Evidence Hub

Patients with worse disability respond best to cognitive functional therapy for chronic low back pain: a pre-planned secondary analysis of a randomised trial

M. Hancock, Anne Smith, P. O'Sullivan, R. Schütze, J. P. Caneiro, J. Hartvigsen, K. O'Sullivan, Alison McGregor et al.

Journal of Physiotherapy, 2024

492 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

QUESTION

Do five baseline moderators identify patients with chronic low back pain who respond best to cognitive functional therapy (CFT) when compared with usual care?

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of the RESTORE randomised controlled trial.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 492 adults with low back pain for > 3 months with at least moderate pain-related activity limitation.

INTERVENTION

Participants were allocated to CFT alone or CFT plus biofeedback; these two groups were combined for this secondary analysis. The control group was usual care.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome was activity limitation measured using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) at 3, 6, 13, 26, 40 and 52 weeks. Investigated effect modifiers were baseline measures of activity limitation, cognitive flexibility, pain intensity, self-efficacy and catastrophising.

RESULTS

Baseline levels of activity limitation and, potentially, cognitive flexibility were associated with different effects of CFT treatment, while pain intensity, self-efficacy and catastrophising were not. Patients who had higher baseline activity limitation had greater treatment effects at 13 and 52 weeks. A person with a baseline RMDQ score of 18 (90th percentile) would on average be 6.1 (95% CI 4.8 to 7.4) points better at 13 weeks if they received CFT compared with usual care. However, a person with a baseline score of 7 (10th percentile) would on average be 3.6 (95% CI 2.6 to 4.6) points better at 13 weeks.

CONCLUSION

The finding that CFT is…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 492 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free