CClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT05111782Updated Apr 3, 2024

Age Bias on Biopsychosocial Factors in Persons With Non-specific Low Back Pain.

An interventional study of Symptom Modulation Approach, Movement Control Approach, Functional Optimization Approach in Low Back Pain, sponsored by Riphah International University. Recruiting at 1 site in Pakistan. Open to participants aged 20 Years to 60 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-04-03.

Sponsored by Riphah International University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Primary completion was expected by Mar 2025, 1 year 7 months ago, but the record still lists the study as recruiting.
  • Started Jun 2022; still recruiting 4 years 3 months later.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
280
Allocation
Non-randomized
Ages
20 Years to 60 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Low back pain is a debilitating condition experienced by people of all age groups. This study will be completed in two stages in which back pain assessment tools will be first translated to Urdu language and later on age-related bias on biopsychosocial factors will be assessed using various biopsychosocial tools over a period of six months.

Read the detailed description

Low back pain (LBP) is an extremely common symptom experienced by people of all ages. The current incidence, prevalence and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) account for 245.9 million cases/year (15th worldwide cause; 32.4% cases associated with leg pain), 577.0 million cases (15th worldwide cause) and 64.9 million DALYs (6th worldwide cause), respectively. In recent decades, the biopsychosocial model has been applied as a framework for understanding the complexity of low back pain disability in preference to a purely biomedical approach. Considering the large population of patients with LBP and limited medical resources, the development of brief and efficient prognostic clinical tools for use in routine practice is particularly significant. Recent data from epidemiological studies suggest that LBP could affect the physical function of young and older individuals differently. The age-related differ¬ences in the prevalence of some low back pathologies may explain the differential treatment outcomes. The aim of the study is to explore the age bias on biopsychosocial factors in persons with non-specific low back pain.

02

Conditions studied

  • Low Back Pain
03

In context

Back Pain

2,373 studies on the registry are indexed under Back Pain; 284 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 280 is above the median of 60 across 1,941 interventional studies indexed under Back Pain.

Browse Back Pain studies →

Lead sponsor

Riphah International University is the lead sponsor of 2,133 studies on the registry; 633 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
20 Years to 60 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  1. Both male \& Female patients
  2. Age group 20-60 Years
  3. Diagnosed with nonspecific low back pain for more than 3 months (i.e., pain localized below the costal margin and above the inferior gluteal folds with or without referred leg pain of a nociceptive mechanical nature, not attributable to a recognizable, known specific spinal pathology, for a period of at least twelve weeks)

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

Any serious conditions like neurological conditions which would not allow the patient to fill the questionnaire independently, any infection, tumor, spinal surgery, cognitive impairments, or any other rheumatologic disease would be excluded.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Non-randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Participant)
Enrollment
280 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Treatment Group

    The treatment group will consist of persons with low back pain. This group will be further divided into groups for each decade.

    Other: Symptom Modulation Approach, Movement Control Approach, Functional Optimization Approach

  • No intervention
    Healthy Control Group

    The control group will consist of healthy controls. This group will be further divided into groups for each decade.

Interventions

  • OtherSymptom Modulation Approach, Movement Control Approach, Functional Optimization Approach

    Based on the patients' symptoms and level of disability, either symptom modulation or movement control or functional optimization exercises will be used. The exercises will be provided on alternate days for a duration of 30 minutes in each session preceded by electrotherapeutic modalities for pain relief and muscle relaxation. These modalities will be given for 15 min in each session. The total no. of sessions will be based on the patient's progress for a maximum of 4 weeks.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Numeric Pain Rating Scale

    The Numeric Pain Rating Scale will be used to quantify pain intensity on a scale of 1-10. A higher score represents higher pain.

    Time frame: 6 months

  2. Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire

    Screening for long term disability and failure to return to work will be done through Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ). The total score will range between 1 and 100. A higher score represents a poor outcome.

    Time frame: 6 months

  3. Keele STarT Back Screening Tool

    Screening for primary care patients with low back pain to look for prognostic indicators that are relevant to initial decision making will be done through Keele STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST). Scores range from 0-9 and are produced by adding all positive items; patients who achieve a score of 0-3 are classified into the low-risk subgroup and those with scores of 4-9 into the medium-risk subgroup.

    Time frame: 6 months

  4. Low Back Outcome Scale

    Pain \& physical function will be assessed through the Low Back Outcome Scale. The Low Back Outcome Scale ranges from 0 to 75 and the higher score indicates better condition

    Time frame: 6 months

  5. Gait & Balance mobile Application

    This mobile application will be used to measure the balance of the participants.

    Time frame: 6 months

  6. Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)

    Sleep quality and disturbances will be assessed through Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). The PSQI includes a scoring key for calculating a patient's seven subscores, each of which can range from 0 to 3. The sub-scores are tallied, yielding a "global" score that can range from 0 to 21. A global score of 5 or more indicates poor sleep quality; the higher the score, the worse the quality.

