***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 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 clinical trial was conducted that involved six groups of patients with chronic low back pain selected from a large cohort ( N = 816 ) . Objectives . To correlate pretreatment baseline variables with outcome parameters after treatment in a functional restoration program or in control programs , to identify possible factors predictive of the need for functional restoration . Summary of Background Data . Since the functional restoration program was first described , research has focused on identifying patients who will or will not benefit from such a program . The value of previous studies is limited , however , because predictive factors from a control group were not " subtracted . " Methods . Eight hundred sixteen patients with chronic low back disability were included . All had a structured medical examination , including various physical tests before participation in either a functional restoration program ( n = 621 ) or shorter " control " outpatient programs ( n = 144 ) . A smaller group of the cohort ( n = 51 ) had no treatment and served as a pure control group . Six groups were selected from the cohort : Three underwent an identical functional restoration program and three underwent different outpatient control programs . Several baseline demographic , physical , and socioeconomic variables were correlated to 1‐year outcome parameters . Results . Age , days of sick leave , connection to the work force , and back pain intensity , were significantly correlated to success 1 year after entry into the study in all groups , no matter what kind of treatment was administered . Back muscle endurance , sports activity , activity of daily living scores , and vibrations were of importance in some outcome parameters for success after functional restoration . Smoking was positively correlated to disability pension . Days of sick leave and , in functional restoration , ability to work were the only factors that were correlative with statistics for people who withdrew . Conclusions . Different factors can be identified as predictive of outcome in a functional restoration program , but most of these factors were also shown to predict success for shorter control outpatient programs or of no treatment Introduction The Multinational Musculoskeletal Inception Cohort Study ( MMICS ) Statement is a consensus statement aim ed at improving the quality of prospect i ve investigations into the transition from early stages of low back pain ( LBP ) to persistent problems . The statement aims to help improve the quality of such studies by recommending an agreed minimal list of measures for inclusion in baseline data collection . The MMICS Statement is primarily aim ed at research ers who want to investigate prognosis in LBP , and this will allow data from cohorts to be pooled and will facilitate comparisons between different health care systems . One approach to preventing acute new episodes of LBP ( up to 3 weeks from onset ) from developing into persistent disabling pain is to identify those individuals with LBP who are most likely to progress to chronic disability . Targeting interventions at those at highest risk could reduce the population burden of chronic LBP . A wide range of baseline parameters have been associated with poor outcome in inception cohort studies ( 1–6 ) . Few existing studies have been of sufficient size and method ologic rigor to produce conclusive findings . Even in method ologically robust studies , baseline factors only account for a small proportion of the variance in outcome ( 7 ) , typically around 30 % . Systematic review s of the literature could not pool data because studies used different measurements ( 1–3 ) . Despite some information on physical , psychosocial , and work-related risk factors , it has not been possible to adequately estimate the comparative impact of individual psychosocial and societal factors on the transition from acute to persistent disabling LBP . How to address this problem was one focus of the VI International Forum for Primary Care Research in Low Back Pain held in April 2003 . A steering group for the collaboration was appointed , and 8 national team leaders volunteered to recruit teams of national experts . Three additional team leaders were recruited by the steering group ( Australia , France , and Germany ) . Independent experts were invited to advise on the quality of the MMICS process . The MMICS steering group , located in the UK , met regularly and included expert research ers in clinical and outcome factors in back pain ( AB ) , work-related issues in back pain ( AKB ) , psychosocial aspects of back pain ( TP and RS ) , and general practice aspects of back pain ( MU ) . The MMICS Statement set out to include 1 ) a minimal but comprehensive number of predictor factors based on current evidence and theory ; 2 ) appropriate measurement instruments for agreed predictor factors based on their clinometric properties , availability , and practical characteristics ; and 3 ) a minimum set of followup measures , including recommendations about measurement and timing Objective To determine the effectiveness of lessons in the Alex and er technique , massage therapy , and advice from a doctor to take exercise ( exercise prescription ) along with nurse delivered behavioural counselling for patients with chronic or recurrent back pain . Design Factorial r and omised trial . Setting 64 general practice s in Engl and . Participants 579 patients with chronic or recurrent low back pain ; 144 were r and omised to normal care , 147 to massage , 144 to six Alex and er technique lessons , and 144 to 24 Alex and er technique lessons ;  half of each of these groups were r and omised to exercise prescription . Interventions Normal care ( control ) , six sessions of massage , six or 24 lessons on the Alex and er technique , and prescription for exercise from a doctor with nurse delivered behavioural counselling . Main outcome measures Rol and Morris disability score ( number of activities impaired by pain ) and number of days in pain . Results Exercise and lessons in the Alex and er technique , but not massage , remained effective at one year ( compared with control Rol and disability score 8.1 : massage −0.58 , 95 % confidence interval −1.94 to 0.77 , six lessons −1.40 , −2.77 to −0.03 , 24 lessons −3.4 , −4.76 to −2.03 , and exercise −1.29 , −2.25 to −0.34 ) . Exercise after six lessons achieved 72 % of the effect of 24 lessons alone ( Rol and disability score −2.98 and −4.14 , respectively ) . Number of days with back pain in the past four weeks was lower after lessons ( compared with control median 21 days : 24 lessons −18 , six lessons −10 , massage −7 ) and quality of life improved significantly . No significant harms were reported . Conclusions One to one lessons in the Alex and er technique from registered teachers have long term benefits for patients with chronic back pain . Six lessons followed by exercise prescription were nearly as effective as 24 lessons . Trial registration National Research Register N0028108728 . How does the Alex and er Technique work ? What are the authors findings about the clinical and cost effectiveness of the treatment ? Watch this video to find out ( 12 mins ) . Many manual therapists assess and treat spinal stiffness of people with low back pain . The objectives of this study were to investigate : ( i ) whether spinal stiffness changes after treatment ; ( ii ) the relationship between pre-treatment spinal stiffness and change in stiffness with treatment ; ( iii ) the relationship between spinal stiffness , pain , disability and global perceived effect of treatment ; ( iv ) whether spinal stiffness predicts outcome of treatment or response to treatment in chronic low back pain patients . One hundred and ninety-one subjects with chronic low back pain were r and omly allocated to groups that received either spinal manipulative therapy , motor control exercise , or a general exercise program . Spinal stiffness  was assessed before and after intervention . All three groups showed a significant decrease in stiffness following treatment ( p<0.001 ) . No difference between groups was observed . There was a significant negative correlation between pre-treatment stiffness and change in stiffness ( r=-0.61 ; p<0.001 ) . There was a significant but weak correlation ( r=0.18 ; p=0.02 ) between change in stiffness and change in global perceived effect of treatment , and a significant but weak correlation between change in stiffness and change in function for subjects in the spinal manipulative therapy group ( r=-0.28 ; p=0.02 ) . No significant association was observed between initial stiffness score and any of the final outcome measures following treatment . Initial stiffness did not predict response to any treatment . In conclusion , spinal stiffness decreases over the course of an episode of treatment , more so in those with the stiffest spines , but the decrease is not dependent on treatment and is not generally related to outcome Background Current method ological guidelines provide advice about the assessment of sub-group analysis within RCTs , but do not specify explicit criteria for assessment . Our objective was to provide research ers with a set of criteria that will facilitate the grading of evidence for moderators , in systematic review s. Method We developed a set of criteria from method ological manuscripts ( n = 18 ) using snowballing technique , and electronic data base search es . Criteria were review ed by an international Delphi panel ( n = 21 ) , comprising authors who have published method ological papers in this area , and research ers who have been active in the study of sub-group analysis in RCTs . We used the Research ANd Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method to assess consensus on the quantitative data . Free responses were coded for consensus and disagreement . In a subsequent round additional criteria were extracted from the Cochrane Review ers ' H and book , and the process was repeated . Results The recommendations are that meta-analysts report both confirmatory and exploratory findings for sub-groups analysis . Confirmatory findings must only come from studies in which a specific theory/ evidence based a-priori statement is made . Exploratory findings may be used to inform future/subsequent trials . However , for inclusion in the meta- analysis of moderators , the following additional criteria should be applied to each study : Baseline factors should be measured prior to r and omisation , measurement of baseline factors should be of adequate reliability and validity , and a specific test of the interaction between baseline factors and interventions must be presented . Conclusions There is consensus from a group of 21 international experts that method ological criteria to assess moderators within systematic review s of RCTs is both timely and necessary . The consensus from the experts result ed in five criteria divided into two groups when synthesis ing evidence : confirmatory findings to support hypotheses about moderators and exploratory findings to inform future research . These recommendations are discussed in reference to previous recommendations for evaluating and reporting moderator studies Background The treatment of non-specific chronic low back pain is often based on three different models regarding the development and maintenance of pain and especially functional limitations : the deconditioning model , the cognitive behavioral model and the biopsychosocial model . There is evidence that rehabilitation of patients with chronic low back pain is more effective than no treatment , but information is lacking about the differential effectiveness of different kinds of rehabilitation . A direct comparison of a physical , a cognitive-behavioral treatment and a combination of both has never been carried out so far . Methods The effectiveness of active physical , cognitive-behavioral and combined treatment for  chronic non-specific low back pain compared with a waiting list control group was determined by performing a r and omized controlled trial in three rehabilitation centers . Two hundred and twenty three patients were r and omized , using concealed block r and omization to one of the following treatments , which they attended three times a week for 10 weeks : Active Physical Treatment ( APT ) , Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment ( CBT ) , Combined Treatment of APT and CBT ( CT ) , or Waiting List ( WL ) . The outcome variables were self-reported functional limitations , patient 's main complaints , pain , mood , self-rated treatment effectiveness , treatment satisfaction and physical performance including walking , st and ing up , reaching forward , stair climbing and lifting . Assessment s were carried out by blinded research assistants at baseline and immediately post 
    Output:
    
Subgroup analyses performed in NSLBP trials have been severely underpowered , are only able to provide exploratory or insufficient findings , and have rather poor quality of reporting .