Effects of Functional Restoration Versus 3 Hours per Week Physical Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Randomized parallel-group comparative trial with a 6-month follow-up period. OBJECTIVE: To compare, in chronic low back pain patients, the effectiveness of a functional restoration program, including intensive physical training, occupational therapy, and psychological support to an active individual therapy consisting of 3 hours physical therapy per week during 5 weeks. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Controlled studies conducted in the United States showed a benefit of functional restoration in patients with low back pain, especially on return to work. Randomized Canadian and European trials had less favorable results. In France, there has been up to now no randomized study. Controlled studies suggested a positive effect of functional restoration programs. METHODS: Eighty-six patients with low back pain were randomized to either the functional restoration (44 patients) or the active individual therapy (42 patients) program. One person in each group never started the program. Two patients did not complete the functional restoration program, and one was lost to follow-up at 6 months. The mean number of sick-leave days in the 2 previous years was 6 months. RESULTS: After adjustment on the variable "workplace enrolled in an ergonomic program", the mean number of sick-leave days was significantly lower in the functional restoration group. Physical criteria and treatment appreciation were also better. There was no significant difference in the intensity of pain, the quality of life and functional indexes, the psychological characteristics, the number of contacts with the medical system, and the drug intake. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the effectiveness of a functional restoration program on important outcome measures, such as sick leave, in a country that has a social system that protects people facing difficulties at work.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".