Physical conditioning programs for improving work outcomes in workers with back pain

Frederieke Schaafsma; Eva Schonstein; Karyn M Whelan; Eirik Ulvestad; Dianna Theadora Kenny; Jos H Verbeek

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001822.pub2

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados
Guías
Temas

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Figure 1

Summary of risks of bias

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 2

Forest plot of comparison: Intense PCP versus care as usual for workers with subacute back pain, outcome: Time to return‐to‐work at very long‐term follow‐up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 3

Forest plot of comparison: Intense PCP versus care as usual for workers with chronic back pain, outcome: Time to return‐to‐work at long‐term follow‐up

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: Intense PCP versus care as usual for workers with chronic back pain, outcome: Time to return‐to‐work at very long‐term follow‐up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison: Intense PCP versus exercise program for workers with chronic back pain, outcome: Time to return‐to‐work at intermediate‐term follow‐up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 6

Forest plot of comparison: Intense PCP versus intense PCP with CBT for workers with chronic back pain, outcome: Proportion of workers off work at intermediate‐term follow‐up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 7

Forest plot of comparison: Intense PCP versus intense PCP with CBT for workers with chronic back pain, outcome: Time to return‐to‐work at long‐term follow‐up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Light PCP vs care as usual for workers with acute back pain, Outcome 1 Proportion off work short term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Light PCP vs care as usual for workers with acute back pain, Outcome 2 Time to return to work long term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Light PCP vs care as usual for workers with sub acute back pain, Outcome 1 Time to return to work intermediate term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Light PCP vs care as usual for workers with sub acute back pain, Outcome 2 time to return to work long term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Light PCP vs care as usual for workers with sub acute back pain, Outcome 3 Time to return to work very long term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Light PCP vs care as usual for workers with chronic back pain, Outcome 1 Time to return to work long term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Light PCP vs care as usual for workers with chronic back pain, Outcome 2 Time to return to work very long term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Intense PCP vs care as usual for workers with acute back pain, Outcome 1 Proportion off work long term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Intense PCP vs care as usual for workers with sub acute back pain, Outcome 1 Time to return to work short term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Intense PCP vs care as usual for workers with sub acute back pain, Outcome 2 Time to return to work intermediate follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Intense PCP vs care as usual for workers with sub acute back pain, Outcome 3 Time to return to work long term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 Intense PCP vs care as usual for workers with sub acute back pain, Outcome 4 Time to return to work very long term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Intense PCP vs care as usual for workers with chronic back pain, Outcome 1 Proportion off work short term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Intense PCP vs care as usual for workers with chronic back pain, Outcome 2 Time to return to work long term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 Intense PCP vs care as usual for workers with chronic back pain, Outcome 3 Time to return to work very long term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Intense PCP vs exercise program for workers with chronic back pain, Outcome 1 Proportion off work short term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Intense PCP vs exercise program for workers with chronic back pain, Outcome 2 Time to return to work intermediate term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 Intense PCP vs exercise program for workers with chronic back pain, Outcome 3 Time to return to work long term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 Intense PCP vs exercise program for workers with chronic back pain, Outcome 4 Time to return to work very long term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 Light PCP vs intense PCP for workers with sub acute back pain, Outcome 1 Time to return to work intermediate term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9 Light PCP vs intense PCP for workers with chronic back pain, Outcome 1 TIme to return to work long term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 9.2

Comparison 9 Light PCP vs intense PCP for workers with chronic back pain, Outcome 2 TIme to return to work very long term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.1

Comparison 10 Intense PCP vs intense PCP with CBT for workers with chronic back pain, Outcome 1 Proportion off work intermediate follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.2

Comparison 10 Intense PCP vs intense PCP with CBT for workers with chronic back pain, Outcome 2 Time to return to work long term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.3

Comparison 10 Intense PCP vs intense PCP with CBT for workers with chronic back pain, Outcome 3 Time tor return to work very long term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 11.1

Comparison 11 Intense PCP vs CBT for workers with chronic back pain, Outcome 1 Time to return to work long term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 11.2

Comparison 11 Intense PCP vs CBT for workers with chronic back pain, Outcome 2 Time to return to work very long term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 12.1

Comparison 12 Intense PCP vs cognitive intervention for workers with sub acute back pain, Outcome 1 Time to return to work short term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 13.1

Comparison 13 Intense PCP vs pain‐centred treatment for workers with sub acute back pain, Outcome 1 Proportion off work short term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 13.2

