Implementing Evidence-Based Physiotherapy Practice for Treating Children with Low Back Pain: Are We There Yet?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Purpose: This article reports on the process used to appraise evidence-based physiotherapy practice when treating nonspecific low back pain (LBP) in children and adolescents. Method: Best clinical practices were identified using 9 systematic reviews reporting on effectiveness of physiotherapy for individuals with nonspecific LBP. Fifty medical charts were reviewed to appraise practice. Results: All literature reviews reported solely on adult treatment, none included children or adolescents. Strong evidence supported the effectiveness of therapeutic exercises and education. There was insufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of thermotherapy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, or ultrasound. Chart reviews indicated therapeutic exercises were prescribed for all 50 pediatric patients and postural education was provided to 48 patients. Eleven patients received thermotherapy, three received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and none was treated with ultrasound. Conclusions: Published literature reviews enabled physiotherapists to appraise evidence-based practices. Clinical guidelines for treating nonspecific LBP in children and adolescents are needed. The authors were able to use published literature reviews to appraise evidence-based practices in their hospital. The only available evidence however was based on studies of adults. The authors point to the need for clinical guidelines for treating nonspecific low back pain in children and adolescents.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".