The effects of three different forms of advice for acute low back pain on reassurance outcomes: a three-arm trial
Not Applicable
Completed
- Conditions
- low back painMusculoskeletal - Normal musculoskeletal and cartilage development and function
- Registration Number
- ACTRN12623000364673
- Lead Sponsor
- niversity of Sydney
- Brief Summary
Not available
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- Completed
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 2313
Inclusion Criteria
* Self-reported current acute low back pain (duration of symptoms of up to 6 weeks)
* Pain intensity of at least 1 (out of 10)
Exclusion Criteria
* Having been diagnosed by a doctor with cancer, fracture in the lumbar spine, infection in the lumbar spine, cauda equina syndrome
* Having undergone lumbar surgery
Study & Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Study Design
- Not specified
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method
Related Research Topics
Explore scientific publications, clinical data analysis, treatment approaches, and expert-compiled information related to the mechanisms and outcomes of this trial. Click any topic for comprehensive research insights.
Neurobiological mechanisms reassurance therapy acute low back pain central sensitization modulation
Comparative effectiveness guideline-based advice versus pain neuroscience education acute LBP outcomes
Psychosocial factors predicting patient response reassurance interventions acute low back pain
Impact communication style fear-avoidance beliefs disability outcomes acute low back pain
Behavioral interventions targeting reassurance reduce chronicity risk acute low back pain patients