Cited by 53Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Effectiveness of multidisciplinary programmes for clinical pain conditions: an umbrella review.

Open access
Dragioti, E, Evangelou, E, Larsson, B, Gerdle, B·2018·Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine

Abstract

This study evaluated the published literature regarding multimodal/multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes (MMRPs) for pain outcomes.The study reviewed the evidence on a large scale, examining 134 associations derived from 12 meta-analyses (including 462 primary studies) and 24 qualitative systematic reviews (including 243 primary studies).The results suggest that there is a lack of robust evidence about the effectiveness of the programmes investigated; most of the published studies displayed uncertainty in effect sizes due to large heterogeneity, small sample sizes, evidence of small-study effects, excess of significant findings, or any combination of the above.Some weak evidence, especially for shortterm outcomes, may be genuine, but no firm conclusions can be drawn.This study highlights the necessity for larger, better-conducted, randomized controlled trials of the effectiveness of MMRP, with a standardized formula of treatment modalities, outcome measures, pain population, pain assessments, and length of treatments.Objective: To evaluate the strength of the evidence for multimodal/multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes (MMRPs) for common pain outcomes.Data sources: PubMed, PsychInfo, PEDro and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to August 2017.Study selection: Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials and qualitative systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials were considered eligible.Data extraction: Two independent reviewers abstracted data and evaluated the methodological quality of the reviews.The strength of the evidence was graded using several criteria.Data synthesis: Twelve meta-analyses, including 134 associations, and 24 qualitative systematic reviews were selected.None of the associations in metaanalyses and qualitative systematic reviews were supported by either strong or highly suggestive evidence.In meta-analyses, only 8 (6%) associations that were significant at p-value ≤ 0.05 were supported by suggestive evidence, whereas 44 (33%) associations were supported by weak evidence.Moderate evidence was found only in 4 (17%) qualitative systematic reviews, while 14 (58%) qualitative systematic reviews had limited evidence.Conclusion: There is no evidence that MMRPs are effective for prevalent clinical pain conditions.The majority of the evidence remains ambiguous and susceptible to biases due to the small sample size of participants and the limited number of studies included.

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 · 10.2340/16501977-2377

Cites

71 of 71 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 grading system can only warn about potential systematic biases and cannot establish their nature or extent.

    “Fifth, we used a grading system that can provide only warnings of the potential presence of systematic biases but cannot provide evidence of the nature and extent of these biases, 16,32,33 just as umbrella reviews cannot supply any comparative ranking as in network meta-analyses.”

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

1 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. van Geen JW, Edelaar MJ, Janssen M, van Eijk JT. The long- term effect of multidisciplinary back training: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32: 249-255.
  2. Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015; 13: 132-140.
  3. Steffens D, Maher CG, Pereira LS, Stevens ML, Oliveira VC, Chapple M, et al. Prevention of low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2016; 176: 199-208.
  4. Peeters GG, Verhagen AP, de Bie RA, Oostendorp RA. The efficacy of conservative treatment in patients with whiplash injury: a systematic review of clinical trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26: 64-73.
  5. Thomsen AB, Sorensen J, Sjogren P, Eriksen J. Economic evaluation of multidisciplinary pain management in chro- nic pain patients: a qualitative systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage 2001; 22: 688-698.
  6. Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU). Metoder för behandling av långvarig smärta-en systema- tisk litteraturöversikt. [Methods for treatment of chronic pain -a systematic review of the literature]. Stockholm: SBU; 2006 (in Swedish).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dragioti, E., Evangelou, E., Larsson, B., & Gerdle, B.
Affiliations
Linköping University (SE)
Corresponding author
Dragioti, E
Venue
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Published
2018
Volume
50
Issue
9
Pages
779-791
ISSN
1650-1977 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2888319024
Cited by
53
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DiVA (Linkoping University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
AFA Försäkring
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
multimodal rehabilitation, pain outcomes, treatment effectiveness, quality of evidence, methodological quality of reviews, small sample bias, effect size heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Humans, Pain, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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