STUDY DESIGN: A randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of motorized continuous traction for @entity1643 . SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The available studies on the efficacy of lumbar traction do not allow clear conclusions because of severe methodologic flaws. The current trial aimed to overcome these shortcomings. METHODS: @entity1 with at least 6 weeks of nonspecific @entity1643 were selected. High-dose traction was compared with sham (or low-dose) traction. Sham traction was given with a specially developed brace that becomes tighter in the back during traction. This was experienced as if real traction were exerted. The @entity1 and the outcome assessor were unaware of treatment allocation. Outcome measures were: @entity1 's global perceived effect, severity of main complaints, functional status, @entity158 , work absence, and medical treatment. Results for the outcome measures at 12 weeks and 6 months after randomization are presented. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-one @entity1 were randomly allocated to one of the two treatment methods. Intention-to-treat analysis of the 12-week and 6-month results showed no statistically significant differences between the groups on all outcome measures: all 95% confidence intervals included the value zero. The number of @entity1 lost to follow-up study was very low. Other analyses showed the same results. CONCLUSIONS: Most common flaws of earlier studies on traction therapy could be overcome. This trial did not support the claim that traction is efficacious for @entity1 with @entity1643 .

Efficacy of traction for nonspecific XXXX . 12-week and 6-month results of a randomized clinical trial.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['Patients', 'patients', 'patient'] @entity1643 :: ('MESH:D017116', 'Disease') :: ['low back pain'] @entity158 :: ('MESH:D010146', 'Disease') :: ['pain, range of motion']
@entity1643 :: (MESH:D017116,Disease) :: ['low back pain']
