***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: Study Design . A r and omized trial . Objective . To evaluate the effectiveness of a semi-intensive multidisciplinary rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain in an outpatient setting . Summary and Background Data . Systematic review s have shown that there is strong evidence that intensive multidisciplinary treatment ( > 100 hours ) , which includes functional restoration , improves function among chronic patients with low back pain , and moderate evidence that it reduces pain but contradictory evidence regarding improvement of working ability . However , there is paucity of data whether semi-intensive outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation in groups is more effective than individual physiotherapy . Material s and Methods . A total of 120 women employed as healthcare and social care professionals with nonspecific chronic low back pain were recruited from two occupational healthcare centers . The patients were r and omized into two intervention programs . Multidisciplinary rehabilitation ( n = 59 ) was conducted in groups and comprised of physical training , workplace interventions , back school , relaxation training , and cognitive-behavioral stress management methods for 70 hours . The individual physiotherapy ( n = 61 ) included physical exercise and passive treatment methods administered for 10 hours . Main outcome measures were : back pain and sciatic pain intensity , disability , sick leaves , healthcare consumption , symptoms of depression , and beliefs of working ability after 2 years . Results . There were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups in main outcome measures just after rehabilitation , at 6- , at 12- , or 24-month follow-up . In both intervention arms , however , the before- and -after comparison showed favorable effects , and the effects were still maintained at 2 years follow-up . Conclusions . The results of this study indicate that semilight outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for female chronic low back pain patients does not offer incremental benefits when compared with rehabilitation carried out by a physiotherapist having a cognitive-behavioral way of administering the treatment OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness of a back school program in pain , functional status , quality of life , and in anxiety and depression in patients with non-specific low back pain . METHODS Sixty patients with low back pain were r and omized to an intervention and control group . The intervention group underwent a five-weekly back school program . The control group was seen in weekly medical visits , without educative approaches . Both groups took acetaminophen as analgesic medication . All subjects were evaluated by a blind physiotherapist after r and omization , 30 , 60 and 120 days . Roll and -Morris , SF-36 , STAI and Beck question naires , pain visual analogical scale and Schober 's test were applied . Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ( NSAID ) consumption was considered co-intervention . The statistical analyses were performed using Pearson 's Chi-Square analysis and Student 's t-test to compare the baseline characteristics of the groups and the analysis of variance ( ANOVA ) with repeated measures to assess changes inter/intra groups . RESULTS There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups . Fifty-five patients completed the study . The intervention group showed a significant improvement in the general health domain , assessed by SF-36 , and also in the reduction of acetaminophen and NSAID intake . There was no significant difference between the groups in pain , functional status , anxiety or depression . CONCLUSION The back school program was more effective than any educational intervention in general health status and in decreasing acetaminophen and NSAID intake . It was ineffective in the other quality of life domains , in pain , functional status , anxiety and depression OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effectiveness of the addition of back school to exercise and physical treatment modalities in relieving pain and improving the functional status of patients with chronic low back pain . DESIGN A r and omized controlled trial . PATIENTS A total of 146 patients with chronic low back pain were enrolled in the study . METHODS Subjects were divided into 2 groups : the back school group received exercise , physical treatment modalities and a back school programme ; and the control group received exercise and physical treatment modalities .  Treatment efficacy was evaluated at the end of treatment and 3 months post-treatment , in terms of pain , measured with the Visual Analogue Scale , and functional status , measured with the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Question naire . RESULTS In both groups , Visual Analogue Scale and Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Question naire were significantly reduced after therapy ( p < 0.01 ) , but the difference between the scores at the end of treatment and 3 months post-treatment was not significant . There was a significant improvement in Visual Analogue Scale and Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Question naire in the back school group compared with the control group at the end of therapy and 3 months post-treatment ( p < 0.05 ) . CONCLUSION The addition of back school was more effective than exercise and physical treatment modalities alone in the treatment of patients with chronic low back pain Background Different interventions can reduce the burden of the chronic low back pain . One example is the use of a ' Back School Programme ' . This is a brief therapy that uses a health education method to empower participants through a procedure of assessment , education and skill development . This study aim ed to evaluate to what extent the programme could improve quality of life in those who suffer from the condition . Methods This was a r and omized controlled trial . One-hundred and two female patients with low back pain ( n = 102 ) were r and omly allocated into two groups , matched in terms of age , weight , education , socioeconomic status , occupation and some aspects of risk behavior . Group 1 ( back school group , n = 50 ) but not group 2 ( clinic group , n = 52 ) received the ' Back School Programme ' . Then quality of life using the Short Form Health Survey ( SF-36 ) was assessed at two time points : at baseline and at three months follow-up . The findings were compared both within and between two groups . Results The ' Back School Programme ' was effective in improving patients ' quality of life ; significant differences were found on all eight subscales of the SF-36 for group 1 . In the clinic group ( group 2 ) , improvement was observed on three scales ( bodily pain , vitality and mental health ) but these improvements were less than in group 1 . The mean improvement over all eight subscales of the SF-36 was significantly better for the ' Back School Programme ' group . Conclusion The ' Back School Programme ' is an effective intervention and might improve the quality of life over a period of 3 months in patients who experience chronic low back pain Intensive group training using principles of grade d activity has been proven to be effective in occupational care for workers with chronic low back pain . Objective of the study was to compare the effects of an intensive group training protocol aim ed at returning to normal daily activities and guideline physiotherapy for primary care patients with non-specific chronic low back pain . The study was design ed as pragmatic r and omised controlled trial with a setup of 105 primary care physiotherapists in 49 practice s and 114 patients with non-specific low back pain of more than 12 weeks duration participated in the study . In the intensive group training protocol exercise therapy , back school and operant-conditioning behavioural principles are combined . Patients were treated during 10 individual sessions along 20 group sessions . Usual care consisted of physiotherapy according to the Dutch guidelines for Low Back Pain . Main outcome measures were functional disability ( Rol and Morris disability question naire ) , pain intensity , perceived recovery and sick leave because of low back pain assessed at baseline and after 6 , 13 , 26 and 52 weeks . Both an intention-to-treat analysis and a per- protocol analysis were performed . Multilevel analysis did not show significant differences between both treatment groups on any outcome measures during the complete follow-up period , with one exception . After 26 weeks the protocol group showed more reduction in pain intensity than the guideline group , but this difference was absent after 52 weeks . We finally conclude that an intensive group training protocol was not more effective than usual physiotherapy for chronic low back pain Study Design . R and omized , single blind , controlled trial . Objective . To determine the efficacy of 2 components of musculoskeletal physiotherapy on chronic low back disorder . Summary of Background Data . Musculoskeletal physiotherapy encompasses many treatment methods , however , manual therapy and exercises to rehabilitate spinal stabilization are the most frequently used . Despite their popularity , scant evidence supports their use on subjects with chronic low back disorder . Methods . A total of 346 subjects were r and omized to manual therapy , a 10-week spinal stabilization rehabilitation program , or a minimal intervention control group . Data were collected at baseline , and 3 , 6 , 12 , and 24 months after intervention . Outcome measures recorded intensity of low back pain , disability , h and icap , medication , and quality of life . There were 4 main variables combined in a primary component analysis to form a single outcome measure ( i.e. , a measure of dysfunction ) . Results . The results indicated statistically significant improvements in favor of the spinal stabilization group at the 6-month stage in pain ( 65.9 % reduction in symptoms ) and dysfunction ( combined mean reduction of 134 , st and ard error 23.84 ) , and at the 1-year stage in medication ( 34.3 % reduction in medication ) , dysfunction ( combined mean reduction of 134 , st and ard error 18.2 ) , and disability ( mean difference in change 15.71 Oswestry Disability Index , 95 % confidence interval 19.3–10.01 ) . Conclusions . As a component of musculoskeletal physiotherapy , the spinal stabilization program is more effective than manually applied therapy or an education