MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407676089 · doi:10.1097/pr9.0000000000001242

Efficacy of mobile health interventions in the conservative management of chronic low back pain in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis

2025· review· en· W4407676089 on OpenAlexaff
Babina Rani, Mayank Gupta, Venkata Ganesh, Rajni Sharma, Anuj Bhatia, Babita Ghai

Bibliographic record

VenuePAIN Reports · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisLow and middle income countriesPsychological interventionConservative managementMedicineLow back painPhysical therapyLow incomeRandomized controlled trialAlternative medicineSurgeryDeveloping countryInternal medicineNursingDemographic economicsEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a major global health issue, particularly severe in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where health care resources and accessibility are limited. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions offer a promising solution by leveraging technology to deliver health care services remotely. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of mHealth interventions in managing CLBP in LMICs. A comprehensive search of electronic databases was performed for studies published until June 2024, evaluating mHealth interventions for CLBP in LMICs. Primary outcomes measured were pain intensity and disability, while secondary outcomes included quality of life (QoL). Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB2), and quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Robustness of meta-analysis results was assessed via trial sequential analysis (TSA). Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. The mHealth interventions significantly reduced the overall pain intensity (MD = -1.11, 95% CI: -1.75, -0.46) and disability (MD = -6.59, 95% CI: -10.65, -2.54). Subgroup analysis indicated greater effectiveness of short-term interventions (<6 weeks) in reducing pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI) vs long-term interventions (>6 weeks). mHealth interventions notably reduced pain and ODI scores vs unsupervised programs but showed no significant difference compared to in-person programs. The z-score line remained within TSA boundaries. mHealth interventions show potential in reducing pain and disability among patients with CLBP in LMICs, although with inconclusive impact on QoL. The high heterogeneity and limited number of studies underscore the need for further research with greater sample size to validate these findings and explore the long-term benefits and implementation challenges of mHealth in resource-constrained settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0270.046
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePAIN ReportsSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207