MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1821858434 · doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2015.06.047

A non-randomized clinical trial to assess the impact of nonrigid, inelastic corsets on spine function in low back pain participants and asymptomatic controls

2015· article· en· W1821858434 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory N. Kawchuk, Tiffany L. Edgecombe, Arnold Yu Lok Wong, Alex Cojocaru, Narasimha Prasad

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Spine Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBracePhysical therapyLow back painLumbarAsymptomaticBarefootRandomized controlled trialPhysical medicine and rehabilitationManual therapyOswestry Disability IndexSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although previous studies suggest braces/corsets can reduce acute pain, no prior study has assessed back function after bracing with both self-reported and objective measures. Use of both self-reported and objective measures of spine function together may be important given evidence they assess unique aspects of function. PURPOSE: The aim was to assess both self-reported and objective measures of spinal function before, and after, use of a nonrigid, inelastic lumbar brace. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This was a non-randomized clinical trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: The sample included acute low back pain (LBP) participants and asymptomatic controls. OUTCOME MEASURES: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), spinal stiffness, and muscle endurance were the outcome measures. METHODS: Three groups were studied: -LBP/-Brace (n=19), -LBP/+Brace (n=18), and +LBP/+Brace (n=17). Both groups of braced participants were instructed to wear the brace continually for 2 weeks with the exception of bedroom and bathroom activities. Before and after the 2-week period, three measures of spinal function were performed: spinal stiffness via motorized indentation of the L3 spinous process, a modified Sorensen test (timed lumbar extension against gravity), and the ODI. Repeated measures analyses of variance were conducted for all three outcomes. RESULTS: Among the groups, ODI scores decreased significantly for the +LBP/+Brace group (p<.001) compared with the other two groups. The +LBP/+Brace mean ODI score decreased 3.71 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.01-5.40) compared with the -LBP/-Brace group and decreased 3.48 points (95% CI 1.77-5.20) compared with the -LBP/+Brace group. Change scores for the Sorensen test were significantly increased in the +LBP/+Brace group (p=.037) compared with the -LBP/-Brace group (22.47s 95% CI 8.14-36.80). Spinal stiffness did not change significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that lumbar function assessed by self-reported and objective measures does not worsen when nonrigid, inelastic bracing is used for short periods of time for those with, or without, back pain. These data add to the existing literature that suggests short-term use of nonrigid, inelastic bracing for acute LBP does not decrease spinal function when measured separately with subjective or objective tools.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Spine JournalSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207