MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W100397690 · doi:10.1155/2005/503704

Treatment of Whiplash‐Associated Disorders ‐ Part I: Non‐Invasive Interventions

2005· review· en· W100397690 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anne Conlin, Robert Teasell, Sanjit K. Bhogal, Keith Sequeira

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Research and Management · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph's HospitalParkwood InstituteSt Joseph's Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhiplashPsychological interventionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyPsychiatryMedical emergencyPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A whiplash-associated disorder (WAD) is an injury due to an acceleration-deceleration mechanism at the neck. WAD represents a very common and costly condition, both economically and socially. In 1995, the Quebec Task Force published a report that contained evidence-based recommendations regarding the treatment of WAD based on studies completed before 1993 and consensus-based recommendations. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present article--the first installment of a two-part series on interventions for WAD--is to provide a systematic review of the literature published between January 1993 and July 2003 on noninvasive interventions for WAD using meta-analytical techniques. METHODS OF THE REVIEW: Three medical literature databases were searched for identification of all studies on the treatment of WAD. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and epidemiological studies were categorized by treatment modality and analyzed by outcome measure. The methodological quality of the RCTs was assessed. When possible, pooled analyses of the RCTs were completed for meta-analyses of the data. The results of all the studies were compiled and systematically reviewed. RESULTS: Studies were categorized as exercise alone, multimodal intervention with exercise, mobilization, strength training, pulsed magnetic field treatment and chiropractic manipulation. A total of eight RCTs and 10 non-RCTs were evaluated. The mean score of methodological quality of the RCTs was five out of 10. Pooled analyses were completed across all treatment modalities and outcome measures. The outcomes of each study were summarized in tables. CONCLUSIONS: There exists consistent evidence (published in two RCTs) in support of mobilization as an effective noninvasive intervention for acute WAD. Two RCTs also reported consistent evidence that exercise alone does not improve range of motion in patients with acute WAD. One RCT reported improvements in pain and range of motion in patients with WAD of undefined duration who underwent pulsed electromagnetic field treatment. Conflicting evidence in two RCTs exists regarding the effectiveness of multimodal intervention with exercise. Limited evidence, in the form of three non-RCTs, exists in support of chiropractic manipulation. Future research should be directed toward clarifying the role of exercise and manipulation in the treatment of WAD, and supporting or refuting the benefit of pulsed electromagnetic field treatment. Mobilization is recommended for the treatment of pain and compromised cervical range of motion in the acute WAD patient.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain Research and ManagementSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207