↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The efficacy of a preparatory phase of a touch-based approach in treating chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
11 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
Title
The efficacy of a preparatory phase of a touch-based approach in treating chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, April 2017
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s129313
Pubmed ID
Authors

Federico Zangrando, Giulia Piccinini, Clara Tagliolini, Gabriella Marsilli, Marco Iosa, Maria Chiara Vulpiani, Teresa Paolucci

Abstract

Massage therapy is an important element of rehabilitation in the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP). The objective of this study was to determine the relative efficacy of massage therapy between traditional massage and a new massage approach for CLBP. We also examined whether any reduction in pain was linked to interoceptive awareness and parasympathetic activation. A single-blind, randomized, controlled trial of 51 patients who were allocated into a traditional massage therapy group (TMG; N=24, mean age: 50.54±9.13 years) or experimental massage therapy group (SMG; N=27, mean age: 50.77±6.80 years). The primary outcome was the reduction in pain per the visual analog scale (VAS); the secondary outcome measures were multidimensional pain intensity on the McGill Pain Questionnaire, pain-related disability per the Waddel Disability Index, interoceptive awareness per the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness Questionnaire, quality of life per the Short Form - 12 Health Survey, and heart rate variability, expressed as the coherence ratio (CR) by photoplethysmography. The following outcome measures were assessed at baseline, at the end of the treatment program, and at the 3-month follow-up. The mean and standard deviation were calculated for continuous data. Mann-Whitney U test was used to perform between-group comparisons, Friedman's analysis was used for data on the 3 assessment times in each group, and Spearman's R coefficient was used to analyze correlations. Both approaches had a positive result on pain, an effect that was more acute in the SMG versus TMG for all pain scales, with better maintenance at the 3-month follow-up (VAS p=0.005 and p=0.098; Waddell Index p=0.034 and 0.044; McGill total p=0.000 and 0.003). In the SMG, CR scores were significant at baseline and at the end of the treatment program (p=0.000 and 0.002). The new massage approach with a preparatory phase that is pleasant to the touch was more effective than the traditional approach for CLBP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 43 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 26 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Sports and Recreations 9 8%
Neuroscience 7 6%
Psychology 6 5%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 44 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 February 2019.
All research outputs
#3,640,710
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#406
of 1,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,126
of 324,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#15
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.