Comparison 13 Intense PCP vs pain‐centred treatment for workers with sub acute back pain, Outcome 2 Proportion off work long term follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Table 1. Contents of light PCP

	Faas 1995	Heymans 2006	Karjalainen 2003	Skouen 2002	Wright 2005
Time span of training	5 wks	4 wks	na	na	2 wks
Number of sessions	2 per week	1 per week	2	approx. 4 hrs at the start + 6 follow op or individual sessions over a period of 1 year	1 examination + treatment initially then 3 per week
Length of sessions	20 min	120 min	1‐1,5 hr	unclear	1 hr
Full time	no	no	no	no	no
group or individual	individual	group	individual	both	both
exercises	yes	yes	yes	yes, advice and program	yes
work related exercises	yes	yes	yes	yes in advice	yes
operant conditioning behavioural approach	no	no	no, although intervention was based on graded activity program	no	no
pain coping/ management	no	no	no	no	no
back pain education	no	yes	no	no	no
ergonomic advice or occupational training	no	yes	no	no	advice on how to modify physical activities specific to the individual's work situation
return‐to‐work advice	no	yes	no	no	no
workplace visit	no	no	yes	no (not for all individuals)	no
therapists involved	physiotherapist	physiotherapist, occupational physician	physiotherapist, physician	physio therapist, nurse, psychologist	physiotherapist
other aspects	written compliance contract	no	no	no	no
comparison	CAU	CAU/ intense PCP	CAU	CAU / intense PCP	CAU being a back book and advice on how to modify physical activities specific to the individual's work situation

Table 1. Contents of light PCP

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 2. Contents of intense PCP

	Altmaier 1992	Bendix 1996	Bendix 1997	Bendix 2000	Corey 1996	Gatchell 2003	Heymans 2006
Time span of training	3 wks	3 wks	6 wks	3 wks	33 days	3 wks	8 wks
Number of sessions	2 per day	39 hrs per week + 3x6 hrs follow up	135 hr in total	39 hours per week + 3x6 hrs follow‐up	6.5 hr per day	up to 41	2 per week
Length of sessions	?	na	na	na	na	15 min‐1hr	1 hr
Full time	no	yes	yes	yes	yes	no	no
group or individual	both	group	group	group	both	both	individual
exercises	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
work related exercises	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
operant conditioning behavioural approach	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	not clear	yes
pain coping/ management	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	no
back pain education	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	no	no
ergonomic advice or occupational training	no	occupational therapy and ergonomic training	occupational therapy and ergonomic training	occupational therapy and ergonomic training	no	occupational therapy	yes
return‐to‐work advice	no	no	no	no	no	no	yes
workplace visit	no	no	no	no	no	no	no
therapists involved	multidisciplinary	multidisciplinary	multidisciplinary including physician, psychologist	occupational therapist, physician, psychologist,physical therapist, social worker	interdisciplinary program	physiotherapist, occupational therapist, nurse, physician	physiotherapist
other aspects	vocational rehabilitation	recreation activities	aerobics, recreational activities	recreation activities	no	no	no
comparison	PCP + CBT	CAU	exercise therapy / pain management	outpatient intensive physical training	CAU	CAU	CAU/ light PCP

Table 2. Contents of intense PCP

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 3. Contents of intense PCP

	Jensen 2001	Jousset 2004	Kool 2005	Lindstrom 1992	Loisel 1997	Meyer 2005	Mitchell 1994	Roche 2007
Time span of training	4 wks	5 wks	3 wks	until RTW	13 wks	8 wks	8 wks	5 wks
Number of sessions	6 sessions + 20 hrs exercise + 6 booster sessions	6 hrs per day, 4 days a week	4 hrs per day / 6 days a week	approx. 11 with physical therapist, approx 10 self training sessions (3 per week)		3,5 hr per day, 5 days a week		6 hrs per day, 5 days a week
Lenght of sessions
Full time	no	no	almost	no	unclear	almost	yes	yes
group or individual	both	both	group	individual	unclear	both	group	group
exercises	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
work related exercises	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
operant conditioning behavioural approach	yes	no	no	yes	yes	yes	yes	no
pain coping/ management	2 didactic sessions on psychological aspects of pain + 2 sessions on medical aspects of pain	no	no	no	no	yes	no	no
back pain education	yes	no	no	yes	yes	no	yes	no
ergonomic advice or occupational training	2 sessions on ergonomics	work simulation	work simulation	no	yes, participatory ergonomics evaluation	education in ergonomics	no	occupational therapy
return‐to‐work advice	yes, workplace visit + rehabilitation plan	no	no	yes	yes	yes	no	no
workplace visit	yes	no	no	yes	yes	yes	no	no
therapists involved	physician, physical therapist, psychologist,	rheumatologist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, sports therapist, social worker, nurse, physiatrist	rheumatologist, physical and occupational therapist, sports therapist, social worker, nurse	physical therapist	back pain specialist; multidisciplinary medical, ergonomic and rehabilitation staff	interdisciplinary:rehabilitation physicians, psychologist, social worker, occupational therapist, physiotherapist	unclear	specialist in physical medicine, physiotherapist, psychologist
other aspects	no	no	no	no	no	case‐manager recreational activities	no	no
comparison	CAU / CBT PCP + CBT	pain centred treatment	pain centred treatment	CAU	CAU	exercise therapy	CAU	active individual therapy

