MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Survey of General Practitioner, Family Physician, and Chiropractor’s Beliefs Regarding the Management of Acute Whiplash Patients

2004· article· en· W1983616622 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert Ferrari, Anthony S. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Alberta Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhiplashMedicineChiropracticManual therapyPhysical therapyFamily medicineAlternative medicinePoison controlMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Questionnaire Survey. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to survey the whiplash management beliefs for practicing general practitioners, family physicians, and chiropractors. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many treatments are prescribed by general practitioners, family physicians, and chiropractors for acute whiplash, but to date no survey of management beliefs for acute whiplash has been reported. METHODS: A total of 483 physicians and 123 chiropractors in the urban setting of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada were asked to participate by completing a questionnaire with 24 items designed to assess management beliefs regarding acute whiplash. RESULTS: A total of 362 physicians (75%) and 88 chiropractors (72%) completed the survey. Only 1% of physicians and none of the chiropractors believed that whiplash patients should be prescribed bed rest until almost all their pain goes away. As well, only 1% of physicians and none of the chiropractors believed that patients with acute whiplash should not return to work until almost all their pain goes away. More than 89% of physicians and 76% of chiropractors believed that encouragement of maintaining normal activities, even if they hurt, is important in the recovery from whiplash. Also, 91% of physicians and 84% of chiropractors agreed that exercise therapy was effective in acute whiplash patients. Physicians are more likely to have negative feelings about treating patients who have whiplash, were more likely to believe there was nothing physically wrong with many patients with chronic whiplash, and agree that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and muscle relaxants are effective in acute whiplash. Chiropractors are more likely to agree that traction, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, manipulation, massage, and acupuncture are effective in acute whiplash. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians and chiropractors generally hold beliefs that are consistent with the current evidence regarding the most helpful approaches to acute whiplash, although chiropractors were more likely to be supportive of passive therapy methods.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations22
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207