booklet in treating chronic low back disorder over time . Both manual therapy and the spinal stabilization program are significantly effective in pain reduction in comparison to an active control . To our knowledge and up until now , this result has not been shown in patients with chronic low back disorder OBJECTIVE To evaluate a progressive fitness programme for patients with chronic low back pain . DESIGN Single blind r and omised controlled trial . Assessment s were carried out before and after treatment by an observer blinded to the study and included a battery of vali date d measures . All patients were followed up by postal question naire six months after treatment . SETTING Physiotherapy department of orthopaedic hospital . SUBJECTS 81 patients with chronic low back pain referred from orthopaedic consultants for physiotherapy . The patients were r and omly allocated to a fitness programme or control group . INTERVENTION Both groups were taught specific exercises to carry out at home and referred to a back-school for education in back care . Patients allocated to the fitness class attended eight exercise classes over four weeks in addition to the home programme and backschool . RESULTS Significant differences between the groups were shown in the changes before and after treatment in scores on the Oswestry low back pain disability index ( P < 0.005 ) , pain reports ( sensory P < 0.05 and affective P < 0.005 ) , self efficacy reports ( P < 0.05 ) , and walking distance ( P < 0.005 ) . No significant differences between the groups were found by the general health question naire or question naire on pain locus of control . A benefit of about 6 percentage points on the disability index was maintained by patients in the fitness group at six months . CONCLUSION There is a role for supervised fitness programmes in the management of moderately disabled patients with chronic low back pain . Further clinical trials , however , need to be established in other centres to confirm these findings BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES The aim of this trial is to search effectiveness of specifically adapted exercise programs on its own and with low back school on pain , disability , trunk and quadriceps muscle strength , walking performance , spinal mobility , quality of life ( QOL ) , and depression in the patients with chronic low back pain ( CLBP ) . MATERIAL AND METHOD A total of 121 patients with definite CLBP were included in this study . The patients were r and omized into two groups . Group 1 ( n=60 ) was given exercises only and accepted as the control group . Group 2 ( n=61 ) received back school program and exercises . The exercise treatment was performed 3 days a week , for 3 months . The pain ( visual analog scale , VAS ) , disability ( Oswestry Disability Question naire , ODQ ) , walking performance ( 6 minute walking test , 6MWT ) , depression ( Beck Depression Inventory scores , BDI ) , and QOL ( Short Form 36 , SF-36 ) of all participants were evaluated . The trunk and knee muscle strength were measured with a h and held dynamometer . Patients were assessed at baseline ( BT ) , at the end of treatment ( AT ) , and at the six month follow-up ( F ) . RESULTS Statistically significant improvements were found between groups regarding all of the clinical parameters over time . Pain , disability , muscle strength , endurance , 6MWT , mobility , QOL , and depression of both groups also showed improvements AT . These improvements persisted at 6-months follow-ups ( P < 0.05 ) . There were statistically significant differences between the groups for pain , disability , muscle strength , endurance , 6MWT , QOL , and depression regarding the change scores between AT-BT test and F-BT test ( P < 0.05 ) . Group 2 improved more than group 1 except for mobility . CONCLUSION Exercise programs can be modified and used successfully in CLBP and this effect can be increased with addition of back school further . LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Diagnostic study Level-I-I ( prospect i ve study ) Inpatient and outpatient treatments were compared with a control intervention in 288 men and 168 women , aged 35 - 54 , who were at work , but suffered from chronic or recurrent low back pain .  Physical measurements and back pain assessment s  were carried out before the intervention and at a 3-month follow-up . Physical fitness improved most in the in patients , but the out patients did not differ from the controls . Correl 
    Output:
    
Meta-analyses for pain scores and functional outcomes revealed statistical superiority of back schools vs no intervention for some comparisons but not others .
No meta- analysis was feasible for the comparison of back schools vs other active treatments .
Adverse events were poorly reported so that no reliable conclusions regarding the safety of back schools can be drawn , although some limited reassurance in this regard may be derived from the fact that few adverse events and no serious adverse events were reported in the back school groups in the studies that did report on safety .
Overall , the evidence base for the use of back schools to treat  chronic low back pain  is weak ; in nearly a half-century since back schools were first trialled , no unequivocal evidence of benefit has emerged