The effectiveness of Leander traction versus Static linear traction on chronic facet syndrome patients : a randomised clinical trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The aim of this study was establish if Leander versus Static traction was useful for the treatment of facet syndrome, a common type of mechanical lower back pain seen by chiropractors. Two groups of fifteen participants were chosen on the basis of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The first objective was to determine if Static linear traction was effective for the treatment of lumbar facet syndrome in terms of subjective and objective findings. The second objective was to determine if Leander traction was effective for the treatment of lumbar facet syndrome in terms of subjective and objective clinical findings. Lastly the third objective was to compare the subjective and objective clinical findings for both groups. Design: A randomised, two group parallel controlled clinical trial was carried out between the two sample groups. Participants had to have had chronic lower back pain (> 3months). Thirty symptomatic volunteer participants between 25 and 55 were randomly divided into two equal groups – group A (Leander traction) received 5 treatments over a 2 week period. Similarly, group B (Static linear traction) also received 5 treatments over a 2 week period. Algometer readings, Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NRS101), Pain Severity Scale (PSS) and Oswestery Disabilty Index (ODI) were used as v assessment tools. Subjective and objective clinical findings were taken on the first and second visits (i.e. 48 hours) prior to treatment and immediately after treatment. Another set of subjective and objective readings were taken one week after the fifth treatment in order to gauge the long term effects of both treatments. No treatment was given on the sixth visit. Pressure tolerance measurements using an algometer were taken at the end ranges of motion in Kemp’s test and spinal extension. Outcome measures: SPSS version 15 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA) was used for statistical analysis of data. A p value of <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. The two groups were compared at baseline in terms of demographics variables and location using Pearson’s chi square tests and ttests as appropriate. Intra-group comparisons were made between all time points. A significant time effect indicated successful treatment intervention. Inter-group comparisons were achieved using repeated measures ANOVA tests for each outcome measured separately. A significant time group interaction effect indicated a significant treatment effect. Profile plots were used to assess the trend and direction of the treatment effect. Results: The results of the study showed that Leander traction and Static linear traction were both effective for treating chronic lumbar facet syndrome and no statistically significant difference was found between subjective and objective clinical findings between the two groups.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».