Effect of therapeutic exercise and sleeping neck support on patients with chronic neck pain: a randomized clinical trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of therapeutic exercises and sleeping neck support contoured pillows on patients with chronic neck pain. METHODS: Using a factorial design in a prospective clinical trial, participants were equally allocated at random to 4 treatment groups in the study: (1) placebo control, of hot or cold packs and massage; (2) sleeping neck support pillow and placebo; (3) active neck exercises and placebo; and (4) combined exercise and sleeping neck support pillow and placebo. Participants were treated by physical therapists over a 6 week period and assessed by masked independent assessors at 0, 3, 6, 12, 24 weeks, and 12 months, with the 12 week assessment being the primary decision time. The primary outcome measure was the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). RESULTS: For the 128/151 (85%) participants tested at 12 weeks, the NPQ descriptive statistics of count, mean (standard deviation) were: Initial: 128, 31.0 (11.3) at Week 12; All: 128, 18.5 (11.6); CONTROL: 34, 18.6 (10.0); Pillow: 32, 21.5 (13.1); Active neck exercises: 29, 20.1 (11.6); and Combined: 33, 14.1 (10.6). Factorial analysis of variance showed that the main effects of Exercise (p = 0.146) and Pillow (p = 0.443) were not statistically significant; but the interaction of Exercise plus Pillow (p = 0.029) was statistically significant and clinically meaningful. CONCLUSION: Treatment by physiotherapists trained to teach both exercises and the use of a neck support pillow achieved the most favorable benefit for participants with chronic neck pain; either strategy alone was not more effective than a control regimen. Time was an important cofactor.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".