Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This randomized clinical trial examined the efficacies of a group-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation program and oral drug treatment versus oral drug treatment alone in Iran. METHODS: A total of 197 patients with chronic low back pain were randomized to either intervention group (n=97) receiving a group-based, 5-session multidisciplinary rehabilitation program plus oral medication or to control group (n=100) receiving just oral medication. At baseline and at 3 and 6-month follow-ups, patients filled out questionnaires on health-related quality of life (36-item Short-form General Health Survey) and disability Questionnaires (Quebec Disability Scale and Ronald-Morris Disability). Repeated measure analysis of variance was used to compare 2 groups during time. RESULTS: The 2 groups were comparable regarding all baseline characteristics (P>0.05). There were significant differences within each group by time in terms of all subscales of 36-item Short-form (P<0.01) except for mental health (P=0.7). Furthermore, there were significant differences between groups in terms of all domains of SF-36 scale except for general health (P=0.06), social function (P=0.08) and role emotional (P=0.7). Furthermore, according to the scores of Ronald-Morris Disability Questionnaire and Quebec Disability Scale, the disability of patients in the intervention group was improved over time significantly (P=0.01 and P<0.0001, respectively). DISCUSSION: The findings revealed that the group-based multidisciplinary program could improve most domains of quality of life in chronic low back pain patients in the 6-month period. However, there were no significant differences between two groups in sub scales such as general health, social function and role emotional.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".