplinary treatments. There was moderate evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration reduces pain when compared with outpatient non-multidisciplinary rehabilitation or usual care. There was contradictory evidence regarding vocational outcomes of intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention. Some trials reported improvements in work readiness, but others showed no significant reduction in sickness leaves. Less intensive outpatient psychophysical treatments did not improve pain, function, or vocational outcomes when compared with non-multidisciplinary outpatient therapy or usual care. Few trials reported effects on quality of life or global assessments. Conclusions: The reviewed trials provide evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration reduces pain and improves function in patients with chronic low back pain. Less intensive interventions did not show improvements in clinically relevant outcomes. What is already known on this topic: Disabling chronic pain is regarded as the result of interrelating physical, psychological, and social or occupational factors requiring multidisciplinary intervention Two previous systematic reviews of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic pain were open to bias and did not include any of the randomised controlled trials now available What this study adds: Intensive, daily biopsychosocial rehabilitation with a functional restoration approach improves pain and function in chronic low back pain Less intensive interventions did not show improvements in clinically relevant outcomes It is unclear whether the improvements are worth the cost of these intensive treatments

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/bmj.322.7301.1511

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • The effect of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program observed in RCT would be generalizable to real-world practice, including to typical patients attending a rehabilitation program at an outpatient setting.

    “The effect of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program observed in RCT would be generalizable to real-world practice.”

    From Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program in real-world patients with chronic back pain: A pilot cohort data analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) cautions that the trials involved selected patients with severe disabling low back pain in well-established programmes, and that their results might not apply to most primary-care patients or less-established programmes. The review therefore does not endorse the claimed generalizability of RCT effects to typical real-world practice. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A multidisciplinary approach to pain rehabilitation is superior to other active treatments in improving pain intensity, function, disability, and pain interference for patients with chronic pain, with small effect size (ds=0.20-0.36).

    “Randomized clinical trials (RCT) suggest a multidisciplinary approach to pain rehabilitation is superior to other active treatments in improving pain intensity, function, disability, and pain interference for patients with chronic pain, with small effect size (ds= 0.20–0.36) but its effectiveness remains unknown in real-world practice.”

    From Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program in real-world patients with chronic back pain: A pilot cohort data analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Results and Conclusion support improvements in pain and function compared with non-multidisciplinary rehabilitation or usual care, but only for intensive programmes with functional restoration in patients with chronic low back pain. They do not establish superiority for multidisciplinary rehabilitation generally or for all chronic pain, and do not report improvement in pain interference or the claimed effect-size range of d=0.20–0.36. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A meta-analysis reveals that multidisciplinary programs with a functional restoration approach produce greater improvement in function for patients with disabling chronic pain than usual care.

    “A meta-analysis reveals that multidisciplinary programs with functional restoration approach produce greater improvement in function for patients with disabling chronic pain than usual care [8].”

    From Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program in real-world patients with chronic back pain: A pilot cohort data analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Conclusion reports greater improvement in function than usual care, but specifies intensive programmes (>100 hours) for patients with disabling chronic low back pain. The claim omits the intensity requirement and broadens the population to disabling chronic pain generally; the Results also say less intensive programmes did not improve function. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The reduction or relief of pain is not a primary aim of treatment, although improvements in pain are often reported.

    “The reduction or relief of pain is not a primary aim of treatment, although improvements in pain are often reported [22, 23].”

    From A Consideration of the Psychological Aspects to Managing Patients with Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: An Insight into Pain Management Services at a Tertiary Centre in the UK (2021) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Results and Conclusions report that intensive multidisciplinary rehabilitation improves pain in patients with chronic low back pain, supporting the improvement portion of the claim. The paper does not say that pain reduction or relief is not a primary treatment aim; it also finds that less intensive interventions did not improve pain. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous systematic reviews have mainly focused on a small selection of psychological approaches for chronic low back pain (cognitive behavioural therapy and behavioural therapies), neglecting more recently developed psychological interventions (cognitive functional therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy).

    “Yet, previous reviews have mainly focused on a small selection of psychological approaches for chronic LBP (that is, cognitive behavioural therapy and behavioural therapies), neglecting more recently developed psychological interventions (that is, cognitive functional therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guzmán, J., Esmail, R., Karjalainen, K., Malmivaara, A., Irvin, E., & Bombardier, C.
Affiliations
Institute for Work & Health (CA)
Corresponding author
Guzmán, Jaime
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2001-06-23
Volume
322
Issue
7301
Pages
1511-1516
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2035540128
Cited by
941
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 51 · 2012: 64
FWCI
3.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • STM:n Hallinnonalan avoin julkaisuarkisto (Julkari) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
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 rehabilitation, biopsychosocial rehabilitation, functional restoration, pain intensity, functional capacity, career readiness, sick leave, quality of life, outpatient rehabilitation
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Combined Modality Therapy, Humans, Quality of Life, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, 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