Cited by 33Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPregnancy-related medical researchHealth Policy Implementation Science

Pain education for patients with non-specific low back pain in Nepal: protocol of a feasibility randomised clinical trial (PEN-LBP Trial)

Open access
Sharma, Saurab, Jensen, Mark P, Moseley, G Lorimer, Abbott, J Haxby·2018·BMJ Open

Abstract

Introduction: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability in Nepal and elsewhere. Management of LBP that is evidence-based, easily accessible, cost-effective and culturally appropriate is desirable. The primary aim of this feasibility study is to determine if it is feasible to conduct a full randomised clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of pain education as an intervention for individuals with LBP in Nepal, relative to guideline-based physiotherapy treatment. The findings of the study will inform the planning of a full clinical trial and if any modifications are required to the protocol before undertaking a full trial. Methods/analysis: This protocol describes an assessor-blinded feasibility clinical trial investigating feasibility of the pain education intervention in patients with non-specific LBP in a physiotherapy hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal. Forty patients with LBP will be randomly allocated to either pain education or guideline-based physiotherapy treatment (control). Outcomes will be assessed at baseline and at a 1 week post-treatment. The primary outcomes are related to feasibility, including: (1) participant willingness to participate in a randomised clinical trial, (2) feasibility of assessor blinding, (3) eligibility and recruitment rates, (4) acceptability of screening procedures and random allocation, (5) possible contamination between the groups, (6) intervention credibility, (7) intervention adherence, (8) treatment satisfaction and (9) difficulty in understanding the interventions being provided. Ethics/dissemination: The protocol was approved by Nepal Health Research Council (NHRC; registration number: 422/2017) and University of Otago Human Ethics Committee for Health (registration number: H17/157). The results of the study will be presented at national and international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number: NCT03387228; Pre-results.

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/bmjopen-2018-022423

Cites

59 of 59 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [17]Abdel Shaheed C, Maher CG, Williams KA, et al Efficacy, Tolerability, and Dose-Dependent Effects of Opioid Analgesics for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2016; 176: 958– 68. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1251 27213267 · DOI
  2. [33]Chen WH, Revicki DA, Amtmann D, et al Development and Analysis of PROMIS Pain Intensity Scale. Quality of Life Research 2012; 20: 18.
  3. [44]Traeger AC, Hübscher M, Henschke N, et al Effect of Primary Care-Based Education on Reassurance in Patients With Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2015; 175: 733– 43. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0217 25799308 · DOI
  4. [51]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Low back pain and sciatica in over 16s: assessment and management. 2016 https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng59. 27929617

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sharma, S., Jensen, M. P., Moseley, G. L., & Abbott, J. H.
Affiliations
  • Kathmandu University (NP)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of South Australia (AU)
  • University of Otago (NZ)
Corresponding author
Sharma, Saurab
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2018-08
Volume
8
Issue
8
Pages
e022423
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2886309526
Cited by
33
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (acceptedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Otago
  • International Olympic Committee
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy-related medical research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
non-specific low back pain, pain education, physiotherapy, feasibility, treatment acceptability, intervention adherence, trial blinding
MeSH terms
Adult, Clinical Protocols, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Nepal, Patient Education as Topic, Low Back Pain, Physical Therapy Modalities

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