Cited by 30Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedical Practices and RehabilitationWorkplace Health and Well-being

Subacute and chronic, non-specific back and neck pain: cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation versus primary care. A randomized controlled trial

Open access
Lindell, Odd, Johansson, Sven-Erik, Strender, Lars-Erik·2008·BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the industrial world, non-specific back and neck pain (BNP) is the largest diagnostic group underlying sick-listing. For patients with subacute and chronic (= full-time sick-listed for 43 - 84 and 85 - 730 days, respectively) BNP, cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation was compared with primary care. The specific aim was to answer the question: within an 18-month follow-up, will the outcomes differ in respect of sick-listing and number of health-care visits? METHODS: After stratification by age (< or = 44/> or = 45 years) and subacute/chronic BNP, 125 Swedish primary-care patients were randomly allocated to cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation (rehabilitation group) or continued primary care (primary-care group). Outcome measures were Return-to-work share (percentage) and Return-to-work chance (hazard ratios) over 18 months, Net days (crude sick-listing days x degree), and the number of Visits (to physicians, physiotherapists etc.) over 18 months and the three component six-month periods. Descriptive statistics, Cox regression and mixed-linear models were used. RESULTS: All patients: Return-to-work share and Return-to-work chance were equivalent between the groups. Net days and Visits were equivalent over 18 months but decreased significantly more rapidly for the rehabilitation group over the six-month periods (p < .05). Subacute patients: Return-to-work share was equivalent. Return-to-work chance was significantly greater for the rehabilitation group (hazard ratio 3.5 [95%CI1.001 - 12.2]). Net days were equivalent over 18 months but decreased significantly more rapidly for the rehabilitation group over the six-month periods and there were 31 days fewer in the third period. Visits showed similar though non-significant differences and there were half as many in the third period. Chronic patients: Return-to-work share, Return-to-work chance and Net days were equivalent. Visits were equivalent over 18 months but tended to decrease more rapidly for the rehabilitation group and there were half as many in the third period (non-significant). CONCLUSION: The results were equivalent over 18 months. However, there were indications that cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation in the longer run might be superior to primary care. For subacute BNP, it might be superior in terms of sick-listing and health-care visits; for chronic BNP, in terms of health-care visits only. More conclusive results concerning this possible long-term effect might require a longer follow-up.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2474-9-172

Cites

43 of 43 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?

  • For Lindell 2008, blinding of outcome assessment was judged high risk because assessors were not blind to treatment condition, except for the sick-listing outcome.

    “High risk Assessors not blind to treatment condition, except for sick-listing outcome”
  • For Lindell 2008, random sequence generation was judged low risk because a computerised block randomisation procedure was used.

    “Low risk Computerised block randomisation procedure”
  • For Lindell 2008, allocation concealment was judged low risk because randomisation was generated by an independent statistician and placed in opaque envelopes.

    “Low risk Randomisation generated by independent statistician; in opaque envelopes”
  • For Lindell 2008, selective reporting was judged unclear risk because the trial protocol was not published.

    “Unclear risk Trial protocol not published”

    From Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults (2020) · cites this paper as Lindell 2008

    The Methods > Analyses and statistics passage mentions a per-protocol analysis, not a published trial protocol. Searches for a trial protocol and selective reporting found no passage stating whether a protocol was published or assessing the risk of selective reporting; the cited trial therefore does not verify the citing authors’ judgment. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For Lindell 2008, treatment expectations was judged unclear risk because it was not assessed.

    “Unclear risk Not assessed”

    From Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults (2020) · cites this paper as Lindell 2008

    The Methods > Inclusion procedure lists baseline characteristics, and Methods > Blinding discusses whether patients knew their assigned treatment; neither addresses assessment of treatment expectations. Searches for “treatment expectations” and “expectations” found no passage stating whether they were assessed. The unclear-risk judgment is the citing document’s assessment, not a finding reported by Lindell et al. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

2 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Norlund A Waddell G Nachemson A, Jonson E Cost of back pain in some OECD Countries Neck and back pain The scientific evidence of causes, diagnosis, and treatment 2000 Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Williams 421 425
  2. General practitioners Health and Ageing Factbook 2006 Chapter 7 – International comparisons Australian Government. Department of health and ageing
  3. Linton SJ Nachemson A, Jonson E Utility of cognitive-behavioral psychological treatments Neck and back pain The scientific evidence of causes, diagnosis, and treatment 2000 Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Williams 361 381
  4. Goosens M Evers S Nachemson A, Jonson E Cost-effectiveness of treatment for neck and low back pain Neck and back pain The scientific evidence of causes, diagnosis, and treatment 2000 Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Williams 399 419

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lindell, O., Johansson, S.-E., & Strender, L.-E.
Affiliations
Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
Lindell, Odd
Venue
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Published
2008-12
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
172-172
ISSN
1471-2474 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2087457633
Cited by
28
References
45
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • Vårdalstiftelsen
  • Stockholms Läns Landsting
  • Socialdepartementet
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 › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
non-specific back pain, non-specific neck pain, subacute low back pain, chronic low back pain, primary care, sick-listing, return to work, medical visits, sick leave, physiotherapy, occupational health services, Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare
MeSH terms
Acute Disease, Adult, Back Pain, Chronic Disease, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Primary Health Care, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Neck 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