The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of adding exercise classes, spinal manipulation delivered in NHS or private premises, or manipulation followed by exercise to "best care" in general practice for patients consulting with back pain. [See figure]. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomised trial with factorial design. SETTING: 181 general practices in Medical Research Council General Practice Research Framework; 63 community settings around 14 centres across the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 1334 patients consulting their general practices about low back pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Scores on the Roland Morris disability questionnaire at three and 12 months, adjusted for centre and baseline scores. RESULTS: All groups improved over time. Exercise improved mean disability questionnaire scores at three months by 1.4 (95% confidence interval 0.6 to 2.1) more than "best care." For manipulation the additional improvement was 1.6 (0.8 to 2.3) at three months and 1.0 (0.2 to 1.8) at 12 months. For manipulation followed by exercise the additional improvement was 1.9 (1.2 to 2.6) at three months and 1.3 (0.5 to 2.1) at 12 months. No significant differences in outcome occurred between manipulation in NHS premises and in private premises. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to "best care" in general practice, manipulation followed by exercise achieved a moderate benefit at three months and a small benefit at 12 months; spinal manipulation achieved a small to moderate benefit at three months and a small benefit at 12 months; and exercise achieved a small benefit at three months but not 12 months.
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
EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life
(1990) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 · Cited by 15,736
A Study of the Natural History of Back Pain: Part I
ROLAND, M., & MORRIS, R. (1983) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004 · Cited by 3,395
Waddell, G., Newton, M., Henderson, I., Somerville, D., & Main, C. J. (1993) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(93)90127-b · Cited by 3,167
The economic burden of back pain in the UK
Maniadakis, N., & Gray, A. (2000) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00187-6 · Cited by 1,510
Manca, A., Hawkins, N., & Sculpher, M. J. (2005) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/hec.944 · Cited by 1,024
Cited by
Qaseem, A., Wilt, T. J., McLean, R. M., Forciea, M. A., & for the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians* (2017) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m16-2367 · Cited by 3,234
Hill, J. C., Whitehurst, D. G., Lewis, M., Bryan, S., Dunn, K. M., Foster, N. E., Konstantinou, K., Main, C. J., Mason, E., Somerville, S., et al. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60937-9 · Cited by 1,306
Chou, R., & Huffman, L. H. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-7-200710020-00007 · Cited by 1,045
Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT): Explanation and elaboration statement
Slade, S. C., Dionne, C. E., Underwood, M., & Buchbinder, R. (2016) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096651 · Cited by 961
Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain
Kamper, S. J., Apeldoorn, A. T., Chiarotto, A., Smeets, R. J. E. M., Ostelo, R. W., Guzman, J., & van Tulder, M. W. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000963.pub3 · Cited by 629
Metadata
- Authors
- UK BEAM Trial Team
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2004-11-19
- Volume
- 329
- Issue
- 7479
- Pages
- 1377
- ISSN
- 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- OpenAlex
- W2095734644
- Cited by
- 518
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 22.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.38282.669225.ae
- The paper
- UK BEAM Trial Team. (2004). United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38282.669225.ae
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.