Digital Training Interventions for Low Back Pain (DigiLum)

April 25, 2023 updated by: Ninni Sernert, Vastra Gotaland Region

Digital Training Interventions for Low Back Pain - RCT With Longitudinal Evaluation of Clinical Outcome Measures and MRI Examinations

The patients will be clinically examined, as well as evaluated with Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Magnet Resonance Imaging (MRI) at baseline and at follow-ups.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

The overall aim is to evaluate two different types of digital training interventions supervised by physiotherapists compared to daily physical activity in terms of clinical, imaging-based and patient-reported outcome in patients with low back pain. Furthermore, to evaluate whether new diagnostic MRI methods can identify longitudinal spine tissue changes and to analyse if there is an exercise-related difference.

Patients seeking primary health care for lower back pain will be randomized to three groups. The patients will be clinically examined, assessed with Magnet Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) will be evaluated at baseline and at follow-ups.

A detailed description of the study protocol, see attached document.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Anticipated)

90

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact Backup

Study Locations

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 50 years (Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Low back pain> 3 months
  • Age 18-50 years
  • Access to computer/tablet/mobile phone

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Inadequate Swedish as the language is an obstacle to be able to fully understand written and oral information regarding the project and to follow training instructions
  • Other ongoing treatment/exercise for their low back pain
  • Patients with radiating leg pain and neurological symptoms where herniated discs are suspected
  • Previous back/neck surgery
  • Pregnancy
  • Diagnosed systematic diseases engaging the spine as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis
  • Factors that prevent an MRI examination, such as claustrophobia, metal implants, etc.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Supervised digital training: core stability
The patients will be identified at the primary health center and after fulfilling the inclusion criteria and all baseline examination are completed the patients will be randomized. In group 1 the patients will attend supervised digital training with focus on core stability
After randomization Group 2 will be digitally supervised by experienced physiotherapist.
After randomization Group 3 will receive training instruction regarding daily physical activity.
Active Comparator: Supervised digital training: aerobic exercise
The patients will be identified at the primary health center and after fulfilling the inclusion criteria and all baseline examination are completed the patients will be randomized. In group 2 the patients will attend supervised digital training with focus on aerobic exercise
After randomization Group 3 will receive training instruction regarding daily physical activity.
After randomization, Group 1 will be digitally supervised by experienced physiotherapist.
Active Comparator: Non-supervised daily physical activity
The patients will be identified at the primary health center and after fulfilling the inclusion criteria and all baseline examination are completed the patients will be randomized. In group 3 will start a daily physical activity program, with regular support from a physiotherapist.
After randomization Group 2 will be digitally supervised by experienced physiotherapist.
After randomization, Group 1 will be digitally supervised by experienced physiotherapist.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in Patient-reported pain
Time Frame: 6 months compared to baseline
Visual Analog Scale (VAS), registration 0 (=no pain)-100 (=worst pain), where In the minimal clinically significant change has been estimated as 11 points on a 100-point scale patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the minimal clinically significant change has been estimated as 1.1 points on an 11-point scale (or 11 points on a 100-point scale)
6 months compared to baseline
Change in Patient-reported pain
Time Frame: 12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) registration 0 (=no pain)-100 (=worst pain), where In the minimal clinically significant change has been estimated as 11 points on a 100-point scale
12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Difference in T2 (transverse relaxation time)
Time Frame: 6 months compared to baseline
MRI can characterize tissue by two different relaxation times, T1 and T2
6 months compared to baseline
Difference in T2 (transverse relaxation time)
Time Frame: 12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
MRI can characterize tissue by two different relaxation times, T1 and T2
12 months compared to baseline and 6 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in clinical outcomes (Standing inspection)
Time Frame: 6 months compared to baseline
Normal spine curvature (yes/no)
6 months compared to baseline
Change in clinical outcomes (Standing side-to-side symmetry)
Time Frame: 6 months compared to baseline
Standing side-to-side symmetry (yes/no)
6 months compared to baseline
Change in Clinical outcomes (Muscle hypotrophy)
Time Frame: 6 months compared to baseline
Muscle hypotrophy (yes/no)
6 months compared to baseline
Change in Clinical outcomes (Walking on heels)
Time Frame: 6 months compared to baseline
Ability to walk on heels (yes/no)
6 months compared to baseline
Change in Clinical outcomes (Walking on toes)
Time Frame: 6 months compared to baseline
Ability to walk on toes (yes/no)
6 months compared to baseline
Change in Clinical outcomes (Standing inspection)
Time Frame: 12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Normal spine curvature (yes/no)
12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Change in Clinical outcomes (Standing side-to-side symmetry)
Time Frame: 12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Standing side-to-side symmetry (yes/no)
12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Change in Clinical outcomes (Muscle hypotrophy)
Time Frame: 12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Muscle hypotrophy (yes/no)
12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Change in Clinical outcomes (Walking on heels)
