Predicting Timely Recovery and Recurrence Following Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation in Patients With Compensated Low Back Pain
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Brief Study Design. Historical cohort study. Objectives. We investigated factors predictive of timely and sustained recovery following multidisciplinary rehabilitation in Workers’ Compensation claimants with low back pain. Summary of Background Data. It is still unknown which factors predict better outcomes among back pain patients enrolled in intensive rehabilitation programs. Previously, few consistent predictors have been reported. Methods. We created and tested predictive models using data from clinical and administrative databases of the Alberta Workers’ Compensation Board. Predictive models were built on a cohort of subjects admitted for multidisciplinary rehabilitation in 1999 and tested on subjects admitted in 2000. Cox regression was used to evaluate days to time-loss benefit suspension and days to claim closure following admission for rehabilitation. Logistic regression was used to evaluate risk of future recurrence as judged through time-loss benefit resumption, claim reopening, or new back-related claims filing. Results. Prediction models were variable between exploratory and confirmatory stages, and few variables were found to predict consistently. The number of preadmission healthcare visits was the most robust predictor of all recovery outcomes. Recurrence rates were 18% in 1999 and 22% in 2000. A higher number of preadmission healthcare visits and more previous back-related claims were associated with higher risk of recurrence. Conclusions. The number of preadmission healthcare visits was the most robust prognostic indicator with more healthcare visits related to delayed recovery and higher risk of recurrence. Recurrence rates following successful functional restoration were consistent with the episodic and recurrent nature of low back pain. A historical cohort study was conducted of factors predicting outcome following multidisciplinary rehabilitation for claimants with back pain. More preadmission healthcare visits were the most robust indicator of delayed recovery recurrence. Recurrence rates were slightly higher than previously reported consistent with the episodic nature of back pain.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».