Table 3. Contents of intense PCP

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 4. Contents of intense PCP

	Skouen 2002	Staal 2004	Steenstra 2006	Storheim 2003	van den Hout 2003
Time span of training	4 wks	max 3 mnths	13 wks	15 wks	8 wks
Number of sessions	5 per week for 4 weeks + follow‐up as in LMT	2 per week until RTW	2 per week 26 in total	2‐3 per week	28
Lenght of sessions	6 hr	1 hr	1 hr	1 hr	30‐90 min
Full time	almost	no	no	no	no
group or individual	both	individual	individual	group	both
exercises	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
work related exercises	yes	yes	yes	not clear	yes
operant conditioning behavioural approach	yes	yes	yes	no	yes
pain/ coping management	no	no	no	no	no
back pain education	yes	no	no	no	yes
ergonomic advice or occupational training	yes	no	no	yes, training had a focus on ergonomic principles and functional tasks	yes, training by occupational therapist
return‐to‐work advice	no	yes	yes	no	yes
Workplace visit	no, occasional workplace intervention	no, but intervention was at workplace	no	no	yes, if necessary
therapists involved	physio therapist, nurse, psychologist	physiotherapist, occupational physician	physiotherapist, occupational physician	physical therapist	physiotherapist, occupational therapist, psychologist, occupational physician
other aspects	no	gradually increasing exercise, GP or occupational physician if workers wanted to	gradually increasing exercise	exercises accompanied by music	contact with patients' supervisor
comparison	CAU/ light PCP	CAU	CAU	CAU/ cognitive intervention	PCP + CBT

Table 4. Contents of intense PCP

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 5. Clinical relevance

Study ID	1	2	3	4	5
Altmaier 1992	+	‐	+	‐	+
Bendix 1996	+	+	+	‐	+
Bendix 1997	+	+	+	+	+
Bendix 2000	+	+	+	‐	+
Corey 1996	+	+	‐	‐	+
Faas 1995	+	+	+	‐	+
Gatchell 2003	+	+	+	‐	+
Heymans 2006	+	+	+	‐	+
Jensen 2001	+	+	+	‐	+
Jousset 2004	+	+	+	‐	+
Karjalainen 2003	+	+	+	+	+
Kool 2005	+	+	+	+	+
Lindstrom 1992	+	+	+	+	+
Loisel 1997	+	+	+	+	+
Meyer 2005	+	+	+	‐	+
Mitchell 1994	+	+	+	‐	+
Staal 2004	+	+	+	+	+
Steenstra 2006	+	+	+	‐	+
Storheim 2003	+	+	‐	‐	+
Skouen 2002	+	+	+	‐	+
Roche 2007	+	+	+	‐	+
van den Hout 2003	+	+	+	‐	+
Wright 2005	+	+	+	‐	+

Table 5. Clinical relevance

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 1. Light PCP vs care as usual for workers with acute back pain

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Proportion off work short term follow up Show forest plot	1	80	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.36 [0.13, 1.03]

2 Time to return to work long term follow up Show forest plot	1	190	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.02 [‐0.30, 0.27]

Comparison 1. Light PCP vs care as usual for workers with acute back pain

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 2. Light PCP vs care as usual for workers with sub acute back pain

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Time to return to work intermediate term follow up Show forest plot	1	201	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.18 [‐0.45, 0.10]

2 time to return to work long term follow up Show forest plot	1	105	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.35 [‐0.74, 0.03]

3 Time to return to work very long term follow up Show forest plot	1	103	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.30 [‐0.69, 0.09]

Comparison 2. Light PCP vs care as usual for workers with sub acute back pain

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 3. Light PCP vs care as usual for workers with chronic back pain

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Time to return to work long term follow up Show forest plot	1	138	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.33 [‐0.67, 0.02]

