Are Tailored Interventions to Modifiable Psychosocial Risk Factors Effective in Reducing Pain Intensity and Disability in Low Back Pain? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether tailored interventions based on patients’ psychological profiles enhanced the outcomes of interventions in people with nonspecific low back pain, compared to usual care. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: Embase, Cochrane, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched from their inception until November 2, 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized clinical trials that compared psychological interventions to any alternatives without psychological components in patients with nonspecific low back pain who were stratified based on their psychological risk factors using the cutoff of the questionnaires measuring a psychological construct. DATA SYNTHESIS: The outcomes were pain intensity and disability. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used to evaluate the risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to judge certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-nine trials were included, most presenting some concerns for the risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was mostly low, with moderate to substantial heterogeneity. Using psychological stratification, individuals who received a psychological intervention (versus usual care) reported lower pain intensity at the short term (MD, −0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.41, −0.02) and midterm (MD, −0.37; 95% CI: −0.57, −0.16). For disability, there was a larger improvement with psychological interventions versus usual care at short-term (SMD, −0.17; 95% CI: −0.32, −0.02), midterm (SMD, −0.16; 95% CI: −0.28, −0.05), and long-term (SMD, −0.17; 95% CI: −0.29, −0.04) follow-ups. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological interventions had a positive impact, although small, on reducing pain intensity and disability in patients with low back pain and psychological risk factors. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2025;55(2):89-108. Epub 3 January 2025. doi:10.2519/jospt.2025.12777
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.039 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".