***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: 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 . Fig 1 Progress of the UK BEAM trial Design Pragmatic r and omised trial with factorial design . Setting 181 general practice s in Medical Research Council General Practice Research Framework ; 63 community setting s around 14 centres across the United Kingdom . Participants 1334 patients consulting their general practice s about low back pain . Main outcome measures Scores on the Rol and Morris disability question naire at three and 12 months , adjusted for centre and baseline scores . Results All groups improved over time . Exercise  improved mean disability question naire 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 OBJECTIVE For long-term treatment effects , patients with subacute back pain need to adhere to treatment recommendations beyond the prescribed exercise treatment . Adherence rates are as low as 30 % , so we developed a cognitive-behavioural training programme to enhance patients ' self-efficacy , maximise severity perceptions and reduce barrier perceptions . METHOD A 2 x 4 ( group x time ) repeated measurement design was applied . Forty-seven patients with non-specific , subacute back pain were r and omly assigned to a training group ( exercise treatment plus cognitive-behavioural training programme ) or a control group ( exercise treatment only ) . RESULTS Repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant main and interaction effects ; the training group reported enhanced self-efficacy and severity perceptions , reduced barrier perceptions , and self-reported that they exercised more often than the control group over time . However , no group differences regarding pain intensity emerged . CONCLUSION Our findings demonstrate that a short and inexpensive cognitive-behavioural training programme is an effective tool to enable back pain patients to follow treatment recommendations on a regular basis . PRACTICE IMPLICATION S The short and simple intervention can easily be conducted by personnel , other than psychologists , i.e. , physiotherapists Study Design . A prospect i ve , r and omized , single ( investigator ) blind , comparative efficacy trial was conducted . Objective . To compare the efficacy of continuous low-level heat wrap therapy ( 40 C , 8 hours/day ) with that of ibuprofen ( 1200 mg/day ) and acetaminophen ( 4000 mg/day ) in subjects with acute nonspecific low back pain . Summary of Background Data . The efficacy of topical heat methods , as compared with oral analgesic treatment of low back pain , has not been established . Methods . Subjects ( n = 371 ) were r and omly assigned to heat wrap ( n = 113 ) , acetaminophen ( n = 113 ) , or ibuprofen ( n = 106 ) for efficacy evaluation , or to oral placebo ( n = 20 ) or unheated back wrap ( n = 19 ) for blinding . Outcome measures included pain relief , muscle stiffness , lateral trunk flexibility , and disability . Efficacy was measured over two treatment days and two follow-up days . Results . Day 1 pain relief for the heat wrap ( mean , 2 ) was higher than for ibuprofen ( mean , 1.51;P = 0.0007 ) or acetaminophen ( mean , 1.32;P = 0.0001 ) . Extended mean pain relief ( Days 3 to 4 ) for the heat wrap ( mean , 2.61 ) also was higher than for ibuprofen ( mean , 1.68;P = 0.0001 ) or acetaminophen ( mean , 1.95;P = 0.0009 ) . Lateral trunk flexibility was improved with the heat wrap ( mean change , 4.28 cm ) during treatment ( P ≤ 0.009 vs acetaminophen [ mean change , 2.93 cm ] , P ≤ 0.001 vs ibuprofen [ mean change , 2.51 cm ] ) . The results were similar on Day 4 . Day 1 reduction in muscle stiffness with the heat wrap ( mean , 16.3 ) was greater than with acetaminophen ( mean , 10.5;P = 0.001 ) . Disability was reduced with the heat wrap ( mean , 4.9 ) , as compared with ibuprofen ( mean , 2.7;P = 0.01 ) and acetaminophen ( mean , 2.9;P = 0.0007 ) , on Day 4 . None of the adverse events were serious . The highest rate ( 10.4 % ) was reported in the ibuprofen group . Conclusion . Continuous low-level heat wrap therapy was superior to both acetaminophen and ibuprofen for treating low back pain STUDY DESIGN A controlled clinical trial . OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of an integrated back stability ( IBS ) programme on a chronic low back pain ( CLBP ) population in a time restricted private clinic environment . BACKGROUND Studies assessing stability training CLBP have reported inconsistent results . Methods used within trials vary , with some authors focusing on muscle isolation and others using whole body movements . IBS uses an exercise progression beginning with posturally based exercise and progressing from muscle isolation through to complex movements . METHODS AND MEASURES Fifty-nine chronic low back patients were divided into control ( n=32 ) and intervention ( n=27 ) groups . Participants in the intervention group were prescribed a 6 week individualized exercise programme in three stages . In stage 1 , exercises addressed posture and movement dysfunction and activated the core stabilizing muscles . In stage 2 , ' back fitness ' was enhanced using progressive exercise principles . Stage 3 emphasized technique specific actions . Participants in the control group received a backcare advice leaflet only . RESULTS Pre- and post-test scores were analysed for each of the outcome measures within the control group using a Wilcoxin signed ranks test . At an alpha level of p < or=0.0071 , no differences were observed . For the intervention group , a Mann-Whitney U-test showed significant differences between groups in the Rol and and Morris Disability Question aire ( RMDQ ) , short form McGill Pain Question naire ( SF-MPQ ) , and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia ( TSK ) ( p < or=0.0071 ) . Patient satisfaction was assessed by question naire , 89 % of patients considering their level of pain and functional impairment acceptable following the programme . CONCLUSION IBS significantly reduced pain and disability in the subject group studied . Patients reported a positive experience of the programme BACKGROUND Spinal pain is common and frequently disabling . Management guidelines have encouraged referral from primary care for spinal manipulation . However , the evidence base for these recommendations is weak . More pragmatic trials and economic evaluations have been recommended . OBJECTIVES Our aim was to assess the effectiveness and health care costs of a practice -based osteopathy clinic for