SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2023
Efficacy of mHealth Interventions for Improving the Pain and Disability of Individuals With Chronic Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The physical and psychological effectiveness of mHealth-based physiotherapy for patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of telemedicine and telecare · 2026Pooled it
- Patient-targeted smartphone applications for pain management: A review of brazilian app markets.Brazilian journal of physical therapyPooled it
- The Physical and Psychological Effects of Telerehabilitation-Based Exercise for Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Trial
- Digital Health Approaches to Geriatric Rehabilitation: A Narrative Paper.Annals of rehabilitation medicine · 2026Article
- Mechanisms of Engagement With Mobile Health Apps for Adults With Long-Term Conditions: Overview of Systematic Reviews.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Review
- Mobile App-Supported Self-Management for Chronic Low Back Pain: Realist Evaluation.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Psychological risk factors and resources for low back pain intensity and back health in daily life: An ecological momentary assessment study.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2025Article
- A multicenter trial-based economic evaluation of a mobile health intervention for individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain: randomized controlled trial protocol.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Exploring the Needs of People With Chronic Low Back Pain and Health Care Professionals for mHealth Devices to Support Self-Managed Physical Activity and Pain: User-Centered Design Approach.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Low back pain is one of the main causes of disability worldwide. Individuals with chronic conditions have been widely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. In this context, mobile health (mHealth) has become popular, mostly due to the widespread use of smartphones. Despite the considerable number of apps for low back pain available in app stores, the effectiveness of these technologies is not established, and there is a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of the isolated use of mobile apps in the self-management of low back pain. Objective: We summarized the evidence on the effectiveness of mHealth interventions on pain and disability for individuals with chronic low back pain. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing mHealth to usual care or no intervention. The search terms used were related to low back pain and mHealth. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability, and the secondary outcome was quality of life. Searches were carried out in the following databases, without date or language restriction: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the Cochrane Library, and OpenGrey, in addition to article references. The risk of bias was analyzed using the PEDro scale. Data were summarized descriptively and through meta-analysis (pain intensity and disability). In the meta-analysis, eligible studies were combined while considering clinical and methodological homogeneity. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) criteria. Results: A total of 5 randomized controlled trials were included, totaling 894 participants (447 allocated to the mHealth group and 445 to the usual care group), and they had similar methodological structure and interventions. Follow-up ranged from 6 weeks to 12 months. The studies did not demonstrate significant differences for pain intensity (mean difference -0.86, 95% CI -2.29 to 0.58; P=.15) and disability (standardized mean difference -0.24, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.20; P=.14) when comparing mHealth and usual care. All studies showed biases, with emphasis on nonconcealed allocation and nonblinding of the outcome evaluator. The certainty of evidence was rated as low for the analyzed outcomes. Conclusions: mHealth alone was no more effective than usual care or no treatment in improving pain intensity and disability in individuals with low back pain. Due to the biases found and the low certainty of evidence, the evidence remains inconclusive, and future quality clinical trials are needed.
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.