The effectiveness of Leander traction versus Static linear traction on chronic facet syndrome patients : a randomised clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was establish if Leander versus Static traction was useful for the treatment of facet syndrome, a common type of mechanical lower back pain seen by chiropractors. Two groups of fifteen participants were chosen on the basis of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The first objective was to determine if Static linear traction was effective for the treatment of lumbar facet syndrome in terms of subjective and objective findings. The second objective was to determine if Leander traction was effective for the treatment of lumbar facet syndrome in terms of subjective and objective clinical findings. Lastly the third objective was to compare the subjective and objective clinical findings for both groups. Design: A randomised, two group parallel controlled clinical trial was carried out between the two sample groups. Participants had to have had chronic lower back pain (> 3months). Thirty symptomatic volunteer participants between 25 and 55 were randomly divided into two equal groups – group A (Leander traction) received 5 treatments over a 2 week period. Similarly, group B (Static linear traction) also received 5 treatments over a 2 week period. Algometer readings, Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NRS101), Pain Severity Scale (PSS) and Oswestery Disabilty Index (ODI) were used as v assessment tools. Subjective and objective clinical findings were taken on the first and second visits (i.e. 48 hours) prior to treatment and immediately after treatment. Another set of subjective and objective readings were taken one week after the fifth treatment in order to gauge the long term effects of both treatments. No treatment was given on the sixth visit. Pressure tolerance measurements using an algometer were taken at the end ranges of motion in Kemp’s test and spinal extension. Outcome measures: SPSS version 15 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA) was used for statistical analysis of data. A p value of <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. The two groups were compared at baseline in terms of demographics variables and location using Pearson’s chi square tests and ttests as appropriate. Intra-group comparisons were made between all time points. A significant time effect indicated successful treatment intervention. Inter-group comparisons were achieved using repeated measures ANOVA tests for each outcome measured separately. A significant time group interaction effect indicated a significant treatment effect. Profile plots were used to assess the trend and direction of the treatment effect. Results: The results of the study showed that Leander traction and Static linear traction were both effective for treating chronic lumbar facet syndrome and no statistically significant difference was found between subjective and objective clinical findings between the two groups.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".