Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Detailed Search Results
| Mini-intervention for subacute low back pain: a randomized controlled trial [with consumer summary] |
| Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, Pohjolainen T, Hurri H, Mutanen P, Rissanen P, Pahkajarvi H, Levon H, Karpoff H, Roine R |
| Spine 2003 Mar 15;28(6):533-540 |
| clinical trial |
| 7/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
|
STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness and costs of a mini-intervention, provided in addition to the usual care, and the incremental effect of a work site visit for patients with subacute disabling low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is lack of data on cost-effectiveness of brief interventions for patients with prolonged low back pain. METHODS: A total of 164 patients with subacute low back pain were randomized to a mini-intervention group (A), a work site visit group (B), or a usual care group (C). Groups A (n = 56) and B (n = 51) underwent one assessment by a physician plus a physiotherapist. Group B received a work site visit in addition. Group C served as controls (n = 57) and was treated in municipal primary health care. All patients received a leaflet on back pain. Pain, disability, specific and generic health-related quality of life, satisfaction with care, days on sick leave, and use and costs of health care consumption were measured at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. RESULTS: During follow-up, fewer subjects had daily pain in groups A and B than in group C (group A group C, = 0.002; group B group C, = 0.030). In group A, pain was less bothersome (group A group C, = 0.032) and interfered less with daily life (group A group C, = 0.040) than among controls. Average days on sick leave were 19 in group A, 28 in group B, and 41 in group C (group A group C, = 0.019). Treatment satisfaction was better in the intervention groups than among the controls, and costs were lowest in the mini-intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Mini-intervention reduced daily back pain symptoms and sickness absence, improved adaptation to pain and patient satisfaction among patients with subacute low back pain, without increasing health care costs. A work site visit did not increase effectiveness.
|
The database was last updated on 7 April 2025 (this includes records added or amended since 3 March 2025). The next update is planned for 5 May 2025. The total number of records on the database is 64,836.