subacute spinal pain . METHODS A pragmatic r and omized controlled trial was carried out in a primary care osteopathy clinic accepting referrals from 14 neighbouring practice s in North West Wales . A total of 201 patients with neck or back pain of 2 - 12 weeks duration were allocated at r and om between usual GP care and an additional three sessions of osteopathic spinal manipulation . The primary outcome measure was the Extended Aberdeen Spine Pain Scale ( EASPS ) . Secondary measures included SF-12 , EuroQol and Short-form McGill Pain Question naire . Health care costs were estimated from the records of referring GPs . RESULTS Outcomes improved more in the osteopathy group than the usual care group . At 2 months , this improvement was significantly greater in EASPS [ 95 % confidence interval ( CI ) 0.7 - 9.8 ] and SF-12 mental score ( 95 % CI 2.7 - 10.7 ) . At 6 months , this difference was no longer significant for EASPS ( 95 % CI -1.5 to 10.4 ) , but remained significant for SF-12 mental score ( 95 % CI 1.0 - 9.9 ) . Mean health care costs attributed to spinal pain were significantly greater by 65 UK pounds in the osteopathy group ( 95 % CI 32 - 155 UK pounds ) . Though osteopathy also cost 22 UK pounds more in mean total health care cost , this was not significant ( 95 % CI - 159 to 142 UK pounds ) . CONCLUSION A primary care osteopathy clinic improved short-term physical and longer term psychological outcomes , at little extra cost . Rigorous multicentre studies are now needed to assess the generalizability of this approach This study examined the supplemental value of a cognitive coping skills training when added to an operant-behavioral treatment for chronic low-back pain patients . The complete treatment package ( OPCO ) was compared with an operant program + group discussion ( OPDI ) and a waiting-list control ( WLC ) . After the WL period , the WLC patients received a less protocol ized operant program usually provided in Dutch rehabilitation centers ( OPUS ) . Regression analyses showed that , compared with WLC , both OPCO and OPDI led to less negative affect , higher activity tolerance , less pain behavior , and higher pain coping and pain control . At posttreatment , OPCO led to better pain coping and pain control than OPDI . Calculation of improvement rates revealed that OPCO and OPDI had significantly more improved patients than OPUS on all the dependent variables . The discussion includes findings regarding treatment credibility , compliance , and contamination bias Study Design . A prospect i ve r and omized controlled trial . Objectives . To examine the effectiveness of combined manipulative treatment , stabilizing exercises , and physician consultation compared with physician consultation alone for chronic low back pain . Summary of Background Data . Strong evidence exists that manual therapy provides more effective short-term pain relief than does placebo treatment in the management of chronic low back pain . The evidence for long-term effect is lacking . Methods . Two hundred four chronic low back pain patients , whose Oswestry disability index was at least 16 % , were r and omly assigned to either a manipulative-treatment group or a consultation group . All were clinical ly examined , informed about their back pain , provided with an educational booklet , and were given specific instructions based on the clinical evaluation . The treatment included four sessions of manipulation and stabilizing exercises aim ing to correct the lumbopelvic rhythm . Question naires inquired about pain intensity , self-rated disability , mental depression , health-related quality of life , health care costs , and production costs . Results . At the baseline , the groups were comparable , except for the percentage of employees ( P = 0.01 ) . At the 5- and 12-month follow-ups , the manipulative-treatment group showed more significant reductions in pain intensity ( P < 0.001 ) and in self-rated disability ( P = 0.002 ) than the consultation group . However , we detected no significant difference between the groups in health-related quality of life or in costs . Conclusions . The manipulative treatment with stabilizing exercises was more effective in reducing pain intensity and disability than the physician consultation alone . The present study showed that short , specific treatment programs with proper patient information may alter the course of chronic low back pain STUDY DESIGN A r and omized controlled comparative trial with an 8-month follow-up period was conducted . OBJECTIVE To compare the effect of the McKenzie treatment method with that of intensive dynamic strengthening training in patients with subacute or chronic low back pain . SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA R and omized studies indicate that the efficacy of the McKenzie method in the treatment of patients with acute or subacute low back pain is debatable . Currently , no r and omized studies examining the effects of this method for patients with chronic low back pain have been published . METHODS For this study , 260 consecutive patients with low back pain and at least 8 weeks duration of symptoms ( 85 % of the patients had more than 3 months duration of symptoms ) were r and omized into two groups : Group A was treated with the McKenzie method ( n = 132 ) , and Group B was treated with intensive dynamic strengthening training ( n = 128 ) . The treatment period for both groups was 8 weeks at an outpatient clinic , followed by 2 months of self-training at home . Treatment results were recorded at the end of the treatment period at the clinic , then 2 and 8 months after . In both groups , 30 % of the patients were lost to follow-up evaluation . An intention-to-treat analysis of the main effect variables , disability , and pain was performed for all the patients included in the study . A supplementary analysis of the 180 patients who completed the full treatment program also was undertaken . RESULTS Intention-to-treat analysis showed a tendency toward a difference in reduction of disability in favor of the McKenzie group at the 2-month follow-up assessment ( P = 0.04 ) , but no differences at the end of treatment and at the 8-month follow-up evaluation . No differences in reduction of pain were observed at any time between the groups . The supplementary analysis of the patients who had completed the full intervention showed a tendency 
    Output:
    
Recommendations for st and ardising outcomes may have had a limited or inconsistent effect on practice .