Ignite Creation Date:
2024-05-05 @ 12:09 PM
Last Modification Date:
2024-10-26 @ 9:21 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT00256373
Status:
UNKNOWN
Last Update Posted:
2006-04-19
First Post:
2005-11-16
Brief Title:
Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain A Trial Comparing Traditional Back School and Individual Therapist-Assisted Exercise
Sponsor:
University Hospital Gentofte Copenhagen
Organization:
University Hospital Gentofte Copenhagen
Study Overview
Official Title:
None
Status:
UNKNOWN
Status Verified Date:
2005-09
Last Known Status:
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
Rheumatologists are discussing whether rehabilitation of patients with low back pain LBP can be improved At present patients with LBP start treatment as soon as possible this also applies for patients with chronic low back pain CLBP - pain lasting over 12 weeks At Glostrup University Hospital department of Physical Medicinerheumatology we use a method method A where an interdisciplinary team gives the patients a treatment composed of various topics This includes among other things education physical team training exercises in swimming pool stretching exercises and occupational therapy A different method method B originates from the Rehabilitation centre in Karlslunde led by Teddy Oefeldt Here they focus strictly on dynamic training of muscles in the back and the buttocks A therapist who in the beginning partly carries the patient through the exercises assists this training
In both methods individually considerations are taken but to a greater extend in method B The treatment will extend over a three months period
A few earlier investigations have compared these two methods but they have not been systematized to such a degree that they gave any final conclusions Therefore we initialized an investigation including a larger number of patients where the two methods are compared from the results the patients achieve after 3 6 12 and 24 months
286 consecutive patients were included and randomized to one of the two methods Those who did not wish to participate in the investigation were treated according to the departments normal procedure Method A
In both methods individually considerations are taken but to a greater extend in method B The treatment will extend over a three months period
A few earlier investigations have compared these two methods but they have not been systematized to such a degree that they gave any final conclusions Therefore we initialized an investigation including a larger number of patients where the two methods are compared from the results the patients achieve after 3 6 12 and 24 months
286 consecutive patients were included and randomized to one of the two methods Those who did not wish to participate in the investigation were treated according to the departments normal procedure Method A
Detailed Description:
None
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?:
None