***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: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE To develop a checklist of items measuring the quality of reports of r and omized clinical trials ( RCTs ) assessing nonpharmacological treatments ( NPTs ) . STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING The Delphi consensus method was used to select and reduce the number of items in the checklist . A total of 154 individuals were invited to participate : epidemiologists and statisticians involved in the field of methodology of RCTs ( n = 55 ) , members of the Cochrane Collaboration ( n = 41 ) , and clinicians involved in planning NPT clinical trials ( n = 58 ) . Participants ranked on a 10-point Likert scale whether an item should be included in the checklist . RESULTS Fifty-five experts ( 36 % ) participated in the survey . They were experienced in systematic review s ( 68 % were involved in the Cochrane Collaboration ) and in planning RCTs ( 76 % ) . Three rounds of the Delphi method were conducted to achieve consensus . The final checklist contains 10 items and 5 subitems , with items related to the st and ardization of the intervention , care provider influence , and additional measures to minimize the potential bias from lack of blinding of participants , care providers , and outcome assessors . CONCLUSIONS This tool can be used to critically appraise the medical literature , design NPT studies , and assess the quality of trial reports included in systematic review 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 In a prospect i ve trial , 222 adults with low-back pain of at least 2 weeks ' duration in a Health Maintenance Organization ( HMO ) were r and omly assigned to usual care ( UC ) , a 4-hour back school psychoeducational session ( LBS ) , or the same back school plus a 1-year “ compliance package ” program design ed to encourage appropriate self-management for back pain ( CP ) . Sixty-four percent of LBS and CP subjects attended their back school sessions . Follow-up measurement of pain level ( using the Visual Analogue Scale ) , functional status ( using the Sickness Impact Profile ) , and various other indicators of health status showed no measurable effect of either treatment condition ( LBS or CP ) compared with UC at 3 , 6 , 12 , and 18 months after entry into the study . Initial disability resolved by 3 months in most patients , and a minority of subjects ( 10–15 % ) showed residual or recurrent functional Impairment 1 year after entry . Health care utilization tended to be slightly higher after intervention In the CP group . With or without follow-up encouragement , back school instructions given in a single 4-hour session had no measurable impact on the comfort or functional status of the majority of patients with new onset back pain in this HMO 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 The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of two different treatment modalities on the rehabilitation process of chronic sacroiliac joint patients . The treatment modalities included spinal manipulative therapy given by a chiropractor and a program of back school therapy given by a physiotherapist . The rehabilitation process was assessed using clinical and biomechanical measures . It was found that back school therapy was a better treatment modality than the spinal manipulative therapy , according to the clinical measures of rehabilitation . Precisely the opposite result was found for the biomechanical measures The aim of this trial was to determine whether social interaction between patients with long-lasting nonspecific back pain reduces subjective or objective disability .  The participants were selected from persons visiting an occupational health care unit because of back pain . After a clinical examination in a university clinic , subjects without a specific diagnosis and having no disabilities preventing active rehabilitation were selected for study . The subjects ( n = 108 ) were r and omized into treatment ( n = 54 ) and  control groups ( n = 54 ) . Altogether 18 study groups , 9 treatment groups and 9 groups for controls , were formed . Before starting the back schools altogether 15 subjects dropped out . Both the treatment groups ( n = 47 ) and the controls ( n = 46 ) attended a back school consisting of 10 lessons and demonstrations supervised by a physiotherapist . The participants in treatment groups , but not the controls , had physical exercise and social intercourse with other members within the group . The clinical examination was repeated after 6 and 12 months . Both the treatment groups and the controls showed improvement in perceived functional capacity ( assessed with Oswestry disability question naire ) and in perceived life quality ( assessed with 15D score ) . At the 6-month follow-up life quality had improved statistically significantly more among the participants in treatment groups than among the controls , and at the 12-month follow-up the Oswestry index showed corresponding improvement . Among subjects suffering from nonspecific back pain , social support improves the results of active rehabilitation A clinical trial , aim ed at secondary prevention of low-back pain , was performed in 142 hospital employees reporting at least three annual episodes of this condition . Participants were r and omly assigned to one of three groups : a calisthenics program ( CAL ) for 3 months with biweekly sessions of flexion exercises , a back school program ( 5 sessions ) , and a control group . The effectiveness of the two intervention programs was evaluated over a 1-year period . Baseline preintervention data and evaluation at the end of 3 months of intervention and after an additional 6 months were collected . A monthly surveillance for the whole year showed a mean of 4.5 “ painful months ” in the CAL group versus 7.3 and 7.4 months in the back school and control groups , respectively ( P < 0.0001 ) . The superiority of the CAL group was achieved partly because of the significant increase in trunk forward flexion and to initial increment in abdominal muscle strength . The increased trunk flexion was associated with the rate of participation in the CAL sessions . Further research is needed to answer the question of “ intensity versus type of exercise ” by comparing