Trial reportJournal of rehabilitation medicine2026
Non-inferiority of digitally assisted outpatient rehabilitation in patients with back pain: 12-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the non-inferiority of digitally assisted, multimodal rehabilitation that utilizes a digital version of a standardized back school (intervention group) compared with a rehabilitation program applying the back school conventionally in person (control group).
designNonblinded, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial with 12-month follow-up after the end of rehabilitation. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS: Adults aged 18-65 years with back pain.
methodsThe back school was part of a 3-week rehabilitation program along with other treatments in accordance with the therapy standards. Eight outpatient rehabilitation centers conducted the rehabilitation program. Self-reported pain self-efficacy (10-60 points) was the primary outcome. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval was greater than -4 points for pain self-efficacy.
resultsA total of 157 participants (55.3%) completed the 12-month follow-up. Multiple imputation of missing data allowed for inclusion of 270 participants in the analysis (intervention group: n = 127, control group: n = 143). Our primary adjusted intention- to-treat analysis demonstrated that digitally assisted rehabilitation was non-inferior to conventional rehabilitation at the 12-month follow-up (b = 0.48; 95% CI = -3.09 to ∞).
conclusionThis study supports the hypothesis that digitally assisted rehabilitation is a viable alternative to in-person rehabilitation for patients with back pain.
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.