Summary of findings for the main comparison. Multidisciplinary compared to usual care for chronic low back pain.
| Multidisciplinary compared to usual care for chronic low back pain | ||||||
| Patient or population: Patients with chronic low back pain Intervention: Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial Rehabilitation Comparison: Usual care | ||||||
| Outcomes | Baseline | Comparative effect (95% CI) | No. of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Back pain long term 0‐10 Numerical or visual scale, where 0 equals no pain at all and 10 is the worst pain imaginable. Follow‐up: median 12 mth | # The baseline for the most representative study is 5.8 out of 10 | The mean back pain long term in the MBR groups was 0.21 standard deviations lower (0.37 to 0.04 lower) | 821 (7 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | This is a small effect that may be clinically relevant in this patient group | |
| Disability long term Mostly Roland Morris 24‐point scale where 0 equals no disability at all and 24 is seriously disabled. Follow‐up: median 12 mth | # The baseline for the most representative study is 11.4 out of 24 | The mean disability long term in the MBR groups was 0.23 standard deviations lower (0.4 to 0.06 lower) | 722 (6 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | This is a small effect that may be clinically relevant in this patient group | |
|
Assumed risk* Usual care |
Corresponding risk MBR |
Relative effect (95% CI) | ||||
| Work long term Proportion working Follow‐up: median 12 mth | 744 per 1000 | 751 per 1000 (679 to 810) | OR 1.04 (0.73 to 1.47) | 1360 (7 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | This difference is not statistically or clinically relevant |
| Adverse events | not estimable | not estimable | not estimable | 0 | No evidence | |
| #Of the included trials for this outcome, we chose the study that has the largest weighting in the overall result in Revman (Von Korff 2005). This figure represents the baseline mean in the control group of this particular study. *The basis for the assumed risk is the median control group risk across studies. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio |
||||||
1 High risk of bias in included studies