different intervention programs , with similar intensity Study Design . R and omized controlled trial . Objectives . To compare high- and low-intensity back schools with usual care in occupational health care . Summary of Background Data . The content and intensity of back schools vary widely and the method ologic quality of r and omized controlled trials is generally weak . Until now , no back school has proven to be superior for workers sick-listed because of subacute nonspecific low back pain . Methods . Workers ( n = 299 ) sick-listed for a period of 3 to 6 weeks because of nonspecific low back pain were recruited by the occupational physician and r and omly assigned to a high-intensity back school , a low-intensity back school , or care as usual . Outcome measures were days until return to work , total days of sick-leave , pain , functional status , kinesiophobia , and perceived recovery and were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months of follow-up . Principal analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle . Results . We r and omly allocated 299 workers . Workers in the low-intensity back school returned to work faster compared with usual care and the high-intensity back school , with hazard ratios of 1.4 ( P = 0.06 ) and 1.3 ( P = 0.09 ) , respectively . The comparison between high-intensity back school and usual care result ed in a hazard ratio of 1.0 ( P = 0.83 ) . The median number of sick-leave days was 68 , 75 , and 85 in the low-intensity back school , usual care , and high-intensity back school , respectively . Beneficial effects on functional status and kinesiophobia were found at 3 months in favor of the low-intensity back school . No substantial differences on pain and perceived recovery were found between groups . Conclusions . The low-intensity back school was most effective in reducing work absence , functional disability , and kinesiophobia , and more workers in this group scored a higher perceived recovery during the 6-month follow-up Low back injury is the leading cause of compensable injury . A National Health Objective for the year 2000 is to increase to at least 50 % the number of worksites offering back injury protection programs . The 6 week Back School intervention included exercise and education . A portion of the sample of 74 back injured municipal employees also was assigned r and omly to a counseling intervention . Pre-intervention and post-intervention testing revealed significant posttest increases in back strength and flexibility . Significant improvements also were noted in psychological well being , depression , anxiety , and perceptions of pain . No significant differences were found , on any of the measures , between employees who did and who did not receive the counseling intervention . Method ological concerns relate to the possibility of sampling bias and instrumentation . Future research with control groups is needed , as well as the testing of interventions that may be both effective and require less work release time 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 . Correlations between back pain and physical measurements indicated that increase of lumbar and hip mobility was more important than increase of trunk strength for subjective progress in these patients . Increased trunk extension strength correlated significantly with subjective progress in women , who also had higher correlations between improved physical fitness and progress than men Ninety-two chronic low back pain patients were r and omly allocated to two groups to evaluate the effectiveness of a back school compared with an exercise-only regimen according to specified outcome variables . The data from 78 patients with 7 years mean duration of symptoms was analyzed . Three assessment s were made : before treatment and 6 and 16 weeks after treatment . Changes in patients ' levels of pain , functional disability , and other related variables were compared in the two groups . Almost all variables showed an improvement at 6 weeks . At 16 weeks , functional disability and pain levels showed a significant difference . Back school patients continued to make an improvement . This method of managing low back pain makes maximal use of limited re sources and appears to be effective , especially in the longer term OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy of a back school program for patients with a first episode of acute work-related low back pain requiring compensation . DESIGN A r and omized single-blind controlled trial . SETTING A private physiatrics outpatient clinic . PATIENTS The mean duration of low back pain was 15 days . INTERVENTION Eligible patients were r and omized to a st and ard treatment program that included daily physiotherapy ( n = 86 ) or the same program with the addition of back school ( n = 82 ) . The back school program consisted of three 90-minute sessions given by a single trained instructor at 0 , 1 , and 8 weeks . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcomes were the time off work for the presenting episode of back pain and the number and duration of recurrences in the year following the study onset . Secondary 
    Output:
    
The results indicate that there is very low quality evidence that back schools are no more effective than a placebo ( or sham or attention control ) or another treatment ( physical therapies , myofascial therapy , joint manipulations , advice ) on pain , disability , work status and adverse events at short-term , intermediate-term and long-term follow-up .
There is very low quality evidence that shows a statistically significant difference between back schools and a placebo ( or sham or attention control ) for return to work at short-term follow-up in favour of back school .
Very low quality evidence suggests that back school added to a back care programme is more effective than a back care programme alone for disability at short-term follow-up .
Very low quality evidence also indicates that there is no difference in terms of adverse events between back school and myofascial therapy , joint manipulation and combined myofascial therapy and joint manipulation .
AUTHORS ' CONCLUSIONS It is uncertain if back schools are effective for acute and subacute non-specific LBP as there is only very low quality evidence available .