Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39432806›Full record

Trial reportPain2025

Personalised decision support in the management of patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary physiotherapy care: a cluster randomised controlled trial (the SupportPrim project).

Fredrik Granviken, Ingebrigt Meisingset, Kerstin Bach, Anita Formo Bones, Melanie Rae Simpson, Jonathan C Hill, Danielle A van der Windt, Ottar Vasseljen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Potential applications of artificial intelligence in pain management: a scoping review.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Fredrik GranvikenDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-8819-4713
Ingebrigt MeisingsetDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Kerstin BachDepartment of Computer Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Anita Formo BonesDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Melanie Rae SimpsonDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Jonathan C HillSchool of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, United Kingdom.
Danielle A van der WindtSchool of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, United Kingdom.
Ottar VasseljenDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

Norges Forskningsråd 303331Norsk Fysioterapeutforbund 118231
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractWe developed the SupportPrim PT clinical decision support system (CDSS) using the artificial intelligence method case-based reasoning to support personalised musculoskeletal pain management. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the CDSS for patients in physiotherapy practice. A cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted in primary care in Norway. We randomised 44 physiotherapists to (1) use the CDSS alongside usual care or (2) usual care alone. The CDSS provided personalised treatment recommendations based on a case base of 105 patients with positive outcomes. During the trial, the case-based reasoning system did not have an active learning capability; therefore, the case base size remained the same throughout the study. We included 724 patients presenting with neck, shoulder, back, hip, knee, or complex pain (CDSS; n = 358, usual care; n = 366). Primary outcomes were assessed with multilevel logistic regression using self-reported Global Perceived Effect (GPE) and Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). At 12 weeks, 165/298 (55.4%) patients in the intervention group and 176/321 (54.8%) in the control group reported improvement in GPE (odds ratio, 1.18; confidence interval, 0.50-2.78). For PSFS, 173/290 (59.7%) patients in the intervention group and 218/310 (70.3%) in the control group reported clinically important improvement in function (odds ratio, 0.41; confidence interval, 0.20-0.85). No significant between-group differences were found for GPE. For PSFS, there was a significant difference favouring the control group, but this was less than the prespecified difference of 15%. We identified several study limitations and recommend further investigation into artificial intelligence applications for managing musculoskeletal pain.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalMusculoskeletal PainPain ManagementPhysical Therapy ModalitiesAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayPain MeasurementPrimary Health CareTreatment OutcomeArtificial intelligenceCDSSDecision supportMusculoskeletal painPhysiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID39432806
PMCPMC12004987

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.