ArticleJournal of rehabilitation medicine2022
Sex and Age Group Focus on Outcomes after Multimodal Rehabilitation for Patients with Chronic Pain in Northern Sweden.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cross-sectional differences of physical and psychosocial measures in low back pain according to pain chronification risk groups.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2025Article
- Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Rehabilitation in Patients with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain in Primary Care-A Cohort Study from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the outcomes of a multimodal rehabilitation programme (MMRP) regarding pain intensity, emotional functioning, activity and physical functioning, social response, and health, with regard to sex and age.
methodsThis retrospective longitudinal study was based on data from patients at 2 specialist pain clinics in northern Sweden immediately after MMRP (short-term) and at 1-year follow-up (long-term). Data from 439 patients were analysed according to sex and to age groups 18-30, 31-45 and 46-65 years.
resultsThe men improved with larger effect sizes (ESs) than women immediately after MMRP. The youngest age group showed improvements with greater ESs compared with the older age groups, both in the short and long term. Social support decreased for both women and men and in all 3 age groups in the long term. Improvements in both the short and long term were found in pain intensity, emotional functioning, and activity and physical functioning, in both women and men, as well as the different age groups.
conclusionBoth women and men with chronic pain, and from all of the different age groups, benefitted from MRRP. Since improvements for men were not sustained over time, they may need further support after the programme.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.