Relative effectiveness of three treatment protocols with and without brace aided pelvic stabilization in patients with chronic low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Wong and Deyo (2001) believe that 98% of the LBP cases are musculoskeletal (mechanical) in origin and 51,7% of these individuals are chronic sufferers (Andersson, 1999). Weak spinal stability muscles have shown to be an aetiological cause (Chok, Lee and Latimer, 1999). Wolff, Weinik and Maitin (2003) agree a combination of brace aided pelvic stabilization combined with a spinal stability programme may be the best treatment intervention for chronic low back pain (CLBP). Objective: The purpose of this research was to determine the relative effectiveness of three treatment protocols with (Group A-Groovi-SI-Belt®; Group B-standard SI belt) and without (Group C-control) brace aided pelvic stabilization in patients with CLBP. Method: Forty-six patients suffering from CLBP were randomly allocated to one of the three treatment groups. A spinal stability programme was progressively taught and enforced in all three groups. Weekly follow-up consultations were required to assess subjective and objective outcomes of the three treatment interventions. Outcomes were obtained by using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NRS); Quebec disability scale; Active straight leg raiser test; Biofeedback device and the static trunk extensor endurance test. Results: Data was analysed using the SPSS version 15.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, Ill, USA).Comparing pre and post outcome measurements using a p value <0.05 which was considered to be statistically significant. All three treatments improved most outcomes significantly over time. The Groovi-SI-Belt® showed non significant trends of quicker rates of improvement. . Conclusion: This study revealed that brace aided pelvic stabilization combined with a spinal stability programme was a beneficial treatment intervention with the Group A being superior to Group B.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".