2 Time to return to work very long term follow up Show forest plot	1	138	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.34 [‐0.69, 0.01]

Comparison 3. Light PCP vs care as usual for workers with chronic back pain

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 4. Intense PCP vs care as usual for workers with acute back pain

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Proportion off work long term follow up Show forest plot	1	70	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.22 [0.05, 1.06]

Comparison 4. Intense PCP vs care as usual for workers with acute back pain

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 5. Intense PCP vs care as usual for workers with sub acute back pain

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Time to return to work short term follow up Show forest plot	1	59	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.10 [‐0.61, 0.41]

2 Time to return to work intermediate follow up Show forest plot	3	447	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.03 [‐0.41, 0.34]

3 Time to return to work long term follow up Show forest plot	4	395	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.23 [‐0.67, 0.21]

4 Time to return to work very long term follow up Show forest plot	2		Std. Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.39 [‐0.76, ‐0.02]

Comparison 5. Intense PCP vs care as usual for workers with sub acute back pain

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 6. Intense PCP vs care as usual for workers with chronic back pain

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Proportion off work short term follow up Show forest plot	1	74	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.16 [0.05, 0.49]

2 Time to return to work long term follow up Show forest plot	5		Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)	‐0.18 [‐0.37, 0.00]

3 Time to return to work very long term follow up Show forest plot	3	297	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.24 [‐0.58, 0.10]

Comparison 6. Intense PCP vs care as usual for workers with chronic back pain

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 7. Intense PCP vs exercise program for workers with chronic back pain

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Proportion off work short term follow up Show forest plot	1	136	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.0 [0.37, 2.70]

2 Time to return to work intermediate term follow up Show forest plot	2	114	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.22 [‐0.58, 0.15]

3 Time to return to work long term follow up Show forest plot	2	143	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.51 [‐1.44, 0.42]

4 Time to return to work very long term follow up Show forest plot	1	52	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.62 [‐1.21, ‐0.04]

Comparison 7. Intense PCP vs exercise program for workers with chronic back pain

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 8. Light PCP vs intense PCP for workers with sub acute back pain

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Time to return to work intermediate term follow up Show forest plot	1	196	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.24 [‐0.52, 0.04]

Comparison 8. Light PCP vs intense PCP for workers with sub acute back pain

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 9. Light PCP vs intense PCP for workers with chronic back pain

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 TIme to return to work long term follow up Show forest plot	1	109	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.15 [‐0.53, 0.22]

2 TIme to return to work very long term follow up Show forest plot	1	109	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.20 [‐0.57, 0.18]

Comparison 9. Light PCP vs intense PCP for workers with chronic back pain

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 10. Intense PCP vs intense PCP with CBT for workers with chronic back pain

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Proportion off work intermediate follow up Show forest plot	2	126	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.63 [0.76, 3.47]

2 Time to return to work long term follow up Show forest plot	2		Std. Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)	0.05 [‐0.30, 0.40]

3 Time tor return to work very long term follow up Show forest plot	1	117	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.19 [‐0.17, 0.56]

Comparison 10. Intense PCP vs intense PCP with CBT for workers with chronic back pain

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 11. Intense PCP vs CBT for workers with chronic back pain

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Time to return to work long term follow up Show forest plot	2		Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)	‐1.75 [‐4.45, 0.95]

2 Time to return to work very long term follow up Show forest plot	2		Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)	‐0.47 [‐1.36, 0.42]

Comparison 11. Intense PCP vs CBT for workers with chronic back pain

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 12. Intense PCP vs cognitive intervention for workers with sub acute back pain

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Time to return to work short term follow up Show forest plot	1	64	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.10 [‐0.59, 0.40]

Comparison 12. Intense PCP vs cognitive intervention for workers with sub acute back pain

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 13. Intense PCP vs pain‐centred treatment for workers with sub acute back pain

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Proportion off work short term follow up Show forest plot	1	173	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.41 [0.22, 0.78]

2 Proportion off work long term follow up Show forest plot	1	166	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.48 [0.26, 0.89]

Comparison 13. Intense PCP vs pain‐centred treatment for workers with sub acute back pain

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Temas

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Usuarios institucionales

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Otras opciones de acceso

	Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane Escoja su idioma de preferencia para las revisiones Cochrane y otros contenidos. Las secciones sin una traducción aparecerán en inglés.

	Idioma de la web Escoja su idioma de preferencia para la web de la Biblioteca Cochrane.

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Contenido relacionado

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Temas

Copiar o descargar referencia

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Usuarios institucionales

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Otras opciones de acceso