Management Approach Combining Prognostic Screening and Targeted Treatment for Patients with Low Back Pain Compared with Standard Physiotherapy: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Figures Unverified
SOURCE
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33715261/
REFERENCE
79
NICE
REFERENCE
123
organisation
PubMed (National Library of Medicine)
TITLE
Management Approach Combining Prognostic Screening and Targeted Treatment for Patients with Low Back Pain Compared with Standard Physiotherapy: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Figures Unverified
SOURCE
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33715261/
DISC COMMENTARY
This systematic review and meta-analysis compares stratified care, where treatment is matched to a patient’s predicted risk and prognosis, with standard, one-size-fits-all physiotherapy for people with low back pain.
What was studied?
The review pooled trials comparing prognostic screening tools, used to stratify patients by risk before selecting treatment, against standard physiotherapy delivered without risk stratification.
What did they find?
Secondary sources citing this review report that stratified, risk-based care outperformed standard physiotherapy overall. The specific figures behind this conclusion could not be verified directly against the original review.
Why it matters
If confirmed, this supports matching treatment to a patient's individual risk profile and likely prognosis, rather than applying the same generic programme to everyone.
Why we included it
It illustrates the value of matching treatment intensity to predicted risk rather than a uniform protocol, while also showing why claims need direct verification before being relied upon.
Help us improve your experience (and hopefully your back).
We use cookies to improve the website and show relevant content to people interested in our services.
We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You can choose which categories to allow below. Cookies categorised as Necessary are always active.
We also use third-party cookies for analytics and advertising. These are only stored with your consent. You can update or withdraw consent at any time via the cookie icon at the bottom-left. This site operates under UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR). Cookie Policy • Privacy Policy
Always Active
Necessary cookies are required for core site features including security, network management, and consent storage.
Cookie
Duration
Description
hmdg_cookie_consent
180 days
Stores your cookie consent preferences.
PHPSESSID
Session
WordPress session identifier.
wordpress_logged_in_*
Session
WordPress login authentication.
Functional cookies enable enhanced features such as live chat and remembering preferences.
Cookie
Duration
Description
wp-settings-*
1 year
Stores user interface preferences.
Analytics cookies help us understand visitor behaviour. Controls analytics_storage for Google Analytics 4.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_ga
2 years
Google Analytics — distinguishes users.
_ga_*
2 years
Google Analytics 4 — session persistence.
_gid
24 hours
Google Analytics — distinguishes users.
_gat
1 minute
Google Analytics — throttles request rate.
Performance cookies collect aggregate, anonymous data about site performance.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_gat_gtag_*
1 minute
Google Tag Manager — rate throttle.
Marketing cookies track visits to deliver relevant ads. Controls ad_storage, ad_user_data, and ad_personalization.
What was studied?
The review pooled trials comparing prognostic screening tools, used to stratify patients by risk before selecting treatment, against standard physiotherapy delivered without risk stratification.
What did they find?
Secondary sources citing this review report that stratified, risk-based care outperformed standard physiotherapy overall. The specific figures behind this conclusion could not be verified directly against the original review.
Why it matters
If confirmed, this supports matching treatment to a patient's individual risk profile and likely prognosis, rather than applying the same generic programme to everyone.
Why we included it
It illustrates the value of matching treatment intensity to predicted risk rather than a uniform protocol, while also showing why claims need direct verification before being relied upon.