Perceptive rehabilitation of patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: the role of body midline. A randomized controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surface for perceptive rehabilitation (Su-Per treatment) is a hopeful therapeutic system in the treatment of non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP). During treatment, some patients poorly tolerate the presence of the less elastic cones at the back midline. AIM: To assess the importance of an increased awareness of body midline through higher stimulus at interspinous line during Su-Per treatment for non-specific CLBP. DESIGN: Single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient academic hospital. POPULATION: Forty patients with non-specific CLBP, for at least 12 weeks before treatment. METHODS: The patients were distributed in 2 groups: Group A (20 patients) received standard Su-Per treatment; Group B (20 patients) received Su-Per treatment without higher stimulus at interspinous line. Pain was assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale and the Present Pain Intensity and Pain Rating Index of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Disability was evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index. RESULTS: In both groups, a significant reduction of pain and disability scores was observed at the first follow-up (end of treatment), and was maintained at later evaluations (4-weeks, and 12-weeks follow up). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in all outcome measures at all time points (P>0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: Su-Per treatment is a valid modality in a cognitive-perceptive therapeutic concept for non-specific CLBP. It does not necessarily require external stimulation of the body midline to be effective. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Modifying the standard distribution of the cones, without less deformable cones along interspinous line, makes the Su-Per treatment more acceptable to patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".