United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care

Russell, Ian and Underwood, Martin and Brealey, Stephen and Burton, Kim and Coulton, Simon and Farrin, Amanda and Garratt, Andrew and Harvey, Emma and Letley, Louise and Manca, Andrea and Martin, Jeannett and Klaber Moffett, Jennifer and Morton, Veronica and Torgerson, David J. and Vickers, Madge and Whyte, Ken and Williams, Melanie (2004) United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. British Medical Journal, 329 (7479). p. 1377. ISSN 0959-535X. (The full text of this publication is not available from this repository)

The full text of this publication is not available from this repository. (Contact us about this Publication)
Official URL
http://dx.doi.org/36/bmj.38282.669225.AE

Abstract

Objective To estimate the effect of adding exercise classes, spinal manipulation delivered in NHS or private premises, or manipulation followed by exercise to "best care" in general practice for patients consulting with back pain. FIG1"> WIDTH=177 HEIGHT=200 SRC="/small/bres117069.f1.gif" ALT=" "> View larger version (56K): FIG1">[in this window] FIG1" onClick="startTarget('FIG1', 540, 640); this.href='FIG1'" onMouseOver="window.status='View figure in a separate window'; return true" TARGET="FIG1">[in a new window] Fig 1 Progress of the UK BEAM trial Design Pragmatic randomised trial with factorial design. Setting 181 general practices in Medical Research Council General Practice Research Framework; 63 community settings around 14 centres across the United Kingdom. Participants 1334 patients consulting their general practices about low back pain. Main outcome measures Scores on the Roland Morris disability questionnaire at three and 12 months, adjusted for centre and baseline scores. Results All groups improved over time. Exercise improved mean disability questionnaire scores at three months by 1.4 (95% confidence interval 0.6 to 2.1) more than "best care." For manipulation the additional improvement was 1.6 (0.8 to 2.3) at three months and 1.0 (0.2 to 1.8) at 12 months. For manipulation followed by exercise the additional improvement was 1.9 (1.2 to 2.6) at three months and 1.3 (0.5 to 2.1) at 12 months. No significant differences in outcome occurred between manipulation in NHS premises and in private premises. No serious adverse events occurred. Conclusions Relative to "best care" in general practice, manipulation followed by exercise achieved a moderate benefit at three months and a small benefit at 12 months; spinal manipulation achieved a small to moderate benefit at three months and a small benefit at 12 months; and exercise achieved a small benefit at three months but not 12 months.

Item Type: Article
Subjects: H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General)
R Medicine
R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine > RA0421 Public health. Hygiene. Preventive Medicine
R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine
H Social Sciences > HM Sociology
Divisions: Faculties > Social Sciences > School of Social Policy Sociology and Social Research > Centre for Health Services Studies
Depositing User: Helen McGregor
Date Deposited: 25 Oct 2010 13:01
Last Modified: 18 Jun 2014 08:47
Resource URI: http://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/25767 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)
  • Depositors only (login required):