    Time frame: 6 months

  7. Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D)

    Depression symptoms will be evaluated through CES-D. The possible range is 0-60. If more than four questions are missing answers, do not score the CES-D questionnaire. A score of 16 points or more is considered depressed. The possible range is 0-60. A score of 16 points or more is considered depressed.

    Time frame: 6 months

  8. Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire (FABQ)

    Fear of pain will be evaluated through FABQ. The score range is between 0 to 96. A higher score indicates strongly held fear-avoidance beliefs.

    Time frame: 6 months

  9. Job Content Questionnaire

    Psychosocial aspects related to the job will be evaluated through the Job Content Questionnaire. The items are quantified on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally agree).

    Time frame: 6 months

  10. Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ)

    Physical disability due to low back pain will be evaluated through RMDQ. The score can range from 0 to 24. A higher score indicates greater disability.

    Time frame: 6 months

  11. International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)

    Physical activity levels will be assessed through IPAQ. Data collected with IPAQ will be reported as a continuous measure and reported as median METminutes. walking is considered to be 3.3 METS, moderate physical activity to be 4 METS and vigorous physical activity to be 8 METS. A higher score indicates higher levels of physical activity.

    Time frame: 6 months

  12. Pain catastrophizing scale

    Catastrophic thinking related to pain will be evaluated through the pain catastrophizing scale. It consists of 13 items scored from 0 to 4, resulting in a total possible score of 52. A higher score indicates a higher level of catastrophizing.

    Time frame: 6 months

  13. Pain self-efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ)

    Confidence in dealing with pain will be evaluated through PSEQ. A raw score is presented with a range from 0 - 60, where high scores indicate greater levels of confidence in dealing with pain.

    Time frame: 6 months

  14. Force Platform

    Standing postural control will be assessed using Force Platform.Coordinates of Centre of Pressure will be recorded.

    Time frame: 6 months

  15. Heart rate variability

    Heart rate variability will be assessed through Smartwatch.

    Time frame: 6 months

  16. Sleep pattern

    Sleep patterns will be assessed through Smartwatch in the form of phases of sleep and duration of sleep.

    Time frame: 6 months

  17. Activity level

    Activity level will be assessed through Smartwatch in the form of the number of steps per day.

    Time frame: 6 months

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • Foundation university institute of rehabilitation sciences
    Islamabad, Federal 46000, Pakistan
    Recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Hoy D, Bain C, Williams G, March L, Brooks P, Blyth F, Woolf A, Vos T, Buchbinder R. A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis Rheum. 2012 Jun;64(6):2028-37. doi: 10.1002/art.34347. Epub 2012 Jan 9. PubMed 22231424 ↗
  • Hartvigsen J, Christensen K, Frederiksen H. Back pain remains a common symptom in old age. a population-based study of 4486 Danish twins aged 70-102. Eur Spine J. 2003 Oct;12(5):528-34. doi: 10.1007/s00586-003-0542-y. Epub 2003 May 14. PubMed 12748896 ↗
  • Urits I, Burshtein A, Sharma M, Testa L, Gold PA, Orhurhu V, Viswanath O, Jones MR, Sidransky MA, Spektor B, Kaye AD. Low Back Pain, a Comprehensive Review: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2019 Mar 11;23(3):23. doi: 10.1007/s11916-019-0757-1. PubMed 30854609 ↗
  • Maher C, Underwood M, Buchbinder R. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet. 2017 Feb 18;389(10070):736-747. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30970-9. Epub 2016 Oct 11. PubMed 27745712 ↗
  • GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018 Nov 10;392(10159):1789-1858. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32279-7. Epub 2018 Nov 8. Erratum In: Lancet. 2019 Jun 22;393(10190):e44. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31047-5. PubMed 30496104 ↗
  • Hebert JJ, Koppenhaver SL, Walker BF. Subgrouping patients with low back pain: a treatment-based approach to classification. Sports Health. 2011 Nov;3(6):534-42. doi: 10.1177/1941738111415044. PubMed 23016055 ↗
  • Fritz JM, Brennan GP, Clifford SN, Hunter SJ, Thackeray A. An examination of the reliability of a classification algorithm for subgrouping patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Jan 1;31(1):77-82. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000193898.14803.8a. PubMed 16395181 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 3, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05111782
Lead sponsor
Riphah International University
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Nov 8, 2021
Start date
Jun 13, 2022
Primary completion
Mar 1, 2025 (estimated)
Completion
Jun 1, 2025 (estimated)
Last update
Apr 3, 2024

Study contacts

Aamer Naeem, MS
Contact
aamerr.naeem@gmail.com
+923229781038
Imran Amjad, PhD
Contact
imran.amjad@riphah.edu.pk
+923324390125
Imran Amjad, PhD
principal investigator · Riphah International University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion