MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Treatment of Chronic Coccydynia With Intrarectal Manipulation

2006· article· en· W1964253373 on OpenAlex
Jean-Yves Maigne, Gilles Châtellier, Michel Le Faou, Marie Archambeau

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoccyxPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialEtiologyMcGill Pain QuestionnaireSurgeryVisual analogue scaleInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. Randomized open study. Objective. To evaluate the efficacy of intrarectal manual treatment of chronic coccydynia; and to determine the factors predictive of a good outcome. Summary of Background Data. In 2 open uncontrolled studies, the success rate of intrarectal manipulation of the coccyx was around 25%. Methods. Patients were randomized into 2 groups of 51 patients each: 1 group received three sessions of coccygeal manipulation, and the other low-power external physiotherapy. The manual treatment was guided by the findings on stress radiographs. Patients were assessed, at 1 month and 6 months, using a VAS and (modified) McGill Pain, Paris (functional coccydynia impact), and (modified) Dallas Pain questionnaires. Results. At baseline, the 2 groups were similar regarding all parameters. At 1 month, all the median VAS and questionnaire values were modified by −34.7%, −36.0%, −20.0%, and −33.8%, respectively, in the manipulation group, versus −19.1%, −7.7%, 20.0%, and −15.7%, respectively, in the control (physiotherapy) group (P = 0.09 [borderline], 0.03, 0.02, and 0.02, respectively). Good results were twice as frequent in the manipulation group compared with the control group, at 1 month (36% vs. 20%, P = 0.075) and at 6 months (22% vs. 12%, P = 0.18). The main predictors of a good outcome were stable coccyx, shorter duration, traumatic etiology, and lower score in the affective parts of the McGill and Dallas questionnaires. Conclusions. We found a mild effectiveness of intrarectal manipulation in chronic coccydynia. Intrarectal coccygeal manipulation constituted a more effective treatment of chronic coccydynia than did the control treatment. The 6-month success rates were 22% and 12%, respectively. Manipulation was found to be more effective where the coccydynia was post-traumatic, of recent onset, and not associated with coccygeal instability or adverse psychosocial factors.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.234 · 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