↓ Skip to main content

Effects of behavioural exercise therapy on the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
206 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of behavioural exercise therapy on the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2021
DOI 10.1186/s12891-021-04353-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jana Semrau, Christian Hentschke, Stefan Peters, Klaus Pfeifer

Abstract

The long-term effects of behavioural medical rehabilitation (BMR), as a type of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, in the treatment of chronic non-specific low back pain (CLBP) have been shown. However, the specific effects of behavioural exercise therapy (BET) compared to standard exercise therapy (SET) within BMR are not well understood. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of BMR + BET compared to BMR + SET in individuals with CLBP in a two-armed, pre-registered, multicentre, parallel, randomised controlled trial (RCT). A total of 351 adults with CLBP in two rehabilitation centres were online randomised based on an 'urn randomisation' algorithm to either BMR + SET (n = 175) or BMR + BET (n = 176). Participants in both study groups were non-blinded and received BMR, consisting of an multidisciplinary admission, a psychosocial assessment, multidisciplinary case management, psychological treatment, health education and social counselling. The intervention group (BMR + BET) received a manualised, biopsychosocial BET within BMR. The aim of BET was to develop self-management strategies in coping with CLBP. The control group (BMR + SET) received biomedical SET within BMR with the aim to improve mainly physical fitness. Therapists in both study groups were not blinded. The BMR lasted on average 27 days, and both exercise programmes had a mean duration of 26 h. The primary outcome was functional ability at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were e.g. pain, avoidance-endurance, pain management and physical activity. The analysis was by intention-to-treat, blinded to the study group, and used a linear mixed model. There were no between-group differences observed in function at the end of the BMR (mean difference, 0.08; 95% CI - 2.82 to 2.99; p = 0.955), at 6 months (mean difference, - 1.80; 95% CI; - 5.57 to 1.97; p = 0.349) and at 12 months (mean difference, - 1.33; 95% CI - 5.57 to 2.92; p = 0.540). Both study groups improved in the primary outcome and most secondary outcomes at 12 months with small to medium effect sizes. BMR + BET was not more effective in improving function and other secondary outcomes in individuals with CLBP compared to BMR + SET. Current controlled trials NCT01666639 , 16/08/2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 206 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Student > Master 16 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Researcher 9 4%
Other 34 17%
Unknown 99 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 40 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 13%
Sports and Recreations 10 5%
Psychology 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 17 8%
Unknown 99 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 July 2021.
All research outputs
#4,326,076
of 24,549,201 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#827
of 4,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,994
of 438,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#19
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,549,201 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,290 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 438,333 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.