Time Frame: 12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Ability to walk on heels (yes/no)
12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Change in Clinical outcomes (Walking on toes)
Time Frame: 12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Ability to walk on toes (yes/no)
12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Change in Functional tests (Sit-to-stand test)
Time Frame: 6 months compared to baseline
Sit-to-stand test (number of rises during 30 sec)
6 months compared to baseline
Change in Functional tests (Prone-bridge test)
Time Frame: 6 months compared to baseline
Prone-bridge test (total sec)
6 months compared to baseline
Change in Functional tests (Åstrand ergometer test)
Time Frame: 6 months compared to baseline
Åstrand ergometer test (estimated VO2-max, a measure of the maximum amount of oxygen your body can utilize during exercise)
6 months compared to baseline
Change in Functional tests (Sit-to-stand test)
Time Frame: 12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Sit-to-stand test (number of rises during 30 sec)
12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Change in Functional tests (Prone-bridge test)
Time Frame: 12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Prone-bridge test (total sec)
12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Change in Functional tests (Åstrand ergometer test)
Time Frame: 12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Åstrand ergometer test (estimated VO2-max)
12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Change in PROM (Standardized National standardized questions on physical activity)
Time Frame: 6 months compared to baseline
Standardized National standardized questions on physical activity (grading activity in minutes/week).
6 months compared to baseline
Change in PROM (Oswestry Low Back Disability Index)
Time Frame: 6 months compared to baseline
Oswestry Low Back Disability Index (0-4 No disability, 5-14 Mild disability, 15-24, Moderate disability, 25-34 Severe disability).
6 months compared to baseline
Change in PROM (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD))
Time Frame: 6 months compared to baseline
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD) 0-7 = Normal, 8-10 = Borderline abnormal, 11-21 = Abnormal).
6 months compared to baseline
Change in PROM (The 5-level EQ-5D version (EQ-5D-5L))
Time Frame: 6 months compared to baseline
The 5-level EQ-5D version (EQ-5D-5L) according to EuroQol Group The descriptive system comprises five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression.
6 months compared to baseline
Change in PROM (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK))
Time Frame: 6 months compared to baseline
Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) is 17 items a self-reporting questionnaire based on evaluation of fear of movement, fear of physical activity, and fear avoidance. The total score of the scale range from 17- 68, where 17 means no kinesiophobia, 68 means severe kinesiophobia, and score ± 37 indicates there is kinesiophobia.
6 months compared to baseline
Change in PROM (Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES))
Time Frame: 6 months compared to baseline
Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), a 10 item self-report measure of self-efficacy, with a higher score indicating more self-efficacy.
6 months compared to baseline
Change in PROM (Standardized National standardized questions on physical activity)
Time Frame: 12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Standardized National standardized questions on physical activity (grading activity in minutes/week).
12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Change in PROM (Oswestry Low Back Disability Index)
Time Frame: 12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Oswestry Low Back Disability Index (0-4 No disability, 5-14 Mild disability, 15-24, Moderate disability, 25-34 Severe disability).
12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Change in PROM (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD))
Time Frame: 12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD) 0-7 = Normal, 8-10 = Borderline abnormal, 11-21 = Abnormal).
12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Change in PROM (The 5-level EQ-5D version (EQ-5D-5L))
Time Frame: 12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
The 5-level EQ-5D version (EQ-5D-5L) according to EuroQol Group The descriptive system comprises five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression.
12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Change in PROM (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK))
Time Frame: 12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) is 17 items a self-reporting questionnaire based on evaluation of fear of movement, fear of physical activity, and fear avoidance. The total score of the scale range from 17- 68, where 17 means no kinesiophobia, 68 means severe kinesiophobia, and score ± 37 indicates there is kinesiophobia.
12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Change in PROM (Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES))
Time Frame: 12 months compared to baseline and 6 months
Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), a 10 item self-report measure of self-efficacy, with a higher score indicating more self-efficacy.
12 months compared to baseline and 6 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Study Director: Ninni IE Sernert, PhD, Göteborg University
  • Study Chair: Kerstin Lagerstrand, PhD, Göteborg University
  • Study Chair: Helena Brisby, PhD, Göteborg University
  • Study Chair: Hanna Hebelka Bolminger, PhD, Göteborg University

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

January 20, 2023

Primary Completion (Anticipated)

June 30, 2025

Study Completion (Anticipated)

December 31, 2026

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

November 10, 2022

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 9, 2023

First Posted (Actual)

January 10, 2023

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

April 26, 2023

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 25, 2023

Last Verified

April 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • Vastra Gotaland

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Low Back Pain

Clinical Trials on Supervised digital training with focus on aerobic exercise

Subscribe