MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984905991 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3182388d32

Does Early Management of Whiplash-Associated Disorders Assist or Impede Recovery?

2011· review· en· W1984905991 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Côté, Sophie Soklaridis

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalLakehead UniversityToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhiplashMedicineEpidemiologyMedicalizationRehabilitationRandomized controlled trialPopulationEvidence-based medicinePsychiatryHealth carePhysical therapyEvidence-based practiceChiropracticPoison controlPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicineMedical emergencySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. Narrative review of the literature and commentary. Objective. To discuss from an epidemiological and sociological perspective whether the early clinical management of whiplash-associated disorders can lead to iatrogenic disability. Summary of Background Data. There is a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of early rehabilitation care for whiplash-associated disorders. Methods. We describe the epidemiological evidence on the effectiveness of early rehabilitation on health outcomes for patients with whiplash-associated disorders and analyze from a sociological perspective how the medicalization of this condition may have contributed to increasing its burden on disability. Results. The evidence from randomized clinical trials suggests that education, exercise, and mobilization are effective modalities to treat whiplash-associated disorders. However, the evidence from large population-based cohort studies and a pragmatic randomized trial suggests that too much health care and rehabilitation too early after the injury can be associated with delayed recovery and the development of chronic pain and disability. These findings suggest that clinicians may be inadvertently contributing to the development of iatrogenic disability. The epidemiological evidence is supported by the sociological concepts of medicalization, iatrogenesis, and moral hazard. Conclusion. The current evidence suggests that too much health care too early after the injury is associated with delayed recovery. Clinicians need to be educated about the risk of iatrogenic disability. We discuss from an epidemiological and sociological perspective whether the early clinical management of whiplash-associated disorders can lead to iatrogenic morbidity. The current evidence suggests that too much treatment too early after a whiplash injury can delay recovery. This evidence is supported by the sociological concepts of medicalization, iatrogenesis, and moral hazard.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
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: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0100.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations33
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207