ArticleBMJ open2025
Efficacy of non-surgical treatments for acute non-specific low back pain: protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
introductionAcute low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition with various non-surgical treatment options, yet no comprehensive network meta-analysis has systematically compared their relative efficacy for pain and disability. This study aims to fill that gap by synthesising available evidence on the efficacy of different types of non-surgical interventions for acute LBP, such as various medications, manual therapies and education-based therapies. Our coprimary objectives are to (1) compare each active treatment to an inert reference for measures of LBP and related disability and (2) rank the efficacy of treatments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic search across multiple databases, including grey literature, to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating non-surgical treatments for acute LBP. Eligible studies must report on pain and/or disability outcomes in adults. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Risk of Bias tool, and the certainty of evidence will be graded using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We will use a frequentist network meta-analysis to pool standardised mean differences in pain and disability, employing random-effects models to account for heterogeneity. A qualitative analysis will assess study characteristics and transitivity, while a quantitative analysis will evaluate efficacy and inconsistency. Results will be presented using network geometry, p-scores, forest plots, funnel plots, Egger's test, Q-statistics and league tables to visualise both direct and indirect evidence and to identify potential biases. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review protocol does not involve any primary research with human participants, animal subjects or medical record review. Consequently, this work did not require approval from an institutional review board or ethics committee. Results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conference(s). De-identified data will be made available in a public repository.
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.