MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970728016 · doi:10.1097/phm.0000000000000188

Efficacy of Aerobic Exercise for Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain

2014· review· en· W1970728016 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xianguo Meng, Shouwei Yue

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyVisual analogue scaleCochrane LibraryMcGill Pain QuestionnaireStrictly standardized mean differenceConfidence intervalAerobic exerciseOswestry Disability IndexMeta-analysisLow back painInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis of relevant cohort studies was performed to investigate the efficacy of aerobic exercise for the treatment of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHOD: A range of electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE (1966-2013), the Cochrane Library Database (issue 12, 2013), EMBASE (1980-2013), CINAHL (1982-2013), Web of Science (1945~2013), and the Chinese Biomedical Database (1982-2013), without language restrictions. The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, the McGill Pain Questionnaire, visual analog scale, and heart rate, sit-and-reach test, and maximum oxygen consumption were used to evaluate the efficacy of aerobic exercise. Meta-analysis was performed with the use of the STATA statistical software. The standardized mean difference (SMD) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Eight clinical cohort studies with a total of 310 CLBP patients were included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: The results of this meta-analysis indicated that CLBP patients exhibited positive decreases in scores on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (SMD, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-0.68; P < 0.001), Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (SMD, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.67-1.39; P < 0.001), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (SMD, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.34-2.37; P = 0.009), and McGill Pain Questionnaire (SMD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.07-0.56; P = 0.011) after aerobic exercise. It was also observed that aerobic exercise could markedly reduce the visual analog scale score for pain of CLBP patients (SMD, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.48-1.02; P < 0.001). Nevertheless, this study's findings showed that aerobic exercise had no effects on heart rate, sit-and-reach test, and maximum oxygen consumption of CLBP patients (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The current meta-analysis provides reliable evidence that aerobic exercise could effectively diminish pain intensity and improve the physical and psychologic functioning of CLBP patients. Thus, aerobic exercise may be a good choice in the treatment for CLBP.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.047
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations76
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & RehabilitationSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207